Yesterday I picked up a picket sign that read “KEEP YOUR GUNS OFF OUR DOCKS,” and joined over 3000 marchers traversing the Seattle piers in support of the International Longshoremen and Warehouse Union. The ILWU, representing something like 10-15,000 workers across the west coast, have reached a standstill in contract negotiations with the Pacific Maritime Association. And the Federal Government, fearing a strike or other job action, are threatening to invoke a Taft-Hartley Act injunction that would allow them to stop a strike when “national health or security” is at risk (in his veto of the bill in 1947, President Truman called it a “slave-labor bill”- it passed Congress anyway). And “stop” a strike, indeed: Bush is ready to call in the National Guard, lock the longshoremen out, and fire 10-15,000 workers along the west coast.

It’s reminiscent of the Ronald Reagan air traffic controllers debacle in the early 1980s, only with stronger military presence. All of a sudden it’s starting to feel more like the 1930s or 1940s, and less like 2002 (or even the 1980s, for that matter). Bush, for example, has convened a special task force within commerce, defense, labor, and transportation- as in Defense Secretary Rumsfeld, Homeland Security head Tom Ridge, the PMA, and the Westcoast Waterfront Coalition (this last group represents business interests in the ports and is comprised of such companies as the Gap, Home Depot, Walmart, Hewlett Packard, Target, and Best Buy). Noticeably absent from these talks, of course, is the ILWU itself, representing the interests of those merely working in the ports.

This degree of secrecy, mendacity, and disingenuousness is, in fact, somewhat unprecedented. These governmental task forces and resulting policy directives were initially done furtively- without the knowledge of the ILWU, before any formalized strike threat had been brought to the table, and while the employees continued to work with an expired contract (indicating a faith in the bargaining process- this is the way it’s worked for years). There was absolutely no reason for White House involvement at this stage, but if picking a fight was the intention, they’ve now got one on their hands.

What this signals to me is an attack on one of the strongest trade unions, plain and simple. It’s as though the contract expiration was an excuse to declare war on the union- to break up this historically powerful union once and for all. (“Finally! Issues of national security to get rid of this pesky organization!”) And I do think it will be war on the docks if the situation escalates to a strike and lock-out. The ILWU does not back down lightly- they’ve fought (and won) too many battles, suffered too many membership deaths, imprisonments, and deportations. It’s an untenable situation for the White House to pick a fight in this manner.

At the march and rally, I felt a sense of awe- I could feel the ghost of Harry Bridges (who led the ILWU in their fight for a coastwide contract in 1934), the scars of the past (embodied in the fist of the ILWU logo), the enormity of the situation (there were simultaneous marches in the ports of Los Angeles, Oakland, Portland, and Long Beach), and, of course, the anger and frustration that people are feeling now, with Bush in office. “Push on Bush” was one of the favorite chants, and there was much talk of Corporate Terrorism, Government Corruption, and Longshoremen Patriotism.

I confess, though- it’s difficult for me to feel optimistic. Can we get rid of Bush in 2004? For the last election I made "LICK BUSH 2000" stickers-- I think next time it'll be "FUCK BUSH 2004."