27306: On our meeting with progressive New Yorkers (fwd)

[Bob Corbett <corbetre@webster.edu>]

From: "Batay Ouvriye" <batay@batayouvriye.org>


ON OUR MEETING WITH PROGRESSIVE NEW YORKERS


On Saturday, January 16th, 2006, in New York, a Batay Ouvriye delegate met
with various members of progressive American currents during an activity
organized by Grassroots Haiti, a New York group in support with the Haitian
peoples' struggles. The agenda featured a Transit Workers' Union (TWU)
delegate presentation, followed by that of Batay Ouvriye.

The delegate of the TWU, the union that just courageously waged the recent
MTA employees strike in New York, first spoke about the strike mobilization
and the negotiations and contradictions that accompanied it. He then
concentrated his presentation on the present differences surrounding the new
contract resulting from the negotiations led by the union's direction[*] and
the need, according to some workers, for this document to be rejected
because of the little obtained (the Assembly General vote will take place on
January 20th) ; from there, the possible scenarios to be examined.

Various suggestions were put out by the participants at this meeting. Most
important were those indicating the need for grassroots organizing, to
extend struggle awareness to the most workers possible and to maintain
mobilization if indeed the 'no' upheld by the strikers most aware of their
rights prevailed. Remains that if, again, this negative response comes to be
generally endorsed, then changes will be needed in the negotiating team and
even the union's general committee if ever it chose to refuse to comply to
the assembly's decision: the workers' resolve must be represented by those
convinced of it.

Followed the presentation on the situation in Haiti, its structural roots,
the role of the populist leaders in the imperialist strengthening at the
detriment of the struggles for the defense of the workers and popular
masses'
interests, and the concrete form class contradictions presently take.
Highlighted were the need to fight the occupation requested by all the
ruling classes and that is presently taking place, the obligation to go
about this in a serious, independent and deep manner, all this in the
present and historical interest of the country's workers and popular masses.
The second part of this presentation focused on our organization's position
on the criticisms we've been addressed concerning our having accepted
AFL-CIO Solidarity Center funds, given this organization's direct relation
with the dominant establishment of American imperialism and its recent most
reactionary past in Latin America. Rejecting first the calumniating,
red-baiting and totally false (and furthermore highly interested) lowly
arguments of the opposite current, we emphasized how the political situation
in Haiti has accelerated, which has given rise to an unprecedented expansion
of workers' organization and, especially, many antagonistic and dangerous
conflicts which we've had to face during these extremely hazardous times.
The contradiction of our concrete responsibilities confronted with
increasingly limited financial capacities needed to be resolved in such a
way as not to hinder the struggles' functioning and the workers' independent
organization. Fully aware of all of this, then, we entered these
relationships with all the contradictions we plainly realized.

The participants, for their part, also categorically rejected the
calumniating aspect of the Haiti Progrès current's criticisms, as well as
their tendentious amalgams and their lame hasty conclusions, perceiving just
as much the reactionary interest of this undertaking since it pretends to
uphold (without for so much risking to do so in a serious manner) the
lavalas leaders recognized for their notorious betrayal. They generally
supported our political position on the situation but nevertheless
maintained their deep-seated criticism of the fact that, to resolve the
above-mentioned contradiction, we chose to accept these funds from the
AFL-CIO's Solidarity Center. Our response, once again, jointly now with
certain Grassroots Haiti members, was, foremost, to demonstrate the high
level of responsibilities we had stake. We then presented how employees of
this agency were already in the field itself (American workers presently
having interest in the reinforced organization of workers' resistance in
dominated countries, given the acceleration of delocalizations following
globalization, which has resulted in surges of unemployment within the US
itself). We showed the complete distortion of the Solidarity Center's line
(which is that of the AFL-CIO generally) thus present, in any case, in the
field and that we needed to fight, with or without funds. We've denounced
this organization in working class meetings and publicly. We've made public
the deviant aspects of their line and have also denounced the apparatus they
belong to, even if these funds might come to be blocked. Nevertheless, the
militants participating in this meeting insisted on showing the dangers of
such an approach, given the links between this organization and the CIA and
even the "sophisticated" nature of its functioning at the service of the US
establishment which can, through so many ways, and this despite the
independence of our line, destroy in a future difficult to calculate, any
organization and independent orientation of on-going struggles.

We listened to these criticisms (which sometimes even blamed us) and
interiorized them individually and collectively. We nevertheless continued
to perceive within them a very clear insensitivity to the precise moment the
independent workers' mass struggles in Haiti are going through, to the
attacks they are undergoing from all the ruling classes (traditional
bourgeois as well as bureaucrats and big landlords) and to the imminent
confrontations which should be foreseen and anticipated. This insensitivity,
for us, borders irresponsibility. Which is troubling.

Some participants, on the other hand, began to envision alternatives towards
the end of this meeting. These suggestions most retained our attention.



Batay Ouvriye, January 19, 2006



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


[*] These disagreement, beyond the consensus on management's withdrawal of
its attempt to impose differential treatments of old and new employees,
concern: health benefits, maternity, pensions, holidays, wage adjustments
(with respect to inflation rates), as well as vote methods and contract
expiration dates.