Monthly Archives: April 2003

Antiwar Labor Contingent To Support AFSCME DC 37

[Download formatted flyer: dc37-antiwar-flyer]

Bring The Troops Home Now!
No Empire In Iraq-No Cuts At Home!

Antiwar Labor Contingent To Support AFSCME DC 37
Tues., April 29, 2003, 4:30 p.m.
South side of Washington Sq. Park (@Thompson St.).
March to City Hall Park, Rally 5:30-7:30 p.m.

No Layoffs- No Cuts!
Defend Immigrants- End Racial Profiling!
Defend Civil Liberties!
Stop US Militarism From Palestine to Colombia to Korea to the Philippines!

NYC-Area Antiwar Labor:
AFM L.1000
AFT Local 3882
APWU NY-Metro/Local 10
Bergen Co. (NJ) CTLC
CWA District 1
CWA Local 1180
Federation of Union Reps.
IAM Lodge 340
NJ Labor Against the War
NJ Industrial Union Council
NY Taxi Workers Alliance
NYC Labor Against the War
NWU/UAW Local 1981
PACE Local 1-149
PSC-CUNY/AFT Local 2334
SSEU Local 371, AFSCME
Teachers Against the War
TWU Local 100
UAW Local 2110
UAW Region 9A NYC
UNITE Local 169
UUP/AFT Local 2190
Working Families Party

Sponsored by United for Peace & Justice NYC
http://www.united for
Labor Info:, 917.282.0139
Labor Donated 4/28/03

Support for UAW Local 2325 Antiwar Resolution

[On April 14-15, the membership of UAW Local 2325/Association of Legal Aid Attorneys voted 306-154 (66.5%-33.5%) to reject a resolution against the war in Iraq.

Immediately prior to the vote, the following was written to union members by former local president Michael Letwin (1989-2002). In November, Letwin was defeated for reelection, due primarily to his prominent opposition to the war.]



This week, we vote on whether ALAA will officially join hundreds of other labor bodies–including our regional parent union–who have adopted resolutions against the war. In essence, the proposed resolution reaffirms that, rather than a distraction from “legitimate” union business, opposition to this war of empire is an inextricable part of that business.


What the media seeks to portray as a glorious act of “liberation” is in reality an illegal and immoral crime against peace, the most serious charge for which Nazi leaders were convicted at Nuremberg.[1]

The entire world accurately perceives this war as undisguised conquest, envisioned long before 9/11 by the likes of such Vietnam Chicken-Hawks as Rumsfeld, Cheney, Wolfowitz and Perle. The Reagan and Bush/I administrations, of which they were part, were only too happy to provide biological and other weapons to Hussein’s brutal regime.

Ironically, although the supposed existence of such weapons was the main pretext for the war, none have yet been found; thus, the first act of U.S. and British invaders was to secure not “weapons of mass destruction,” but 600 oil wells. U.S. “re-destruction” has ensured massive “reconstruction” contracts for Bechtel, Halliburton and other companies closely linked to the administration.

Thus, the war will not create a democracy accountable to the Iraqi people, but an open-ended, bloody occupation run by the U.S. military government and/or its appointed puppets. And even before the fighting is over, the administration has declared its intention to continue similar wars on Afghanistan, the Palestinians, Colombia, the Philippines, Syria, Iran, North Korea, and /or any number of other targets.

For this imperial crusade, ordinary people are paying a terrible price: numerous U.S. and British casualties amongst troops disproportionately of color and nearly all working class; untold Iraqi deaths and injuries; mass deprivation of food, water, sanitation and health care; destruction of the national infrastructure; and widespread looting and chaos.
At home, the war’s incalculable economic cost–combined with new tax cuts for the wealthy–is already coming directly out of education, fire protection, sanitation, veterans’ benefits, social security, health care, and virtually every other essential government service. These policies will further devastate our clients’ communities, and bode poorly for funding such programs as indigent legal representation.

The war also continues to serve as a pretext for ever-greater attacks on civil liberties, labor and immigrant rights. And it virtually ensures retaliatory–and largely unstoppable–terrorism.

In April 1967, Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. opposed the Vietnam war in the recognition that “the greatest purveyor of violence in the world today . . . [is] my own government.”[2] This fact, and the moral obligation it imposes on us, remains no less true today.


Most U.S. labor organizations initially gave unqualified support to the Bush administration’s post-9/11 “war on terror.”[3] In response, scores of metro-area trade unionists immediately endorsed New York City Labor Against the War’s statement of September 27, 2001, which condemned both the World Trade Center attack and Bush’s war.[4] These included many ALAA officers and members,[5] who made explicit their individual trade union affiliations and positions, which were listed “for identification only.” As one of eight original local union founding presidents of NYCLAW,[6] I became one of the organization’s co-conveners and spokespersons.

It was no secret that this antiwar stance would expose NYCLAW endorsers to political attack. Nonetheless, we felt bound by the principle with which Dr. King defended his public opposition to the Vietnam war: “A time comes when silence is betrayal.”[7]

Though once a small minority, such early efforts have played a critical role in turning labor against the war. Eighteen months later, antiwar resolutions have been adopted by bodies representing more than a third of all union members in the U.S., including our own UAW Region 9A. In January 2003, this was reflected in establishment of U.S. Labor Against the War, and by late February, even the invariably prowar AFL-CIO opposed this war.

Within ALAA, however, the response to these antiwar efforts has been more varied. A growing number of ALAA members have participated in antiwar activities. Other members have reasonably and civilly expressed prowar views, while defending the speech rights of antiwar members.

Some, however, have enlisted in the broader post-9/11 crusade against dissent by using the war as a club with which to punish and silence antiwar voices. This witch-hunt, carried out largely over the ALAA e-list, has included relentless personal attacks, red-baiting, baseless accusations of antisemitism, efforts to block the Union from even adopting a statement in defense of civil liberties,[8] demands that management discipline members for posting messages on the ALAA e-list, and/or racial harassment. It has been accompanied by false charges–explicitly rejected by the International UAW–that Union affiliation and resources had been improperly used to promote NYCLAW,[9] and factually-inaccurate allegations that antiwar work had interfered with bread and butter union issues.[10]

While this campaign has not silenced many of ALAA’s antiwar voices, it has helped drive most members out of the public discussion and undermined the Union’s traditional commitment to social justice.[11] It has also created an atmosphere in which some members, including several who purport to hold antiwar views, have found it politically advantageous to remain silent about such attacks, or even to align themselves with the witch-hunters.[12]


For the reasons discussed above, adoption of the proposed antiwar resolution is more critical now than ever. Bush’s wars of empire and colonial occupation have a profoundly destructive impact on our Union, Legal Aid Society funding, our clients, their communities, and the world in which we live.

This resolution is also an opportunity to reaffirm ALAA’s historic commitment to social justice; to honest, open, mutually-respectful internal discussion; to principle over opportunism; and to a more effective union.


1. See, e.g., The Nuremberg Indictments, A Summary (Court TV), at\ .

2. King, Beyond Vietnam, Address delivered to the Clergy and Laymen Concerned about Vietnam, at Riverside Church (April 4, 1967), at .

3. See, Letwin, Growth of Labor Anti-War Action Tied to Bush’s Anti-Worker Moves, Labor Notes, April 2003, at ; Year One of New York City Labor Against the War (NYCLAW, Oct. 25, 2002), at .

4. NYC Labor Against the War (Sept. 27, 2001), at .

5. The fifty-five NYCLAW signers as of June 24, 2002 included (with then-current titles listed “for ID only”): George Albro Secretary-Treasurer; Elizabeth Anderson (CDD Manhattan), Daniel Ashworth, Delegate (CDD Brooklyn); Harold Bahr, Chair, GLTGC (CDD Manhattan); Simone Berman-Rossi (CDD Brooklyn); Tracey Bing-Hampson, Vice President (CLO); Peter Blum, Alternate Vice President (CAB); Ricky Blum (Civil Appeals); Katie Brennan (Civil BNO); Anne Cammett (Civil BNO); Maria Chiu (JRD Queens); Antonia Codling, Chair, ACLA (CLO); Brooke Davis (Civil BNO); Lisa Edwards (CLO); Craig Fielding (Civil Queens); Kate Fitzer (CDD Brooklyn); Josephine Flores (Civil Queens); Oda Friedheim (Civil Queens); Josh Goldfein (Civil HRP); Winston Gordon (CDD Brooklyn); Elon Harpaz, Vice President (CAB); Carol Hochberg, Vice President JRD (JRD Queens); Adriene Holder, Vice President Civil (Civil Appeals); Tania Horton (CDD Brooklyn); Daniella Korotzer, Alternate Vice President (CDD Brooklyn); Nanette Kripke (CDD Brooklyn); Michael Letwin, President; Simone Levine (CDD Manhattan); Milande Louima (Civil BNO); Beth Lyons (CAB); Eileen McCann, Alternate Delegate (Civil SI); Kevin McManus (CDD Brooklyn); Eric Meggett (CDD Brooklyn); Aaron Micheau (CAB); Marie Mombrun (Civil Queens); Florence Morgan (CDD Queens); Susan Morris, Delegate (CDD Brooklyn); Catherine Newton, Alternate Delegate (CDD Brooklyn); Elizabeth Newton, Alternate Delegate (Civil Queens); Gloria E. Quiñones, Fmr. member (CLO); Karena Rahall, Alternate Delegate (CDD Brooklyn); Kyla Ratliff (Civil Queens); Eve Rosahn (PRDU); Mimi Rosenberg, Delegate (Civil BNO); Andrew Rowe (CDD Brooklyn); Lisa Sbrana (Civil BNO); Hasan Shafiqullah (CLO); Steve Terry, Alternate Delegate (CDD Brooklyn); Azalia Torres, Alternate Vice President (CDD Brooklyn); Edlyn Willer, Delegate (CAB); Cheryl Williams (CAB); Kelley Wind, Delegate (Civil BNO); Christopher Wright (CDD Brooklyn); Milton Zelermyer, Delegate (PRP); and Robert Zuss, Vice President (CDD Brooklyn).

6. Since September 27, 2001, the NYCLAW statement had been endorsed by some 1500 trade unionists, including the following sixteen NYC-area current or former principal officers: Larry Adams, Pres., National Postal Mail Handlers Union Local 300; Barbara Bowen, Pres., Professional Staff Congress-CUNY/AFT Local 2334; Arthur Cheliotes, Pres., CWA Local 1180; Raglan George Sr., Exec. Dir., AFSCME Local 215, DC 1707; Glenn Huff Jr., Pres., AFSCME Local 205, DC 1707; Uma Kutwal, Fmr. Pres., AFSCME Local 375, DC 37; Michael Letwin, Pres., Assn. of Legal Aid Attorneys/UAW Local 2325; Jill Levy, Pres., Council of Supervisors & Administrators, NYSFSA, AFSA Local 1; Kim V. Medina, Pres., AFSCME Local 253; Fmr. Pres., DC 1707; Victoria Mitchell, Pres., AFSCME Local 107; VP, DC 1707; Maida Rosenstein, Pres., UAW Local 2110; Viji Sargis, Pres., AFT Local 6025, Montclair State U.; Joel Schwartz, Pres., AFSCME, Civil Service Employees Assn. Local 446; Judy Sheridan-Gonzalez, RN, Chair., State DeLocal Assembly, NY State Nurses Assn.; Brenda Stokely, Pres., AFSCME DC 1707; and Jonathan Tasini, Pres., National Writers Union/UAW Local 1981.

7. King, at n.1, supra.

8. As a result, it took five months for ALAA to adopt a resolution opposed to the wave of post-9/11 government assaults on civil liberties. In Defense of Civil Liberties (ALAA, Feb. 21, 2002), at .

9. The above allegations are more thoroughly addressed in Memo of Oct. 28, 2001 from Michael Letwin, George Albro and Charlotte Hitchcock to ALAA Members Re: Labor Against the War Statement (Oct. 28, 2001); and in Memo of June 11, 2002 from Peter Blum to ALAA Members Re: NYCLAW (June 11, 2002).

10. In fact, between 1998-2002, ALAA contracts increased compensation by an annual average of six percent–a higher rate than contracts for NYC teachers, police, or firefighters; when combined with salary steps, the increases are far greater. Summary of ALAA Contract Changes: 1998-2002 (ALAA, Sept. 30, 2002). Moreover, while virtually all city-funded agencies have suffered massive budget cuts and even layoffs, ALAA’s 2002 electoral lobbying and federal litigation strategies were largely responsible not only for preventing the loss of $5.6 million (or 100 attorney jobs) in city criminal funds, but for an $8.6 million net increase that enabled the Society to hire scores of new lawyers in Fall 2002. See, Wise, Legal Aid Society’s Contract Increases Trial-Level Funding, NYLJ, Dec. 18, 2002, at\ ews&flag=full .

11. See, Letwin, History of The Association of Legal Aid Attorneys, UAW Local 2325 (Rev. Aug. 1999), at .

12. Jim Rogers won election in November by repeating much of the above disinformation and by promising not to be an antiwar trade union leader. Thus, while my election statement reaffirmed that, “in my personal capacity, I have expressed the views of many ALAA members, and a growing number of other trade unionists, by speaking out strongly against the war,” the current President claimed that, “union leaders ought to avoid attaching the union’s name to political causes not voted on by the general membership even if the name is used for information purposes only.”

[Following defeat of this antiwar resolution, Rogers affirmed this stance on the grounds that: “I promised this membership when I asked for your vote, that I would respect its wishes and leave matters of intense political sensitivity alone unless directed otherwise by resolution or referendum.” E-mail Message of April 17, 2003 from James Rogers to ALAA Members.]

Today, ALAA is the only NYC-area UAW local whose principal officer consistently declines to support adoption of labor antiwar resolutions.

The Alternative to Bush and Blair

The alternative to Bush and Blair

April 11, 2003 | Page 11

ANTHONY ARNOVE, editor of Iraq Under Siege, recently returned from an antiwar speaking tour in England and Scotland. He traveled there with Michael Letwin, co-convenor of New York City Labor Against War and a founding member of U.S. Labor Against War.

Together, they spoke at more than a dozen meetings about the U.S. movement against Bush’s war on Iraq, which is being aggressively backed by British Prime Minister Tony Blair. Arnove spoke with Socialist Worker about the tour and the state of the British antiwar movement.

– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –

PEOPLE WERE thrilled to meet activists from the U.S., particularly because the media in Britain has done so little to report on the significant opposition that has been organized in the U.S. against Bush and against this war.

And they were thrilled to challenge the myth that critics of the assault on Iraq are “anti-American.” British antiwar activists are not anti-American. They simply oppose the policy of the U.S. government and the fact that their own government is backing that policy, despite popular opposition.

On February 15, 2 million people demonstrated on the streets of London in what was probably the largest protest in British history. The Stop the War Coalition has organized antiwar committees around the country. People are openly speaking about replacing Blair as the leader of the Labour Party, saying that Labour looks more and more like the Tories every day.

It’s exciting to see all of the antiwar forces working together in one broad coalition that has mobilized people from all walks of life.

In Britain, organized labor has also taken a very clear position against the war. For example, UNISON, which is the largest union in Britain, has endorsed the Stop the War Coalition. The firefighters have raised a popular slogan: Blair should be spending money to put out fires at home rather than starting fires in Iraq and the Middle East.

Unlike in the U.S. where the antiwar movement has been almost totally neglected by the press, we were interviewed by the BBC, Sky Television, Britain’s Observer newspaper and radio stations in Dublin, Belfast and Edinburgh.

Toward the end of our trip, the Guardian ran a front-page photo of an American marine who had written on his helmet, “Kill ‘em all.” I suspect that photo didn’t run on the front page of any U.S. papers.

The tour really gave a sense of the importance of creating these concrete international links and building greater solidarity. This is especially critical because we know that for Bush and Blair, this is only a stepping stone to future wars.

“Give Us the Names” Screening

[NYCLAW endorses the following event]

The Brooklyn/Manhattan War Resisters’ League is sponsoring a video showing of:

“Give Us the Names” 28 min.

The video documents the demonstrations that took place at the Brooklyn Metropolitan Detention Center from January to October 2002. Over 100 labor, peace, and social justice groups took part in the demonstrations. The protests broke the silence of the government’s secret detentions of hundreds of Arab and Muslim immigrants, in the aftermath of Sept. 11, 2001.

Time: Thursday, Apr. 10, 6:45 pm Place: Community Bookstore, 143 Seventh Ave. (btwn Carroll St. & Garfield Pl.) Subways: 2/3 to Grand Army Plaza; M/R to Union St. at 4th Ave.; Q to 7th Ave.

Guest Speaker: Michael Letwin, Co-Convener, NYC Labor Against the War, Former Pres. Assn. of Legal Aid Attorneys/UAW Local 2325

There will be a discussion after the video showing. This event is FREE. It is sponsored by the Brooklyn/Manhattan chapter of the War Resisters League. For more information, contact <>

US Activists Join Anti-American Boycott (Boston Globe)


US activists join anti-American boycott
By Tatsha Robertson , Globe Staff, 4/9/2003

Patrick Baggott stopped buying grocery at mainstream markets and decided to buy a Japanese car instead of the American-made sport utility vehicle he had been eyeing. He will not buy his clothes at the local mall, either. Goodwill will have to do.

Why spend his money on US products, said Baggott, when the country is spending so much on a war he is passionately against.

Baggott, a 55-year-old resident of Hampton, Va., counts himself among a number of American activists boycotting American goods and corporations as a new form of war protest.

Antiwar protesters pushing a national boycott say that US corporations hurt by boycotts will put pressure on the Bush administration.

But with the slow economy, and a boycott of American products in other countries spreading, a domestic boycott appears to be questionable, even to other American antiwar protesters.

Some wonder whether Americans boycotting American products is likely to have any long-term impact on corporations, and others worry that a boycott could hurt the country’s workers.

“That is an argument that we occasionally hear, and those of us calling for a boycott have done so with a certain amount of reluctance,” said Baggott, chairman of Global Boycott for Peace, an international coalition behind the campaign. “But the reason we feel there should be a boycott is the enormity of the problem.”

The problem, said other protesters, is that President Bush has not paid attention to public opinion or the United Nations, which did not endorse a US-led war in Iraq.

Sukh Chugh, executive director of, said the Los Angeles-based organization is targeting such corporations as Kraft, Pepsi, Exxon Mobil, and United Parcel Service.

“The reason we are boycotting these companies is because they made significantly large financial contributions to” Bush, he said. “What we are doing is holding these corporations accountable for these policies and for electing this administration that is waging an unjust war.”

Chugh added, “We have to take responsibility. Everyday consumer purchasing habits play a role in the decision companies make and how much suffering that goes on this planet.

“We have to take ownership of that. Yes, these corporations have to be held accountable for who they are supporting, and we as individuals have to be held accountable for who we are supporting. ”

While Michael Letwin, cochairman of New York Labor Against the War, said he did not see anything wrong with Americans boycotting American corporations or products, he also said such tactics must be targeted to be effective.

“… I can understand their emphasis, given this terrible war. The problem is a more practical one,” said Letwin.

He said protesters must target specific companies with ties to the war or the president.

He said the targets must be chosen for practical reasons, explaining that boycotting a company that makes weapons might not be effective because the company does not thrive on consumer spending.

Bob Wing, a member of United for Peace and Justice, an antiwar group based in New York, said another problem is that it is difficult to know the national identity of a global corporation.

While protesters from Toronto to Paris have been boycotting US companies, the campaign led by Americans is small by comparison, and some sympathizers predict it will have minimal impact.

But, others worry that American workers will ultimately be hurt.

“You don’t want to hurt workers, but you need to look at ways to put economic pressure on groups,” Letwin said. “The problem is in my view you need to make it effective. It can’t be some kind of general statement on your principals or you won’t have an effect.”

This story ran on page A27 of the Boston Globe on 4/9/2003. © Copyright 2003 Globe Newspaper Company.