For decades, the most prominent American unions were largely supportive of Israel. Today, though, amid a resurgence of the American labor movement, some activists are urging their unions to call for an immediate cease-fire in Gaza and succeeding — a change that reflects a broader generational shift.
But many unions are divided over what stance to take or whether to take any stance at all.
Some American labor leaders have remained supportive of Israel’s war against Hamas, and moved swiftly to condemn Hamas’s attacks on Oct. 7. They are dismayed by the views of a younger generation of organizers who in some cases oppose Israel’s existence as a Jewish state.
“There has been a shift in society, and that’s reflected in the labor movement as it is every place else,” said Stuart Appelbaum, president of the Jewish Labor Committee and head of the Retail, Wholesale and Department Store Union.
Regardless of your stance on what is going on in Gaza, I don’t think unions should be picking a side either way.
The point of a union is to represent the worker toward their employer. This is most effective if all workers stand together.
Taking a stance on a matter that is so politically controversial as the situation in Gaza/Israel, only serves to divide workers, reducing the effectiveness of unions to achieve their core purpose.
If individuals (or groups of individuals) want to support or denounce either Israel or Palestine that should be their choice, but I don’t think a union should get involved in that.
Hard disagree. Unions have taken political stances on numerous occasions throughout history. It’s one of the most effective tools the working class has to fight imperialism. Imperialism is something the working class should fight against.
I agree with this. World conflict, culture war bullshit and other wedge issues are used too often by oligarch funded media to make the working class fight with each other and forget who are really pulling the strings.
Even if I feel strongly about a particular issue, the union should be focused on getting fair working conditions for its members, and separate advocacy organizations should be focused on spreading awareness on the topic(s) they are concerned with.
Divide and conquer is one of the oldest games in the book.
Some issues are obviously more urgent than others and a total massacre is one. No members are gonna disagree with that.
So why have unions supported Israel for decades?
I never said I approved of that either. I’m just voicing my opinion on what the role of unions is / should be.
That wasn’t my question.
Your theory, that unions should avoid picking a side, does not have any basis in how actual unions act in the real world.
Why do you think that is?
Wow. Reading comprehension is a tough.
🙄
They had so much to say about why unions should remain neutral, but I keep coming back to the fact that the unions have never been neutral. So either the poster believes they have cracked the code and all other union leaders are too stupid to grasp it, or something else is going on.
I think you don’t really have a point and are simply looking to argue.
It was very clearly stated in the comment what the intent of the comment was.
The intent of their comment was “voicing my opinion on what the role of unions is / should be.”
I asked why unions, in the real world, do not behave that way. Why are actually existing unions acting in roles that they do not believe unions should? If that’s what the role of unions is or should be, then in the real world unions would try to fulfill that role. They do not.
There’s a fundamental misunderstanding of the purpose of unions that I’m trying to highlight by showing how wrong it is!
What you’re asking is an answer to “why do these people, who are not you, not do what you think they should be doing”, and the reasonable answer is “I don’t know, ask them”.
If this is supposed to be an intro into a lesson on what unions are actually for, you’ll be better served by presenting your argument directly.