Download PDF of this full issue: v8n1.pdf (8.5 MB)

Organized Enlisted A Real Threat, GI Union Panics Brass

By VVAW

Not since the widespread rebellions of the Vietnam era has the Pentagon and ruling class felt this amount of pressure from rank and file military personnel. General Bernard Rogers, Army Chief of Staff, stated the military's opposition to unionization in a speech to the Association of the U.S. Army: "We don't need unions to represent our soldiers--that is the responsibility of the Army leadership."

GIs thought otherwise. Thousands of GIs and their families in the U.S. and Germany signed petitions to Congress for the right to unionize by the summer of 1977. Organizing committees such as the one set up by the 10th Special forces at Fort Devens, Mass, in December of 1976, became widespread. The pot was boiling and the brass and ruling class in this country didn't like the smell from the kitchen.

The drive for unionization of the military isn't a new idea. The day to day grind of the military, attacks by the brass, racial discrimination, and railroad courts are and have been a matter of policy in the military. During the Vietnam War, political questions around the war, racial discrimination and democratic rights took the lead over most economic questions. One organization of the period, the American Serviceman's Union attempted to unite GIs into a union. It was met with ruthless attacks and repression which eventually wiped out all attempts to organize. GI organizations were generally established independently at various bases and aboard ships. During the high tide of anti-war activity, VVAW united many of these loose-knit groups as well as thousands of GIs abroad and in Vietnam into one organization.

Much of the unity of those groups was based on opposition to the war in Vietnam; when the war ended with the victory of the liberation forces, many of these groups withered away. Still, the many problems faced by GIs did not disappear. The most recent drive towards unionization was initiated, though never really launched, by the American Federation of Government Employees, a 300,000 member federal employees union, the largest of its type in the U.S.

The AFGE under the leadership of its President, Ken Blaylock, eyeballed the potential of 2.1 million GIs as members and licked its chops at the hard cash they would bring into the union in dues, not to mention the power base and influence that these members would represent. Deftly sidestepping the critical issues of racism in the military and democratic rights for Gis, the AFGE crowd pressed home pay raises, benefits, housing, medical services and other necessary economic issued with some talk of legal representation in specific cases under the UCMJ--not outside, but under one of the most oppressive and one-sided legal systems ever set up!

Added to this was the AFGE plan to focus on support units and not potential combat forces. Troops in combat units would receive no protection--in short, the people facing the most harassment and worst conditions were S.O. L. The AFGE further sweetened the pot for the ruling class by stating that "the military sections would voluntarily agree not to strike and that representation would cease in time of war or "national emergency" such as Vietnam. This is a union?

In the AFGE would have had its way, GIs would have been in the same situation as most workers in this country--up against a two-headed monster of the union bureaucracy and the "company" management. Like the miners, fighting the union leadership for the right to strike and no fines for wildcats, and up against the coal operators for a decent life.

But even with this, there's much more positive than negative about military unions, whether the AFGE or other unions. The establishment of a union would provide GIs with "room to work" and the ability to struggle for meaningful change. Certainly workers would not throw out their union and cease to fight within if for the option of no protection at all.

GIs, however, are substantially different from workers. Regardless of the fact they are from the working class, carry out "jobs" in the military and, in most cases, rejoin the ranks of workers in society after discharge, nevertheless, while they are part of the military they are the last resort, the main line police force for the U.S. ruling class. Regardless of the individual sentiments of GIs, the military's history has been one of breaking strikes, scabbing on workers, and waging wars of exploitation around the world. The rich realize the importance of a military strictly under their control and spent millions of bucks to stop the unionization drive. They'll employ every vicious tactic at their disposal to prevent it in the future. The worst fear is GI unity over a large area; while they can always pick off a few leaders here and there, a union would provide a basis for the GIs to unify to fight.

Now, GIs have a taste in their mouths of the type of organization or union that can be built. They also know that if anything gets built, it will be the rank and file GIs that build it.

In the wake of the unionization failure, rank and file GI groups have not stepped back from the struggle. One such group, the Alaskan Soldiers & Sailors Alliance, in proposing an enlisted people's association, calls for, among other things an end to bad discharges, elimination of non-judicial punishment, the right to resist illegal orders, and end to arbitrary searches, and trial by a jury of peers.

There are examples of the demands of the rank and file GIs. During the Vietnam War it was the rank and file who refused in the thousands to go into combat, who sabotaged the ships, who went AWOL, deserted, or organized among the troops to stop the war. And they got out, many took to the streets as veterans to stoop the war.

If a GI union comes into being, in whatever form, it's the rank and file who will build it and make it the type of organization that meets their needs and carries forward the struggles of GIs.