Union busting in Iraq

Manas forwarded this disturbing report:

The American occupation forces, using a force of about ten armoured cars and tens of soldiers, attacked the temporary headquarters of the IFTU (at the headquarters of the Transport and Communication Union, in Karkh district, Allawi Al Hilla, Baghdad) at 10.30 am on Saturday 6/12/2003, and arrested 8 of its leaders and cadres, who were handcuffed and taken away to an unknown destination.

The attackers ransacked and destroyed the IFTU’s possessions, tearing down banners and posters condemning acts of terror, tarnishing the name of the IFTU and that of the General Union of Transport Workers (on the building’s main front) with black paint and smashing windows glass, without giving any reason or explanation.

We know that the occupying force has left Saddam’s repressive labour laws intact, Baathist managers have kept their jobs (because they scare workers away from unionising), but I couldn’t find any mention of the latest incident in the media. Why not? Surely it is newsworthy, particularly in the light of the serious concern it raises: Is the US Army being used as a union-busting force in Iraq?

UPDATE: Reader TJW points to a report that US troops have fired an Iraqi boss “who has been locking the [deaf] seamstresses in closets, holding their pay and beating them”. This is certainly good news, even if it hasn’t been widely reported. However, it’s difficult to imagine the US troops turning a blind eye to such an extreme case, and we still don’t know what happened at the trade unions’ headquarters.

Indeed, other reports suggest that anti-labour US troops have tolerated Ba’athists, but have been confronted and defeated by the fledgling unions:

The rail workers tell us proudly how they elected three representatives to tell the Americans that Iraqi rail workers won’t tolerate Saddam Hussein’s appointed officials negotiating for them. A full and frank exchange of views followed, during which US troops defended the presence of Ba’athist officials and threatened the elected reps with guns, but they stood their ground and won the argument becoming de facto the recognised trade union.

Perhaps it is this type of confrontation that sparked the ransacking of the offices?

11:35 am · 10 December 2003 · comments off
  1. Gravatar

    Yes, I found the report pretty disturbing. I don’t expect a lot from the forces in Iraq, but I sure didn’t expect this one.

    Manas · 10 December 2003 · 12:02 pm
  2. Gravatar

    I’ve just been looking more. It doesn’t seem to have been considered newsworthy by any outlet, let alone the major ones such as BBC, CNN etc. The plot thickens…

    Manas · 10 December 2003 · 12:19 pm
  3. Gravatar

    I meant to add - even Aljazeera didn’t have it.

    Manas · 10 December 2003 · 12:23 pm
  4. Gravatar
    TJW · 10 December 2003 · 8:19 pm
  5. Gravatar

    Thanks for that — I’ve updated the post to incorporate it — but I still want to know what happened at the IFTU headquarters, and why.

    Robert · 10 December 2003 · 9:20 pm
  6. Gravatar

    Test…

    Robert · 13 December 2003 · 8:48 pm
  7. Gravatar

    NO media, ANYWHERE, not even Aljazeera, took it seriously, and no one can think of a VERY simple possible explanation?

    Norman · 16 December 2003 · 8:10 pm
  8. Gravatar

    Spell it out, shithead. If you’re going to make accusations of that kind, at least have the balls to put the dog whistle away.

    Robert · 16 December 2003 · 8:15 pm
  9. Gravatar

    That sort of intemprate abuse might have you banned,Robert. Despite your “style”, though, I really can’t believe that you aren’t capable of understanding the general principle raised in my comment.
    Seasons Greetings, and a Happy Analytical New Year.

    Norman · 18 December 2003 · 7:06 pm
  10. Gravatar

    He thinks it hasn’t been reported by mainstream media or FOXNews because it’s either not true, or really not worth reporting (obviously if it’s partially true but not worth reporting, yours and Carita’s source has it out of proportion).

    I can’t say as Norman’s right or wrong on this point, but I must admit that it’s taking a risk to rely on non-mainstream sources. While on the one hand stories that are against Big Media’s agenda may be passed-over owing to political or financial concerns, they’ll also be passed over if they’re not true.

    mark · 19 December 2003 · 12:19 am
  11. Gravatar

    Norman simply doesn’t know, Mark, so he’s not really either right or wrong. I’ve used non-mainstream sources frquently over the years. It’s just that I tend to try to check out everything carefully before I rely on it.
    This applies even if — ESPECIALLY IF — it seems to confirm my personal beliefs. It’s not really a novel concept, even if it’s application is novel to some.

    PING:
    TITLE: Towards a more perfect union
    BLOG NAME: The Road to Surfdom
    Union busting by US forces in Iraq? That’s what this report from the Labor News Network suggests. Details are sketchy,…

    PING:
    TITLE: Beacon of democracy to the Middle East, Part 764.
    BLOG NAME: Electrolite
    Nathan Newman, Tim Dunlop, and Robert Corr all link to this report of American troops attacking the headquarters of the…

    Norman · 19 December 2003 · 10:04 am