Unions face ruling class assault
UNITED STATES Malik MIAH There is a deepening offensive by the employers and their government against working people in the United States. The employing class seeks to fundamentally alter the relationship of forces between themselves and the working class as they restructure many industries - such as steel, auto, railroads, trucking, and airtU lines - to raise productivity and the rate of profits. Their main targets are the industrial workers and their unions.
This offensive is shaking the organized labor movement, which is slightly more than 20 percent of the working class. Although there is still no class-struggle leftwing leadership in the trade unions, there are stirrings beginning to take place that are of some importance and indicate potentially greater changes down the road
This article will review some aspects of the state of the U.S. labor movement by taking a look at the aims of the employers, the policies of the top trade union officials, and changes going on among rank-and-file workers. These changes include a new combativity and a growing gap in political consciousness between the ranks and the top layers of the union officialdom.
POLICIES OF THE BUREAUCRACY
In early October, the American Federation of Labor-Congress of Industrial Organizations (AFL-CIO) - the 13.8 million-member national trade union federation including the large majority of U.S. unions) held its biennial convention in Hollywood, Florida. Its deliberations and decisions reflect the views of the top layers of the trade union bureaucracy.
Not surprisingly, the convention adopted a course that failed to advance the interests of U.S. workers. There were three major decisions.
First, it endorsed the 1984 Democratic Party presidential bid of former vice-president Walter Mondale. It is unusual for the AFL-CIO to officially back a presidential candidate before the Democratic and Republican Party conventions, normally held in July or August before the November elections. This decision was neither formally discussed, nor will it be voted upon, in the ranks of the labor movement. Up to 20 million dollars in union resources will now be spent on Mondale's campaign.
Second, the top officials reaffirmed their support to U.S. imperialist foreign International Viewpoint 28 November 1983 policy, cloaking it in familiar pro-State The adopted resolution, al Security, and the World," called for
NATO to deal with the "Soviet expansionism" as well as supporting U.S. and Israeli government objectives in the Middle East.
same time, reflecting antiwar sentiments of rank-and-file workers, the convention reaffirmed the labor federation's criticism of U.S. policy in El Salvador first advanced by the AFL-CIO executive council last January. supporting Washington's overall goals in Central America and in El Salvador, the resolution called for restrictions on military aid to the Salvadoran junta until progress is made in securing democratic rights for workers and peasants.
Lastly, the convention adopted what it called a new industrial policy, intended to strengthen the United States' international economic position in relation to its imperialist competitors. The federation proposed the government establish a National Development Bank that would grant low-interest loans and tax incentives to companies having difficulty raising capital to modernize their facilities. Labor officials claim this policy will create new jobs.
Trying to patch up capitalism, especially when the system is in deep structural crisis, is not a new profession for the trade union officials - the bureaucratic caste that sits atop the unions. Most top officials have not worked a job in years and are, at best, workers only in origin. They receive salaries sometimes as much as ten times higher than the wages of even the best-paid workers they represent. Their living standards and conditions of life are far, far above most workers, especially the lower paid, unskilled and semiskilled, Black, Latino, women and young workers.
"labor statesmen" piace the profit needs of the employers ahead of the interests of working people. It is no wonder they try to emulate the bosses' lifestyles.
That is why the top officialdom is conservative. Its material interests lie with stability, represented by close political and economic collaboration with the employers. They are literally of the same family.
But as the blows of the capitalist offensive hit the working class, the bureaucracy, which maintains its position and existence on its base in the unions, is
*E IN USA. forced to respond. Moreover, the depth of the crisis is causing divisions to appear within the bureaucracy.
These are evident on both domestic and foreign policy issues.
DIVISIONS ON CENTRAL AMERICA
Of particular importance are emerging differences on U.S. intervention in El Salvador and Central America.
Lane Kirkland, president of the AFLCIO, is presently serving on President Reagan's Commission on Central America, headed by former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger.
Kirkland supports the State Department's goals, and the AFL-CIO's American Institute for Free Labor Development (AIFLD) - traditionally used as a cover for CIA activities - is active in El Salvador.
The AFL-CIO's current position, which opposes U.S. military intervention in El Salvador until certain conditions are met, is still made within a framework of support to imperialism's overall counterrevolutionary goals. Kirkland is dead opposed to the labor movement adopting an independent foreign policy. For this reason, he opposes any genuine debate
21
and discussion on international issues in the ranks of the union movement.
Despite this longstanding approach, a layer of top officials of AFL-CIO unions are now openly and publicly speaking out against Washington's military moves in El Salvador. The National Labor Committee in Support of Democracy and Human Rights in El Salvador, formed by these officials, calls for a complete end to military intervention and favors a
- without conditions - between the revolutionary forces and the Salvadoran regime.
in mid-1983 a leadership delegation from the Labor Committee went on a fact-finding trip to El Salvador. their return they published a report en-
"El Salvador: and Peace." The report explained that the "current rationale behind our [the U.S. government's] military policy in El Salvador cannot but lead us into another
Significantly, at the October AFL-CIO convention, Jack Sheinkman, secretarytreasurer of the Amalgamated Clothing and Textile Workers Union, a member of the fact-finding delegation, and co-chair of the Labor Committee, took the floor to discuss the trip. He spoke for several minutes and was warmly received by a number of delegates — all of whom were labor officials or full-time union local land's trade and union bodies.
As the truth to
The fact that many workers are quesforeign policy reflects a deeper thinking-out process unfolding in the working class and among its major potential allies — Blacks, Latinos, women,
This process is a result of the imperialist war drive and the impact of over 15 years of capitalist economic crisis, which is disrupting the lives of working people.
IMPACT OF ECONOMIC CRISIS
More and more working people view their lives and future with uncertainty. Workers with 20-30 years seniority are losing their jobs permanently when the employers shut down or relocate plants. Family farmers are losing their land through bank foreclosures. As a resuit, confidence in the economy, government, and other political institutions is eroding.
That is what is beginning to take place across the United States. It deepens a process begun in the late 1960s with the end of the post-World War II economic expansion of U.S. and world capitalism.
In the period after World War II and prior to the 1970s, the employers were able to obtain relative labor peace (with exceptions at particular times in particular industries) by agreeing to hand out some crumbs to sections of the working class in the form of higher wages and
This was based on the preeminent position of U.S. capitalism and the enormous superprofits it enjoyed as a
Top union officials accepted this deal and followed policies that divided the working class further. In exchange for the union bureaucrats agreed to make little or no effort to win important social benefits for the class as a
An example is that the United States is the only advanced capitalist country without socialized medical care.
Another aspect of the deal, sign of the bureaucrats' subordination to
Democratic Party, was their refusal to lead a serious campaign to unionize unorganized workers in the South. Another example was the officials' refusal to lead a fight against racist and sexist practices industry or in society as whole.
The "labor statesmen" also accepted, with no serious fight, antilabor legislation that weakens the unions and allows the government to intervene more openly and directly in the internal affairs of the labor movement.
The Taft-Hartley Act, for example, allows states to adopt what are called "right to work" laws that are in fact aimed at preventing unionization. These laws make it easier for scabs and strikebreakers to be
States also added their own antilabor
Many passed laws making it "illegal" for public workers to strike. In New York, city and state workers face the loss of two days' pay for every day they "illegally" strike.
Although these laws were used selectively in the past, they are now being used more and more by all levels of government to break strikes and defeat unions.
This offensive by the employers and government is also undermining the old buddy-buddy relationship between the top union officials and the capitalists. "Independent" labor analysts complain of the end of good "labor-management" relations since the employers have shifted
An example of this shift occurred during the 1974-75 recession when the city of New York faced bankruptcy. The employers, banks, and government forced onerous concessions from the workers. Contracts were torn up, social services slashed, and the conditions of life made much worse. The hardest hit were the Black and Latino workers who were already at the bottom of the economic
The top union officials complained the attacks were unfair. But instead of launching a political fight against the govthey sought to come up with "takeback" concessions to "save" the city. Of course, the workers
That defeat for public employees was taken by the employers as a green light to even more concessions these and other workers. The bosses correctly perceived that the national labor movement would do little to aid workers
This experience was a prelude to the full-fledged assault on the bastions of the labor movement - the industrial unions - that we have witnessed over the past
During the 25 years following World War II, the trade union bureaucracy was consolidated as a conservative, class-collaborationist layer. These labor officials, as voices for the bosses in the unions, were essential in pushing back the influence of class-struggle militants and Black rights fighters.
For example, during the anticommunist witch-hunt of the 1950s, the AFL and CIO unions raided other unions that they had labelled "red." And in the late 1960s, the bureaucracy fought the formation of Black caucuses that were established to fight the racism of the bosses
International Viewpoint 28 November 1983
Marchfor wage cut and other concessions in March 1983.
This has been true in other industries as weli. So much so that the big business daily New York Times wrote, "So deeply have concession demands cut that the average first-year wage rise in contracts
Jobs & Justice and the union officialdom.
These policies of the bureaucratic caste in the labor movement helped to alter the relationship of forces between labor and the employers to the latter's advantage. More and more, the labor leadership represented only the most privileged layers of the working class, at the expense of the big majority of workers who were not even in unions. For instance, when the AFL and CIO merged in 1955, 35 percent of U.S. workers were organized into unions. By the early 1970s it was down to less than 25 percent.
1980-82 RECESSION
When Reagan took office in 1981 he the government-employer drive against working people. The heart of this accelerated offensive was to cut social services and lower labor costs as part of the restructuring of the economy to make it more competitive with other imperialist powers. The restructuring included cutting taxes for big business to make it easier for them to introduce more technology in order to raise productivity and the rate of profits.
This bipartisan attack on the working was carried out with the support of the Democrats in Congress -coincided with the deepest downturn in the capitalist economy since World War
Massive layoffs in auto, steel, and other basic industries contributed to a national unemployment rate of almost 11 percent - the highest rate seen in the International Viewpoint 28 November 1983
United States for more than 30 years. Workers of the oppressed nationalities — Blacks, Latinos, and others — experienced joblessness at twice that rate or more.
At the same time, Reagan demonstrated the employing class's willingness to take other decisive steps against organized labor by smashing the 1981 air traffic controllers strike, again with complete support from the Democratic Party. The Professional Air Traffic Controllers Organization (PATCO) - the controllers' union — was effectively destroyed. Some 12,000 workers were fired and blacklisted from the jobs for which they were trained.
For their part the top labor officials strikers. They took no action to mobilize the ranks of the labor movement to defeat Reagan's strikebreaking.
Meanwhile the employers were winning concession contracts from workers in such basic industries as auto, steel, and
They threatened workers with concessions to "save" the company, or the loss of jobs. But jobs were lost anyway, as in the case of the Chrysler workers, who made the greatest concessions at the
Again the trade union bureaucracy mounted no effective fightback. leader of the United Steel Workers of America (USWA) remarked, if the company's money tree is shaken too often, there won't be any left. That false logic was used to pressure basic steel workers to accept an unprecedented 9 percent negotiated in 1983's first half nose-dived to below one percent, down from 10 percent two years ago. What's more, onequarter of the new contracts contain pay cuts and one-fifth, wage freezes." RESTRUCTURING FAR FEWER JOBS
While the current upturn in the capitalist business cycle is leading to a drop in unemployment - down from almost 11 percent to 9 percent - the main beneficiaries have been the employers, who continue to use all their tools — government, courts, bankruptcies, mergers, international corporate deals, and when necessary strikebreakers — to raise their profits.
Recently, for example, the Republic and LTV Steel Corporations, the nation's third and fourth largest steel producers, announced plans to merge. The new company will become the second largest steel producer after U.S. Steel. According to the big business publication, the Wall Street Journal, "if LTV succeeds in acquiring Republic Steel, a lot of pieces of both companies are almost sure to be cast off. Trying to revitalize themselves, the two ailing steelmakers will cull their least efficient facilities and fire thousands of no-longer-needed employees."
U.S. Steel and British Steel have discussed plans for U.S. Steel to import steel slabs from Britain to its finishing mill outside Philadelphia. The venture would increase each company's profits, while leading to the loss of thousands more jobs in both countries.
Both moves are aspects of the continuing restructuring of the U.S. steel industry in the face of increased interimperialist competition from Japan and Western Europe. While the upturn in the U.S. business cycle has not led to a big increase in steel production and most steel companies continue to register losses - a sign of the weakness of the capitalist "recovery" - some capital spending on modernization is taking place. barons' overall objective is a smaller, more efficient, more productive, more profitable industy with reduced labor
Another deal is unfolding between the world's first and third largest auto manufacturers - General Motors and Japan's Toyota. They plan to jointly produce a small car at GM's Fremont, California, plant beginning in 1985. Part of the deal, however, is that the venture will be called a "new" company that will not recognize the right of laid-off Fremont employees to be called back first. The "new" pany also intends to hire workers with wages and benefits below the typical union contract, while still formally recognizing the union.
workers took another step forward. They It shows how the various arms of the
The auto industry provides one of the clearest examples of the objectives of the employers, the policies of the trade union bureaucracy, and the response of the rank
The 1979-1982 recession hit the profits of the Big Three auto makers - General Motors, Ford, and Chrysler - hard They lost close to 7 billion dollars, and Chrysler nearly went bankrupt.
In the worst of the recession, over 250,000 auto workers were laid off. Most will never be called back to work. For example, in 1979 Chrysler had 130,000 employees; today its U.S. and Canadian plants employ only 65,000
Between 1970-82, 20 auto plants were shut down. Although some are reopening with the upturn in the economy, many
At the same time the auto bosses are investing billions of dollars for modern-
Budgeted outlays for 1980-84
But much of the returned profitability in the industry is the result of a smaller workforce, lower wages and benefits, and worse working conditions. bination and speed-up alone will save the companies millions of dollars.
In 1979-80 Chrysler won a concession contract with the aid of the federal government and United Auto Workers (UAW) leadership. Seeing no alternative leadership and perspective, the ranks voted three times for such contracts. sulted in a total loss of 1 billion dollars in wages and benefits.
But jobs were not saved. More plants were shut down and thousands of workers were laid off permanently. The workers still on the job suffered from speed-up and much worse working conditions.
The ranks became more angry and even hostile to sections of the union leadership, including Douglas Fraser, then president of the UAW, who joined the Chrysler Board of Directors to "represent" the workers.
The anger and dissent nearly came to a head in 1981. A new concession contract pushed by the employers union leadership was narrowly approved by 52 to 48 percent of the members vot-
Then in October 1982, the workers voted overwhelmingly to reject a fourth concession contract after Chrysler report-
The Canadian UAW members working under a similar contract went a step fur-
They not only rejected the proposed contract, they also voted to go on
They stayed out for five weeks won a significant pay raise for themselves and U.S. workers despite Chrysler's threats that any wage increase would send the company into bankruptey. Chrysler made record profits in the first half of 1983.
Many workers learned from that experience. By fighting back - against the advice of the top union misleaders gains were made.
In 1983, based on these gains, Chrysler it clear to the company another big wage gain was in order in light of Chrysler's record profits.
to strike in January 1984. That threat pressured Chrysler to give a big wage increase — an immediate 1 dollar per-hour and an additonal 1.42 dollars over the next two years.
This important victory against Chrysler - the symbol of concession contracts for most workers - came in the context of huge profits in the auto industry. Yet the Chrysler workers' success has been typical for most of the working class. The situation has been one of setbacks and defeats in the main because of the class-collaborationist "concession bargaining" strategy of the union bureaucracy.
The experience at Chrysler shows that as the capitalist economy picks up and workers see signs of new corporate profits, their level of confidence and combativity rises and new gains can be won. Connected to this, we are also witnessing some signs of increasing militancy in defensive struggles as well.
In June 1983, meat-packing workers struck the Wilson Foods Company, the largest fresh pork processor in the United
The strike came in response to a new union-busting tactic of the employers - Wilson declared bankruptcy. However, the company openly admitted it did not plan to go out of business. Rather it was using the bankruptcy laws to tear up
Its competitors, it said, had lower wages and weaker or no unions, and Wilson wanted equity.
The rise of nonunion plants sult of restructuring in the meat processing
For a number of years unionorganized plants have been relocating to new cities and states to remove or weaken
After the shock of the bankruptey maneuver, the workers pressured their national leadership to call a strike. weeks later the workers forced Wilson to back down somewhat from their initial takeback demands. Workers accepted an approximately 2 dollar per-hour wage cut instead of the over 4 dollar per-hour one that Wilson first imposed. the lack of national labor solidarity, the strike was a modest success.
In mid-year three other important de-
On July 1, 13 unions representing copper miners in Arizona - who are majority Chicano, mexicano, and Native American — were forced out on strike by the Phelps Dodge Corp., the second largest copper producer in the United States.
The strike is more than a struggle between labor and management. combined fight for the rights of oppres sed nationalities and for stronger unions. And this is how many of the workers
The strike is instructive on two levels.
state power - the courts, National Guard, police, scabs — have been and continue to be used against the strikers and their families to defeat the strike and bust the unions. And it reflects the growing militancy of the rank and file and their allies, who are drawing some valuable lessons about the class struggle, particularly the role of the government.
For example, the government is helping the company herd scabs into the
In August, over 800 National Guardsmen
The news media refer to the strikers as "mobs." The company threatens to evict striking workers from company-owned homes and denies them medical care at the company-owned hospitals. The courts issue injunctions limiting the number of pickets at each mine.
The workers have responded by or ganizing militant pickets. They have filed lawsuits against both the company and activities and harassment. Women and independent auxiliaries to back the strike.
At the same time, the top layers of the national union officialdom -particular ly the AFL-CIO - have refused to actively mobilize the millions of union members around the country to give the copper miners enough aid to win.
This lack of effective national solidarity is one reason the strike has not
It indicates a fundamental weakness of the labor movement today as the employers deepen their offensive. It is harder and harder for workers in one plant or industry to make gains by them-
The trade union bureaucracy's refusal to organize active solidarity is a factor in why most defensive strikes are losing or barely holding their own. Despite worker militancy, advances have been few.
TELEPHONE WORKERS STRIKE
Another recent example involved the more than 675,000 unionized telephone workers at the huge American Telephone and Telegraph company. AT&T reaped 7.2 billion dollars in prof-
The workers expected a decent wage increase — at least to keep up benefits in their new contracts.
But AT&T had something else in mind. It demanded takebacks from the unions. It said the government's decision to retelephone industry by breaking AT&T into 22 smaller companies - but still owned by the same capitalists — meant its profits would begin to
The three unions involved were forced to call a strike. The unions demanded job security for all currently employed work-
Specifically they sought a job retraining program to minimize the impact of the introduction of new technology. They also demanded a decent wage increase and other improvements.
The company refused to negotiate ser iously until it became clear that the work• International Viewpoint 28 November 1983
ers were ready and willing to strike in- for opposing class interests to be reflectto win a decent contract. AT&T finally retracted its major takegave the workers a wage increase after a 22-day
The arrogance of AT&T, a company making superprofits, is a reflection of a common attitude among the employers: it is possible to take and take because the unions lack a leadership willing to fight
AT&T's problem was that it ran into the militant rank and file who believed - like the Chrysler workers - that the company had money to meet their de-
CONTINENTAL WALKOUT
The employers' determination to cut labor costs is also evident in the confrontation between the major domestic air-
The airline employers have also used bankruptcy laws ample, simply announced one day that it was filing for bankruptey and terminated opened as the "New Continental Airlines." The "new" company rehired only 4,800 workers and cut wages in half. Qualitatively worse working conditions were also imposed.
The workers were told to live by this "yellow dog contract" or be out of a job. That is what happened to Continental mechanics, who went on strike in August after the airline made its last offer - they were immediately fired. This was before the bankruptcy ploy was used.
Once Continental declared bankruptey, the pilots and flight attendants had no choice - fight back or capitulate.
The decision of the airline pilots in - particular to walk the picket lines is quite
These are some of the highest-paid workers, and they have generally displayed little solidarity when other airline workers have struck. They refused for instance, to respect the mechanics? pickets in August, and in 1981 they crossed the picket lines of the striking air traf-
These employer attacks and the workers' response are fueling the working class workers continue to question where the country is heading and to consider alternative ideas for defending themselves. This is true for most working people, but especially for workers in basic industries that are in the process of major capitalist restructuring such as auto, steel, rail, trucking, and airlines.
### RADICALIZATION
AND POLARIZATION
The radicalization of workers is developing alongside a growing class polarization in U.S. society. Under the employoffensive, the capitalist economic stagnation, and the beginnings of working-class resistance, there is a tendency International Viewpoint 28 November 1983 ed in political life more and more openly, much more so than in a period of capitalist expansion and social stability.
This process of polarization does not mean that all U.S. workers are moving to
Many workers - especially those who are still relatively privileged -still identify with the interests of "their
"their boss,"
Such views are pushed by the trade union bureaucracy. Thus many workers have voted for concession contracts, believing it will "save" their plant and job. There is not yet a clear understanding that capitalism itself is why plants shut
"run away" to nonunion areas or abroad, or declare bankruptcy.
with a degree of job security accept two-tier wage scales in which new hires start at half pay. Older workers, those with long seniority, believe this may save their jobs. when they themselves are under attack that they begin to jettison such ideas. This is happening to many older workers
Another feature of this class polariza tion is the growing battle over ideas tak ing place inside the working class.
In this discussion of ideas, the labor bureaucracy serves as the mouthpiece of the employers in the labor movement. A good example is the campaign for protectionism being led by top officials of the garment, steel, and auto unions.
While different views exist within the ruling class on import restrictions, tariffs, etc., all of the employers benefit when U.S. workers are encouraged to blame workers in other countries for the crisis caused by capitalism. This lets the bosses off the hook and impedes workers from coming to a correct understanding of how best to fight for jobs.
Moveover, the anti-imports stance is undermining labor solidarity among U.S. Striking railroad workers on picket duty (DR)
TRESPASSING workers and between U.S.
This type of worker "competition" is an aid to the employers and can lead workers to accept the employers' view that "defense" of the company's profits means fighting their wars to "defend" the country.
The fact that the government is central to the employers' attacks on working people is making clear to more and more workers the need to develop a strategy that challenges the government directly.
Where does the labor movement stand in developing such a perspective?
there is no organized ex pression of working people developing a political perspective independent of the employers and their parties, the Democrats and Republicans, over the last several months there have been signs of working people trying to go in that direction. This is most pronounced in the about forging broader political alliances to push for more political representation and influence are most developed. The result of the employers' offensive in general is leading more working people to think about and discuss polities.
The crucial challenge - and need - is to forge a class-struggle leadership to prevent further setbacks and eventually take on the political monopoly
It means the unions forming a mass labor party - something that does not exist in the United States because of the officialdom's complete subordination to the capitalist parties.
Although motion in the labor movement or among labor's strategic allies -Blacks, Latinos, women, and family farmers - toward breaking with the capitalist parties is not expressed in an organized form there is a serious discussion developing around the 1984 presidential election on the need to build new alliances of the oppressed and exploited to achieve more political clout.
This is especially true among the oppressed Black nationality. Jesse Jackson, a prominent Black civil rights leader, has announced publicly that he is considering entering the race for the Democratic Party presidential nomination.
running for president, wide-ranging among Blacks, Latinos, farmers, and all workers. This discussion centers on how the oppressed can best fight for more po-
Jackson makes clear that he is not talking about independent working-class political action. He argues that the oppressed must remain within the Democratic Party. Nevertheless the discussion he has helped initiate poses the broader question of how working people can achieve political power. It reflects growing dissatisfaction with the capitalist political parties and helps open the door to a discussion of genuinely independent working-class political action.
In this situation of political ferment, the top layers of the trade union bureaucracy have reaffirmed their strong sup-
port to the two-party capitalist system and their traditional support to Democratic Party. That is why the AFLCIO voted to endorse Walter Mondale. The bureaucracy is procapitalist and opposes any motion toward a labor party.
HOW WILL A NEW LEADERSHIP ARISE?
Workers will overcome this collaborationist leadership through struggles against the employers offensive at home and abroad. It is through struggles that workers are learning lessons and will bring forth new leaders to defend their in-
While there is no motion now toa stronger position than most workers to forge a class-struggle leadership to fight the bosses' continuing takeback demands.
At the same time, like other unions, the UMWA is facing the combined power of the employers, courts, and government. A united front of all unions and other working people is needed to respond to this reactionary capitalist alliance. That is why a militant national labor movement, beginning in the political arena and extending to the shop floor, is needed to effectively defend working people's inter-
What the last year has shown is that the fight for jobs, better health care, and education - and against U.S. wars abroad - means a political fight against the employers and their government.
The last year has also shown that working-class radicalization is uneven based on the depth of the employers' offensive in any particular industry and its connection to the national and international objectives of U.S. capitalism. While there have been more setbacks and defeats for workers in this recent period of class struggle, these experiences are clarifying class politics to more and more workers. Growing resistance as well is convincing many workers that fundamental change is needed to end the crisis.
terests. ward a labor party, the defensive strikes, the antiar sentiments, and the fact that tens of thousands of unionists marched in