Democratic Socialists Are Recruiting JFK Workers To Block Israeli Arms Cargo—Risks Getting Them Fired

New York’s Democratic Socialists of America is recruiting JFK airport workers to block military shipments to Israel, and its campaign website is offering assurances about their legal rights that could get them fired. They aren’t just advocating the U.S. funds shouldn’t support foreign wars. They’re looking for an arms embargo – blocking the ability of Israel to purchase from U.S. manufacturers, including defensive items that protect civilians from inbound Hezbollah missiles. Workers can advocate for this! And while workers can organize over actual workplace hazards, there’s no general right to refuse assigned work because they oppose the cargo’s destination. The Supreme Court rejected a similar dockworkers boycott involving the Soviet Union. They’re Trying To Organize The People Who Move The Cargo The effort is called Break the Chain. It’s organized by the New York City Democratic Socialists of America’s Anti-War Working Group. Their goal is a worker-driven arms embargo, stopping shipments at airports, ports and warehouses without waiting for the federal government to impose one. The group has scheduled an October 17 organizing meeting near Union Square. In a September article written by a campaign member, organizer Bassel Al-Khalili said they’d been distributing leaflets to workers on Sundays for much of the year and were working with dozens of JFK employees. They say the campaign won priority status within the local DSA chapter with 90% support. They’re also doing outreach on the AirTrain and in Queens neighborhoods where airport workers live. Their organizing toolkit supplies coworker conversation scripts and a model union resolution. The campaign’s database lists 39 regional companies. Its JFK entries include Delta, Challenge Airlines, Kalitta Air, FedEx and DHL Global Forwarding, alongside freight forwarders and defense manufacturers as identified targets. Campaign poster, credit: Break the Chain. This Follows The Campaign Against United Airlines Last month I wrote about the DSA-backed report attacking United Airlines for carrying military cargo to Israel produced in conjunction with the Palestinian Youth Movement. United openly markets government and defense cargo transportation. The United States authorizes military sales to Israel. Properly authorized shipments aren’t inherently illegal because a political organization objects to them. And the report presented 2,761 allegedly military-related shipments, even though it analyzed the contents of only 546. Some equipment could have civilian uses or ultimately be destined for customers outside Israel. They also make several implausible claims like that UNICEF says more than 64,000 children were killed in Gaza, when the total number of deaths in Gaza is only about 10% greater than that (including terrorists). The Campaign Overstates Workers’ Legal Protection The most troubling language is on the campaign’s worker rights page. It tells cargo handlers, airline employees, warehouse workers, truck drivers and port workers that: the law protects your ability to speak up, organize, and refuse to participate in activities you believe are wrong. That’s… simply not accurate. An employee’s moral objection to a lawful assignment doesn’t protect their job if they refuse to do it. In International Longshoremen’s Association v. Allied International the Supreme Court considered a union’s refusal to handle cargo coming from or going to the Soviet Union after its invasion of Afghanistan. The union was trying to influence a foreign government’s conduct by stopping commerce through American businesses. The Court unanimously held that the boycott fell within the federal prohibition on secondary boycotts. Its political purpose didn’t create an exception. And the First Amendment didn’t protect that conduct. There are several different risks here: Refusing cargo can get a worker fired. The National Labor Relations Board warns that employees participating in an unlawful strike can be discharged without a right to reinstatement. A worker doesn’t need to be arrested or convicted of anything for an unprotected refusal to cost them their job. Airline employees work under a different labor law. The campaign points workers generally to the National Labor Relations Act, but employees of covered airlines fall under the Railway Labor Act. For bargaining disputes, that law requires negotiation, mediation and other procedures before a lawful strike. Federal air traffic controllers face a separate strike ban. The toolkit even envisions a controller withholding runway access for a shipment of blasting caps. For FAA controllers, federal law prohibits participating in a strike against the government, with potential criminal penalties for violating that prohibition. A coordinated political refusal that constitutes a prohibited strike could cost a controller their federal job and expose them to prosecution. Unions can face court orders and damages. An unlawful secondary boycott can expose a union to an injunction and a suit for business losses. Misusing a security badge can end an airport career. The Port Authority’s cardholder rules limit badges to business use and allow permanent revocation for misuse. Violations can affect access at all Port Authority airports. Using access credentials to bring unauthorized people into restricted areas or interfere with security is something I really hope doesn’t happen as a result of this effort. Physical interference can create criminal exposure. Trespassing, damaging property or violating airport security requirements isn’t immunized by a political motive. Federal law criminalizes knowing and willful entry that violates specified airport security requirements. Workers have certain protections. Complaints about unsafe working conditions can be protected. Reporting suspected safety violations can be protected as well. And the Occupational Safety and Health Administration recognizes a limited right to refuse imminently dangerous work when the worker acts in good faith to a risk of death or serious injury with insufficient time for ordinary enforcement. Disagreement with Israeli foreign policy doesn’t satisfy that test. I think most foreign entanglements are inadvisable, that we’re more likely to screw them up than redirect the course of events elsewhere in the world. However, opposing subsidies is different from preventing Israel from buying and receiving weapons. Organizer Sammy Z describes the objective as ending all military trade, extending to intelligence, research, software and technical knowledge. This includes a ban of allowing access to protection of civilians from incoming missiles. And if the campaign succeeds only at JFK, shipments can move through another airport, another airline or a military logistics channel. That can raise costs and cause delays without producing the foreign policy result organizers want. But getting the on the ground workers fired in the process. (HT: Cheryl) Topics on this page