Nina Rickett-Green 24 January 2019 Race and Politics Joshua Anderson Covert Racism in the International Brotherhood of Stevedores The idea of a union is a promising one: a democratic organization of laborers which has the financial and bargaining power to lobby for fair pay, legislation, and safety measures. The most idealistic image of a union is a group of hard workers standing up to “the man,” or a larger corporation. In practice, however, these democratic values do not extend as far as one would hope. While a labor union claims to represent all of its members, one group is often excluded: members of color. Starting in the early 1900s, some unions instilled a culture of unabashed discrimination, using harassment, threats, and other forms of ostracism to discourage black workers from unionizing. More commonly, white union leaders and members would simply deny the existence of racial segregation, and blame their actions on their economic goals. This ulterior form of racism can be observed in the fictional labor union for dock-workers represented in The ​ Wire. Although union leader Frank Sobotka was not explicitly racist in his leadership of the ​ union, he intentionally neglected the desires for racial representation expressed by the black union members, thereby placing financial well-being at the forefront and civil rights on the back burner, as many union leaders did throughout the 20th century. Paul Frymer, author of the book Black and Blue: African Americans, the Labor ​ Movement, and the Decline of the Democratic Party, explains how, throughout American ​ history, labor unions prioritize autonomy and economic goals at the expense of issues involving racism and segregation. Frymer describes the long and complicated history between the labor movement and the race movement in his chapter “The NAACP Confronts Racism in the Labor Movement,” and he asserts that the labor unions have always carried an element of racial separatism. “With notable exceptions, the labor movement did not simply emphasize class solidarity but fused economic interests with racial hierarchies. White labor, from its beginnings, has seen itself and the labor movement in explicitly racialized terms” (Frymer 50). White unions would use racial tensions to invigorate union loyalty among its white workers, and thereby enhance their own class interests and positions. Simultaneously, labor unions that employed discriminatory tactics for keeping people of color out consistently denied the existence of any racism, blaming their actions on trying to maintain the union’s economic success. “The response of union leaders, whether from the progressive CIO unions or the more conservative building trades, was generally the same: they tried either to deny the existence of internal racism as nothing more than incidental, blame its existence on outside forces, or attack the civil rights activists as racists, radicals, and anti-union… [Steelworkers] spoke in vague generalities about the need to ‘create a better economic and social climate in which to live’” (Frymer 66). Because the white union leaders refused to acknowledge the factor of race, civil rights groups such as the NAACP had great difficulty condemning their prejudices. At first glance, it seems that the Baltimore dock-workers’ union is fairly integrated; however, the International Brotherhood of Stevedores is not immune to racial tensions, and this can be viewed through the conflict between Frank Sobotka and the black workers. Throughout Season 2 of The Wire, the audience sees the many struggles that Frank Sobotka, a ​ ​ Polish-American dock-worker turned union treasurer, endures as the leader of his labor union. One ongoing debate within the union is whether they should use their lobbied money to redevelop the grain pier or dredge the canal, both of which would ideally increase hours for the union men severely lacking work. The split between these two stances happen to be along racial lines; Nat and Ott, two prominent black dock-workers, push strongly for the grain pier, while Frank believes wholeheartedly in the potential in the canal. In addition to this controversy, Frank plans to run for treasurer for a second year in a row, even though the union agreed that Ott would succeed him. In a scene between Nat and Frank in Episode 7, “Backwash,” these underlying racial strains come to the surface. NAT: Look, it’s one thing you taking a run at this dredging thing. Fucked-up as you are, we can let that slide for a while, but now, man, you asking too much. FRANK: One more year, Nat. Not for me, for the fuckin’union. NAT: The election’s been scheduled. And you knew last year when we gave you the votes that this time was gonna be Ott’s turn. You knew that. FRANK: So Ott runs next time, and fuck it, he’ll take that year and the next. NAT: It’s our turn, Frank. FRANK: Black, white, what’s the difference, Nat? Until we get that fuckin’ canal dredged, we’re all niggers. Pardon my French. NAT: Or Polack’s, pardon mine. (Season 2, Episode 7, “Backwash,” 23:13-23:47) ​ ​ While the beginning of the conversation sounds to be race-neutral, it quickly becomes clear that Frank’s resistance to relinquish his seat tells Nat something bigger: whether conscious or not, Frank is standing in the way of representation for the black dock-workers. This is heard loud and clear when Nat says, “It’s our turn, Frank.” In addition, Frank is so blinded by what he believes to be the best solution (dredging the canal) that he refuses to consider what the black workers want. Frank Sobotka represents the larger attitudes of white labor union members throughout the labor movement that Frymer describes; white union leaders like Frank have the privilege to turn a blind eye from issues of race and reframe those conflicts as purely economic ones. It is unclear in The Wire whether Frank subscribes to racist ideals and stereotypes. He is shown to be ​ ​ equally generous towards black and white injured workers alike. However, what is evident is Frank’s disregard for the expressed desires of Nat and Ott, and this follows a common pattern of the treatment of union members of color. Frymer explains, “White union members at the turn of the twentieth century were able to promote their own economic gains through the direct expense of African Americans, Asian Americans, and Latinos” (Frymer 50). In Frank’s eyes, everything he does is for the good of the union. He even vocalizes his distaste for the topic of race when he says, “Black, white, what’s the difference, Nat?” But it is through this negligence that institutionalized racism was able to pervade labor unions in the first place, and until leaders like Frank recognize their racial position, these tensions will continue. The aims and hopes of labor unions are still ideals worth fighting for: agency, representation, safety, stability. However, in order for labor unions to truly call themselves a democracy, the benefits must be achievable for members of every race. Frank Sobotka believed he had the union’s interests in mind until his death, yet those interests did not necessarily represent workers like Nat and Ott, whose desires were denied at every turn. Racial indifference is easier to justify than outright racial discrimination, but if racist attitudes are addressed head-on, labor unions and other organizations alike will have a fighting chance of fairly justly serving all its members. .