Unions, then and now.

To my bemusement (and chagrin, I guess), my home state is once again a hotbed of radicalism, squaring off against reactionaries over an old, old divisive issue: labor unions. Not since May Day, 1886 in Milwaukee has collective bargaining drawn as many Wisconsin protesters into the streets. Not since the 70's has there been a decent political riot in Madison. Could we have Molotov cocktails on Mifflin street once again? One could only hope!  (not.)

What's more, the idea is spreading to other states. Wisconsin is leading the way, apparently. But to where?

This whole business is making me think about unions and what place they have in American life. They used to have a place of achieving social good. From the 1880s to the 1930s, they fought for shorter work days, child labor protections, equal pay for equal work, safe working conditions, etc., etc., all of which were reactions to capitalist excesses. And they made good headway. Too much headway, in fact. All that progress led to the Taft-Hartley act in the 1940s, to dial back the restrictive strong-armed nature of what they call the Closed Shop.

So what are unions fighting for now?  It makes a big difference whether they are private sector unions (auto workers) or public sector (government workers).  Private sector unions are fighting against job cuts and wage cuts.  Public sector unions are fighting against paying more for benefits (health insurance and pensions).  The private sector employers can (and sometimes do) go out of business if they can't get concessions from the unions.  Public sector employers can't go out of business.  They have to keep going - they're the government.  So that ultimate threat of "closing the plant" is gone.  All they have left is layoffs, and those are restricted by collective bargaining contracts.  Ever tried to get rid of an underperforming teacher who is tenured?  Forget it.

So what to do, if you're a Governor facing a ridiculously large deficit?  Raise taxes 66% like in Illinois?  Or bust the union and revert to the 1870s?  Is either extreme really necessary?

I can see the arguments for either side.  The unions now are no longer fighting for 8 hour days, minimum wages, non-discrimination, equal pay.. this stuff is all law.  They are fighting now to keep a certain standard of living for themselves.  I sympathize, dudes.  Really.  But I don't have that same luxury.  I'm lucky to have a stinkin' job at all after my last layoff.  (actually, it's a pretty good job, even though I had to settle for 13% less pay to keep working.)  I'll keep what I have, thank you very much, and accept what my employer gives me in benefits without making a fuss.   At the same time, I don't think that denying government workers collective bargaining rights just because they're government workers is the right path, either.  There's got to be a middle ground.

Catholic Social Teaching has a section on worker rights.  In Centesimus Annus, Pope John Paul II wrote,

In close connection with the right to private property, Pope Leo XIII’s encyclical also affirms other rights as inalienable and proper to the human person. Prominent among these, because of the space which the Pope devotes to it and the importance which he attaches to it, is the “natural human right” to form private associations. This means above all the right to establish professional associations of employers and workers, or of workers alone.[19] Here we find the reason for the Church’s defense and approval of the establishment of what are commonly called trade unions: certainly not because of ideological prejudices or in order to surrender to a class mentality, but because the right of association is a natural right of the human being, which therefore precedes his or her incorporation into political society. Indeed, the formation of unions “cannot..be prohibited by the State,” because “the State is bound to protect natural rights, not to destroy them; and if it forbids its citizens to form associations, it contradicts the very principle of its own existence.”

And yet, should we consider the worthy right of free association to also become an association forced on certain people, by what is known as a "closed shop", where union membership is a prerequisite to employment?  Worker's rights cut both ways.  There is no question that workers should have the right to bargain collectively.  But, an individual worker should also have the right to bargain individually.  Closed shops deny a worker that right.  Maybe what we need is the "agency shop" model?

I have to admit I have mixed emotions on this issue, and that the topic is complex.  When my son was denied the right to work because he didn't have the cash to pay his dues to the painter's union in Chicago, should I be proud of what the unions have accomplished?  Sorry.  I'm not.  But neither do I want to uniformly deny the rights of unions to exist.  I want a third way.  Collective bargaining with an opt-out provision.  Any labor union worth its salt should be willing to compete in the marketplace and provide workers some value for those hefty dues they pay... without intimidation of, and blocking the path to the time clock for, someone who wants to work for less than union wage and make their own deal on benefits.

Fair is fair.