The growing difficulty that confronts the American labor movement should not only concern its immediate allies. Some of the reasons for concern are rooted in conservative and religious thought as well liberal and social democratic traditions. They also represent thinking that underlies the American constitutional system. They have to do with balance.
Wealth in America has become more concentrated in recent times. This not only creates great differences in life-styles and levels of consumption among our citizens, it has powerful effects upon the full array of our institutions: government, politics, education, religion and the arts.
From the close of WWII until the last decade of the 20th Century, the power of corporations and the wealthy was balanced by a strong voice for the public interest. This voice was expressed through politics and government, as well as through the institutions of what is called civil society. Some described this as a "countervailing power" that could contest the influence exerted by corporate and financial interests.
That term, however, may over-emphasize the adversarial nature of the relationship. While in some ways this array of public interest institutions does counteract private economic power, in other respects it complements and assists the private economy -- even protecting it from its own excesses. It helped create the rough balance in our society and economy that for more than a half century yielded unprecedented prosperity, the integration of many excluded groups into the mainstream, great improvements in access to education, and a consensus about America's role in the world that sustained us through to victory in the Cold War.
At the core of this public power has been a large and civically engaged trade union movement.
The programs and public policies that rested on this structure of public power were not always perfect: some continue to work well, others need to be changed because circumstances have changed, and some have simply proved flawed. Useful ideas for reforms have come from many quarters. But, because of the declining strength of the labor movement, it is now likely that we will see increasing bankruptcy and disintegration our social and regulatory systems, not constructive reform.
Today unions only represent some 13% of the American labor force, and only 9% of the workers in private employment are unionized. Public sector unions, which boosted labor's ranks in the 1970s and 80s, are themselves embattled. In the legislative arena, labor is on the defensive. Globalization has brought great changes to our labor market, while new technologies and business restructuring have reduced union presence. Business owners have waged costly and relentless legal and public relations campaigns against union organization, campaigns that contradict the widespread impression that workers can readily join unions when they wish to.
The intensity of these anti-union campaigns is one sign of another transforming force in our economy: the growth of what might be called corporate radicalism. Contemporary business and finance have become so fast moving and complex that established systems of government regulation and even corporate governance itself cannot keep pace. Too many aggressive corporate officials devise schemes not only to frustrate unions, but also to outmaneuver understaffed regulators, to co-opt their accountants, to mislead their stockholders, and to manipulate equities markets. On top of all this, contributions by the wealthy vastly distort our elections and legislative processes – relieving corporate radicalism of critical attention it might otherwise attract.
This is not to contend that the market system is inherently and radically wrong. But it does need clear rules, and social and government institutions with the capacity to enforce those rules. These institutions must also have the capability of assuring that the wealth the market system generates can be responsibly distributed: those who are in the productive process must receive their fair share, and those outside it must have a decent standard of living.
In modern societies, trade unions have provided the underpinnings for this market-balancing social and government authority.
The erosion of labor's influence today is therefore likely to have important consequences throughout our national life. As the term "compassionate conservatism" suggests, we are turning away from the empowerment of lower income people toward the philanthropic paternalism of a bygone age. Our society includes a vast array of non-governmental and quasi-governmental institutions – churches, universities, professional and service organizations. When labor was strong, these institutions were open to some influence from the organizations of working people themselves. Now big contributors will exercise growing influence – beyond what they already have.
For some years the power of money in our elections has been growing. Although the passage of campaign finance reform may slow and re-shape this power, it is not likely to be altered in its fundamentals. Only more far-reaching reforms can truly slow the trend toward a politics of money. Big givers are effectively blocking such reforms. Only an effective trade union movement can balance their influence.
Some contend that the decline of labor will be compensated for by the growing influence of progressive ideas in the more affluent and educated sectors of the voting public. This may to some extent be possible. But experience proves middle class and professional reform movements often to be fickle and fitful, and vulnerable to sustained pressures from the institutional forces of business and finance. Only organized labor can sustain the balance.
Whatever its shortcomings, the past half-century has been one of remarkable progress toward acceptance and opportunity for groups previously denied their place in our economic and social life. The labor movement has been central to this progress, both by assuring a measure of security and a decent standard of living to many citizens, and by providing the organizational groundwork and the legislative support for campaigns for civil rights and liberties. Many who have applauded or benefited from this support may not appreciate how much things now may change.
But the greatest change of all will be felt in the families and communities where once trade union membership was common. Health insurance, reliable retirement benefits, supplementary unemployment support, respect on the job and job security are visibly in decline. The cost of living adjustments and regular raises that went with a union card are disappearing. The impact will be felt in everything from birthrates to Little League baseball.
All who are concerned about fairness, decency and balance in American life should now give the highest priority to the survival of an effective trade union movement. Unionism must be made appropriate and attractive for new groups in the labor market. Core economic and representation issues must have a higher place on the legislative and political agenda. Young people must be encouraged to find careers in the labor movement – not because it provides an army for grand transformations, but because it provides the institutional resources and advocacy that can sustain a democratic balance in turbulent times. Academics, policy thinkers, journalists and philanthropists must re-acquaint themselves with unionism, and its positive impact.
The alternative is increasingly clear -- and alarming.
Send your comments to: info@socialdemocrats.org