ABSTRACT Unions are often viewed as a relic of the past, and responsible for bringing life-saving labor laws to the forefront of our country at a time when it was needed most – a phase, a necessary one, but a phase nonetheless. They existed to improve working conditions. Today, as unions have a fraction of the power they once held, they find themselves staring at the workforce of the average middle class American – they share many similarities. Less numbers, smaller group, less powerful. Through a technique called “social justice unionism”, the unions and the workers can create a new labor movement and save the middle class, the economy, and the United States – maybe even the world from economic collapse.
Saving and Partnering
The biggest aspect of unions and their survival is that they are required to perform a service to their members to stay around. Unions aren’t free – they require dues to be paid, to handle administrative costs and handle issues that workers have. They need to be paid for their services. In return, unions are expected to represent the workforce in a unified way that they couldn’t do without the union. For a time, this worked well – industries in manufacturing had plenty of union presence and the biggest unions, like the Teamsters, became household names. Somewhere along the line something happened – unions stopped gaining so much ground, and stopped bringing large changes to the fore. Companies began to modify policy that would make some aspects of a union pointless. Where I work, there’s an open door policy – any employee is able to engage with a member of management without the need of a union representative or agent and air any grievances. Institutions like OSHA have made it a law to keep our workplace safe. Suddenly, unions weren’t as vital as they once were. Yet, as we let them go, and embraced corporate solutions, the middle class began to shrink. We began to lose our burgeoning driving force in the economy. Now, in the wake of the 2008 recession, unions and the middle class can save each other if they partner up. Don’t however, confuse the two for each other’s same exact blight – one is a symptom of the other. As the middle class shrinks and struggles and shrinks even more, unions fight the same fight. As Fletcher and Gapasin (2011) put it, it’s a class struggle. As we fight for our place in the world above the poverty line, government isn’t helping. In places like Michigan, where at will employment laws have left workers more vulnerable than ever before, corporations are holding all the cards. Employees can be fired for no reason given – provided it isn’t a violation of someone’s civil rights. Just like an employee is able to walk away, employers can fire them. It’s not just about money either – Beth Malinowski (2015) argues that economic status is closely tied with health (both in the body and mind) – “unions address physical and psychological conditions of work and the underlying inequalities and social determinants of health.” It’s not even just about economic status and health – it’s also about social justice. The United Farm Workers of America had this vision once – “for human dignity and justice” (Feller, 2014, p. 206). So then, how do we save the middle class, save our minds, our bodies, and our moral fortitude? How do we save the unions? With a labor movement, and one that focuses on using unions to bring about social justice. This will require, as Kohler and Jiminez (2015) put it, “Profound change in union culture and organization.” Thomas Geoghegan argues that the unions need to focus on target labor markets – just like in the halcyon days of steel and coal (2014). He then goes on to state that nurses are perfect for such an endeavor – they are a skilled, and due to high demand for nurses everywhere, they are not easily replaced – therefore they must be bargained with if they chose to organize and collectively pursue better workplaces and wages for themselves and their patients. Nurses are primarily made up of middle class workers – they are honest people that want the best for their patients. Their advantage is that they have what most middle class workers don’t – a solid education and a labor set that is skilled. They are also uniquely primarily female – now, put down your social justice mindset and relax. Even Yates gets it – he states that they lack the specifically male mindset of “I don’t need a union, I can do it myself” (2009). So let’s say that the nurses organize and they make the middle class that much better – but what about the rest of the world? Sure, nurses are numerous enough in the United States and could get something started, but what about the rest of us on Earth? We don’t have enough nurses everywhere to unionize – and different cultures means different issues and needs. This is where the unions meet their second challenge – after they save the middle class, or help to save it, they must next partner with government. Government is the only thing keeping and allowing firms from moving their capital and means of production to other locations to avoid laws that restrict their methods that may be less than morally correct. We all know how manufacturing is dying in the United States due to cheaper labor being found elsewhere. Developing countries have less than stellar regulations and require less protections for their laborers and citizens. The only thing that can protect the labor movement and ensure a global presence is to escalate to the governmental level and cause movements to be taken to elected officials. The key is to make the people’s struggle the struggle of the average politician. Of course, since historically, government at best pays lip service to labor, this is why the middle class is so important – make the middle class care about labor again, care about getting better economic status, (as they already do – this is why Bernie Sanders is so popular right now) and suddenly unions and labor will be able to thrive again.
Negatives and Struggles Unions also present problems to their workers – as of course, with anything ever, there are cons. Unions require a few hard truths that don’t always sound the best when spoken plainly. Some view them as socialist and anti-capitalist – and undeniably, they’re right. When a government is forced to intervene on behalf of a party in a business transaction, true capitalism is lost. Others argue that the unions are a good idea in theory, but in reality they only focus on themselves and not helping the common worker as they so claim to do – as Hirsch (2013) states, they are “beginning to act with the kind of minimal unity that typified corporate behavior throughout the postwar period.” Unions now more than ever tend to focus not on gaining new membership or pursuing other labor sectors – but instead try to make it work for their members, and have an attitude of “well, they aren’t with us, so they can shove it” (Yates, 2009). Even still, more negatives rise – and some are barely known. Take for example, arbitration. Some businesses engage in a process called arbitration – where the parties waive the ability to go to court and instead solve the issues that may arise via a third party that will hear both sides and decide – so called an arbiter. The idea was decided legally in the year 1960, when the Supreme Court ruled that arbitration was indeed legal. At the time, the concern was over contract law – between two parties, and in a series of famous cases dubbed “The Steelworkers Trilogy”. However, the Supreme Court never dreamed that arbitration could be turned against the common man via employment contracts – and that’s exactly what’s happening now (Hodges, 2014, p. 1682-1683). If either side feels it necessary, rather than taking a violation to court to solve issues, as we’ve done since the founding of the country, the two parties will instead solve things outside of the law. Of course, it’s held down by the law – you’ve legally agreed to abide by the arbiter’s decision. Arbitration is a very scary process if you aren’t aware of how it can be abused. Often, the corporation that wants the arbitration clause in the first place selects the arbitration firm – fairness is almost impossible. If unchecked, arbitration can bury us all. Of course, there’s the biggest, most common one that people cite when they are trying to be anti-union. It’s the one my employer cites when it’s trying to scare us into making sure unions stay very far away from our business. When consent is given by an employee to a union to represent them, they are waiving their rights to collectively bargain elsewhere or speak for themselves in terms of the employee/employer relationship. In essence, you’ve surrendered your voice and now the union has it – you’re trusting them to speak for your interests. One need only remember the famous cases of the Teamsters, or John F. Kennedy famously calling them out for corruption and greed to understand why such things would be said. The ties between labor unions and the mafia are the stuff of legend. It’s the gamble we all take when we decide to join a union, if we do – “do I trust you to take care of me?” Ultimately, this falls on the head of the person that’s deciding whether or not to sign that card. Like most things American, it’s up to each individual person. Of course, as Americans, we also like to make sure our voices are heard. Even if we are a whisper compared to the giant corporation in front of us.
Conclusion Labor Relations, that is, how to handle unions and deal with them effectively, be it working alongside them, for them, or against them, requires an understanding of what they can and cannot do, and more importantly, what they can help accomplish. Peter Waterman says it best: “Social Movement Unionism offers a continuously renewable emancipatory strategy surpassing current liberal, populist, and socialist ones” (1993). Unions do more than get better rates and perks for their members – they can be used to bring about social change. That’s not a new idea, either – Pope Leo XIII argued for it way back in 1891, via the encyclical “Rerum Novarum”, or “Rights and Duties of Capital and Labor”. Plainly summarized, if one can do that in one sentence, Leo argued that unions are a tool to bring about social change – and urged the church to make sure that change was positive. Unions can make lives better. Unions can also end arbitration – by partnering with government and people alike, unions can be the bridge that allows the people to be represented to those that are supposed to represent them. Finding the balance between arbitration and legal process is a new tinderbox for us to light. As it’s put in Workplace Justice without Unions, “Achieving a balance has critical implications for the performance of our economy, the success of individual organizations, and the well-being of individual employees and their families” (Wheeler, Klass, Mahoney, 2004, p.160). As workers and employees struggle to find the balance, so too, do managers. Managers have a unique position – they must use their best judgement at all times. There is no common path – no formula to dealing with managers. The companies, the large firms, will lie to you – they’ll say that the best way is to scorch the earth and let the employees speak for themselves. However, if the workers want to speak as one, together, we have a problem. It’s been a difficult journey in this class. I entered expecting a history and explanation of why unions are gone and I got that – except it wasn’t as simple or as bright as I thought. Unions didn’t fade away, they were systematically made irrelevant by both themselves and by corporations slowly undermining them. Once the unions were gone, wages lowered, unemployment rose, and few benefited. It is with a somewhat bewildered tone that I must state it – we need unions. The same way the government needs three branches, we need three branches of employment. The Firms, the Employees, and the Unions.