About That Elephant
Q. What’s the difference between U.S. unions and the Catholic Church?
A. The Catholic Church has more dissent. Much more.
I couldn’t agree more with Bill Fletcher’s concern. Is there a more change-averse institution in America than unions? I can’t think of one. Isn’t it true that the union crisis has unfolded in very slow motion? Hasn’t union membership been in decline for more than 30 years? Yet here we are just now getting around to a discussion that is still deeply superficial.
I couldn’t agree more with Bill Fletcher’s concern. Is there a more change-averse institution in America than unions? I can’t think of one. Isn’t it true that the union crisis has unfolded in very slow motion? Hasn’t union membership been in decline for more than 30 years? Yet here we are just now getting around to a discussion that is still deeply superficial.
How come? There are many factors involved. One of the more difficult to come to terms with is that the intellectual vitality that accompanied the growth period of unions was crushed by McCarthyism and the cold war. My goal is not to rehabilitate socialism. But it’s critical to realize that while capitalism now has global hegemony—a profoundly important shift that is far too little understood—in the U.S. union movement, capitalism won that hegemony very early on. In the process, unions became one-party states and have stayed that way ever since. They have the mechanics of democracy but not its soul.
I have an article coming out soon that discusses this problem in more detail, along with some beginning ideas about what to do about it. In it, I make a disclaimer that bears repeating here. Here’s that section:
“But the antipathy toward debate, dissent and a culture of openness, new ideas, and multiple centers of power that obtains even in a two-party system has been costly. As in the Soviet Union, the lack of robust democracy has severely restricted the ability of unions to adapt and innovate in the face of major economic and political change. It also helps explain why the current debate over labor’s future is so hidebound and so dominated by the views of a handful of “president-for-life” white men.
(Full disclosure—as a union bureaucrat for many years at a major union and a white guy to boot, I bought the one party state argument. I did my part to defend it. I was wrong.)”
The good news is that this blog, along with some other developments and conversations going on elsewhere, is beginning to let at least a few other flowers bloom. I’m glad to be involved here and I thank Josh and his team for creating this opportunity.
Advertisement
In support of that, and maybe ammo for your artical, is the competing teachers unions. They have less one party rule, better service to members and genuine bang for the buck. (Full disclosure, I worked as a UniServ Director for NEA/MSTA) It is why I personally think there are no dwonsides to the AFL-CIO split that seems to be occurring.
Another area that supports your notions of slow to change is technology. Most of the leadership talks a good line, but they are light years behind the curve, and frequently wasteful when they do spend. Ever seen a union made computer? There were (and may still be) some coming out of michigan, but they were crap and more expensive crap to boot. But hey its union made and that makes it good. It was a scam in the name of "union made."
Just waliking into the offices of the International union's around DC, the only two that impress technologically (although I have not been in them all) were the NEA, and interestingly, the Laborors International. By the time most of these guys get to the top of their union, they are in their 60's and getting a grasp of technology is real sweat for many of them.
July 8, 2005 7:46 AM | Reply | Permalink
Hit us with a little of that Catholic dissent. Just curious.
I don't think it is true that there is much more dissent within the Catholic institution in contrast to Labor. AFL-CIO is about to split, isn't it?
I'm with Polly-Anna on this one so far, but willing to listen. Lay it on me.
July 8, 2005 12:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
July 8, 2005 5:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
July 8, 2005 7:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
Economic, social and political conditions are very different today than they were back when unions were growing. Unions haven't adapted. Until we figure out why and get to a deeper argument than the proper mix of AFL-CIO resources for organizing versus politics, the decline will continue.
One of the reasons, I believe, that unions are change averse is that they are hierarchical and intolerant of new ideas and new leadership. Call me a born again small d democrat if you will--I plead guility one more time. I think that a culture of vigorous, deep, civil and respectful debate about ideas is a good and healthy thing. At the risk of repeating myself, not having had that for several decades has been costly to organized labor.
By way of illustration and referencing another post, it's fine that Jerry Tucker is espousing ideas about fixing what's wrong with the labor movement. But he is not espousing them as a member of the executive board of the UAW, which for a brief period he was. How come? Because he was viewed as a mortal threat by the UAW "establishment" and considerable effort was devoted to deposing him from that postiion, that's why.
Specifically regarding Catholic dissent, there are significant and well known "big idea" disputes among Catholics regarding marriage for priests and nuns, liberation theology and birth control. These arguments engage many among the Catholic rank and file. I don't see comparable disputes within US unions.
Finally, I'm glad Andy Stern started a change-to-win conversation and I've said so before. But step back a minute--after 30 plus years of relentless decline, doesn't it say something that it took so long? Where would Kodak be today if they had decided they could wait until, say 2025, to see if film sales would come back strong once this new fangled digital fad wore off?
And doesn't Andy's argument these days presume that the AFL-CIO "reforms" he helped lead back in 1995 have proven inadequate? Do we really want to make inadequate reforms again?
July 9, 2005 8:14 AM | Reply | Permalink