The Wars within the Union Movement

With the exception of the re-election of President Obama, very little has gone well for the unions in 2012.  Even the re-election of Obama may mean little as the previous four years have seen administrative rulings favorable to unions, but a total zero for legislative progress.  Unions sought card check legislation which would have made the process of organizing new workers much easier, but that never went anywhere.  One would have thought the unions might have wanted to swing for the fences with a President and Congress totally in their corner from 2008-2010.  Swinging for the fences might have met amending the Taft Hartley Act to discourage right-to-work legislation at the state level. 

Aside from all this, the effectiveness of the union movement has been compromised or eroded by two very significant wars going on within the union movement.

The first is a struggle for a new identity.  When one looks at the legislative agenda of the American Labor Movement from the early 20^th Century, you cannot help but conclude that very few movements in American history have been as successful as the unions in getting their agenda enacted.  Whether it was the right to bargain collectively, the elimination of child labor, boosting workplace safety, or providing a safety net for the disabled worker, these protections came to reality because of the success and strength of the unions.

In fact, today, one could say the success of the union movement was so complete that it was literally left without a flag to fly or a cause to champion.  While I am sure such occasions have taken place, I am not aware of comprehensive union futuring taking place.  Surely, there are issues in the electronic workplace, the tightening health care markets, the nature of project work teams, and how to contact and organize the locationally indifferent workers—now 60% of the U.S. workforce, with which unions ought to be concerned.

So there is a war for identity.  What should unions stand for in the 21^st Century?

The second war within organized labor is the divergence of interests between public and private sector unions.  The growth rates are different.  Private sector unions are experiencing membership declines while public sector unions are experiencing membership increases—now to the extent that their influence is an overriding factor in national union leadership and policymaking.

There is a growing feeling among private sector unions that they have not benefitted from the ascent of the public sector unions.  For one thing, many factors drive the costs of public services, but increased labor costs in the public sector are shouldered by taxpayers, some of whom are private sector union families trying to get by in especially unsettling times.

Even though we have seen massive demonstrations where all unions stand, apparently united, for collective bargaining and workers’ rights, one would be hard pressed to show the similarities between a unionized university faculty member and a unionized ironworker, 10 stories up, in freezing weather.  Or the working conditions of a staff support executive secretary with a coal miner.  Moreover, there have been increased incidents where public sector unions have taken positions that actually hurt private sector unions.  Public sector unions, opposing the re-opening of certain mines in northern Wisconsin and Michigan’s Upper Peninsula, have contributed directly to the hurt suffered by out-of-work private sector union families.

These wildly divergent work orientations foster divergent points of view and organizational interests.  Wrapping them together in a few broad slogans and phrases is not enough glue for what the movement needs to press forward.  And they certainly are not enough to foster a vision of the 21^st Century workplace and how to protect and advance those who toil within.