North America labour unions -- what's holding them back? Why Christian unions have resistance in North America?

This article was written 3 years ago by an advocate of Christian unionization in Canada, Ray Pennings who previously worked for the Christian Labour Association of Canada in Ontario.

-- Albert Gedraitis


International Trade Unionism:

WHAT’S IT ALL FOR?


by Ray Pennings

Policy in Public
A Cardus Publication

Spring 2010 (pp 11-17) re-posted Feb11,2k13



Two major problems face any North American conversation about trade unions.  First, the very topic of unions is framed in particular ways in the North American mindset and evokes one of three responses. Some have very little time or use for unions, seeing them as limiting the free choice of workers in the marketplace to protect their own turf, protectors of the status quo that smother innovation and pull down productivity. A second subset of the population has quite an opposite perspective: Unions are necessary defenders of workers’ rights and interests in a corporatist marketplace and provide necessary protection and voice for the interests of workers—not only in the workplace, but also in public dialogue and debate. This group believes that unions are essential democratic institutions that deserve protection and promotion. And of course, there is a third perspective somewhere in the middle. Typically, polls about unions indicate that Canadians support the institution of unionism, but not many of its practices. Those in the middle react negatively to critiques of unions, even though they themselves choose not to join one. Unions seem like insurance: a necessary vehicle of protection for workers in unpleasant and difficult situations, but not one that plays a significant a role in their daily life.



Such a threefold categorization does not capture every nuance, but it reflects an important correlation:
the three different political outlooks associated with each view and the very different understanding of the nature of the institution that these [political outlooks] reflect.  The first category—that which might be described as “antiunion”—tends to work from libertarian assumptions about the functioning of the marketplace and frames economic participation, whether that be as consumers, entrepreneurs, or workers  as primarily an individual activity. The second category—which might be described as “pro-union”—tends to view unions as democratic institutions, operating within a framework of state sanction and protection,  with the task of ensuring that “rights” are protected in the course of economic activity. The third group advocates the insurance view, which is largely remedial in character.

My point here is not to mediate the differences between these commonly held perspectives but to point out that none of them understand the place and task of a trade union as an inherently economic institution. I want to suggest that the North American understanding of trade unions, common to both its critics and advocates, falls short because we do not think of this institution as an economic institution whose potential can be realized by aligning itself around economic norms and objectives. Instead, we deal with trade unions, depending on our perspective, as either political organizations concerned with rights protection or social institutions dealing with distributive issues. The second problem that a conversation about trade unions faces is that the North American labour movement is militantly secular in its philosophy and approach.  But the history of North American trade unionism is connected to social gospel influences of the early twentieth century. The continued existence of trade unions with an explicitly religious base, such as the more Catholically inspired 300,000 member Centrale des syndicats democratiques (CSD) in Quebec or the Protestant inspired 50,000 member Christian Labour Association of Canada are clearly important factors that deserve consideration. Still, these explicitly religious unions are exceptions rather than the rule in North America. The history of North American unionism is primarily a secular history driven by political ideas and expressed in the currency of power, not morality. Religiously-formed ideals relating to vocation and justice, which were part of the religiously inspired labour movements, have largely dissolved within the North American labour context.


This disappearance occurred quite early in the history of labour unions.  The ecumenical social service congress held in Ottawa in 1914, attended by both church and labour leaders, remained primarily a middle-class phenomenon. The radicalism expressed during the Winnipeg General Strike of 1919 brought to light divisions in both the church and labour movement. Although some churches—most notably the United Church of Canada—continued to work towards ecclesiastical and labour cooperation, the terms of engagement were decidedly political. In a  Fellowship for Christian Social Order 1936 publication, Eugene Forsey [a Teamsters Union leader, later apponted to the Senate of Canada for life] argued that until “Christians learn to understand and apply the lessons of Marxism they cannot enter the Kingdom of Heaven.” Neither the politics nor
the theology of this movement proved to have broad-based inspirational appeal. And so, the labour movement in Canada morphed into a middle class interest group which became adept at working within scientific management programs to protect workers. This became embedded in public policy, as
virtually every Canadian jurisdiction introduced labour legislation in the forties modeled after the adversarial premises of the American 1935 Wagner Act. Labour law primarily establishes the “rules of engagement” for industrial conflict. However, we can—and ought—to creatively rethink the nature and task of trade unionism in North America and around the globe. Three interventions in this conversation can help in that task.

First, to adequately address questions of globalization and internationalism, we must recover the ability to have public c o n v e r s a t i o n s using moral language and categories.  One of the challenges the labour movement has faced because of globalization is a lack of the moral language and categories to engage the discussion. It is relatively easy to throw around high-minded terms like “solidarity,” “social justice,” and “respect and dignity of workers”; however, in order to give those terms concrete substance that can inform action, we must have a common framework for discussion. The immediate challenges in entering this discussion—particularly for labour organizations—are obvious.


How does one reconcile free trade policies that will unarguably improve the living conditions of many in developing countries with the implication: the end of certain well-paying jobs in North America? When we deal with the wide-ranging conditions in various countries—some of which are obviously negatively impacted by decisions made locally—how do we set priorities? Do we consider every circumstance equally, with moral equivalency, regardless of how we have arrived at those circumstances?  The North American labour movement is ill equipped to address these questions.  Wanting the achievement of certain “moral” ideals in the absence of a moral framework within which to make sense of these ideals and establish priorities amounts to shallow good wishes.

Second, we need a common understanding of unions as economic institutions governed by the norm of stewardship. I already noted how union advocates in North America tend to defend unions in the context of rights. This places them as extensions of the political sphere—which in practice they are, since they primarily rely on the state sanction for their exercise of influence. Those opposed to this argue that unions represent interference in the free markets (essentially the libertarian argument for the limited state). Now lest I be misinterpreted, labour does have an appropriate role to exercise in each of these spheres; however, unions primarily operate in the economic sphere. They ought not be first about rights, redistribution, or social support. They are about stewarding human capital, ensuring that its potential is realized and a fair return on investment is provided.  Unions have an opportunity to identify and cultivate the potential of the workforce (individually and collectively), to work with other social players to find the “social place” in which workers can carry out their vocation effectively, and to ensure that workers are fairly treated, receiving just compensation for their contribution and sharing in the rewards of their investment.  Our frame of reference is important. If we view unions as economic institutions tasked with the responsibility to cultivate and steward the potential of the workforce, we must deal with workers in the context of their contribution.

The third problem for those in conversation about unions is that in the global economy, the task is global, and the labour movement needs to organize itself in different ways, with a global worldview.  North American unions, in particular, rely too heavily on a rights-based approach to labour relations and on the tools of industrial conflict to play the power game. But moral authority is derived from the contribution unions make that goes beyond the enforcement of their rights and the advancement of their self-interest. Moral authority is the kind of basis that fledgling legal regimes need to spark reform, and it is this kind of reform that is critical outside of the North American context. Legalist-minded internationalists might be cynical about weak moralism’s ability to change behaviour, but culture precedes politics, and mass mobilization of what is morally right precedes legal and political reform.   Labour unions are endowed, both morally and legally, to draw those connections outside the developed world.  International unionism needs new moments of global innovation if it hopes to transcend its narrow interest group-based work in the developed north, and penetrate into the more difficult, morally ambiguous climate of the rest. Three steps may help in this task.


First, international credibility will come from consistent domestic policy.  Again, unions are economic 
institutions designed to steward the human capital. Developing programs that assist workers in identifying their gifts and creating opportunity for that potential to be productively engaged in the economy—starting at home—is a place to start. Rather than remaining a conservative institution, defending the status quo and resisting change, unions need to become agents of innovation and creators of opportunity. Additionally, when unions deal with workers abroad, they must start from the premise that these are workers who deserve opportunity to utilize their talents, and work to find ways and social 
space to build on these talents.

Second, labour unions in North America have developed a business model which has resulted in a primary focus on membership services, delivered through the collective bargaining process.  Although unions have dedicated significant sums to organizing campaigns in new sectors and certain other programs of aid, the animating character of North American unionism is the collective bargaining process itself. If unions are going to become significant agents of in a globalized economy, they need to focus beyond their membership.

Finally, moral authority and political credibility for international unionism will come from cultivating and celebrating the value of work.  When a worker has a pride in craftsmanship and the satisfaction of being able to do meaningful work and make a real contribution, the power and purpose of
unionism can be leveraged into political and moral mandates. Only after work is given moral currency are we positioned to better ensure it receives appropriate economic rewards.

Michigan USA and the clash of owners vs monopolistic unions over paying unions dues in monopoly situations

Look at the twisted logic that journo Monica Davey (otherwise a good writer, mind you) has to employ to get the non-sense she wants out of a concept all too plain and simple for her to articulate straight up:  she speaks of legislation that will "bar workers from being required to pay union fees as a condition of employment."   The legislation won't bar workers from doing anything.  They simply won't be required to pay union dues (she calls them fees, so there may be a lot more that workers won't have to do in financially supporting unions ... do they get automatic payments that are other than dues?).  So where's the barring of workers?  The new legislation doesn't bar workers from anything.  Rather, it bars union bureaucracies from requiring workers to pay them, the unions, if said workers don't freely associate with the union and join its dues-paying members.

The whole problem here is that only one union can get into a monopoly position — that is, a coercive monopolistic hegemony over workers' representation in a given plant, company, or bargaining unit — instead of becoming just one (perhaps the largest, perhaps even a majority-of-workers representative), nevertheless one union alongside other unions freely chosen to form a plurality where each worker gets the union representation actually chosen by him or her.  Each worker has a say and gets represented by one's chosen union, however large or small, and to become a member of it, the worker pays dues.  This guarantees freedom of association, no dues-paying to a union not chosen according to that associative freedom, and lives with the most democratic system of proportional representation also in labour relations, and industrial relations more largely.

However, what the corporate owners are pushing in Michigan is equally disturbing for anyone who seeks real fairness in labour representation.  The owners don't want unions to get any money regularly from its members, their employees.  They don't want the continuity of representation that  is required by a union that does its own job well.  The owners and the right-to-work movement generally wants to wreck union representation, or they woudn't be suggesting a system where no union gets the dues it shoud get to maintain a system of shop stewards, grievances procedures, negotiated wages and benefits, and so much more that unions do.  The suggestion here is not novel, it's practiced in places all over the world: freedom of choice, no coerced members, protected balloting, pluralization of workers' representation, proportional representation, and dues-paying according to individual earnings.  No free rides need be offered to workers who don't want to join a union at all.  They do get the services of the combined unions in a pluralized-representation situation.  All that is needed is to deduct from woud-be free riders the equivalent of union dues, which woud then be forwarded to an outside charity having no connection to any labour union, from a list upon which all the represented unions and management agree, including both sectarian and non-sectarian charities that work for the common good.

Monica Davey's unfortunate circumlocution reveals the mindset that prevails among both monopoly unions and anti-union corporations.

— Albert Gedraitis


New York Times (Dec10,2k12)

Michigan labor fight 

cleaves a union bulwark

Carlos Osorio/Associated Press

Michigan House Democrats and supporters in the office of Richard E. Hammel, the Democratic leader, denouncing bills that would ban compulsory union dues.

by MONICA DAVEY

Published: December 10, 2012

LANSING, Mich. — With Democratic furor escalating and party leaders warning that Michigan was about to be plunged into lasting political discord, the state’s Republican-led Legislature was on the verge of approving new limits to unions here in the birthplace of the modern labor movement.

• Bills Placing Limits on Unions Advance in Michigan Legislature(December 7, 2012)

• The Lede Blog: Protesters Arrested Before Vote on Michigan Union Law (December 6, 2012)

Republicans said they intended to cast final votes as early as Tuesday on legislation abruptly announced last week that would bar workers from being required to pay union fees as a condition of employment, even as thousands of union members planned to protest at the state Capitol and as President Obama, visiting a truck factory outside Detroit, denounced the notion.

“You know, these so-called right-to-work laws, they don’t have to do with economics,” Mr. Obama said. “They have everything to do with politics. What they’re really talking about is giving you the right to work for less money.”

From a distance, there would seem no more unlikely a target for this fight than Michigan, where labor, hoping to demonstrate strength after a series of setbacks, asked voters last month to enshrine collective bargaining into the state Constitution.

But that ballot measure failed badly, and suddenly a reverse drive was under way that has brought the state to a moment startling in its symbolism. How the home of the United Automobile Workers finds itself close to becoming the 24th state to ban compulsory union fees — and only the second state to pass such legislation in a decade — is the latest chapter in a larger battle over the role of unions in the nation’s midsection.

It is a reflection of mounting tension between labor leaders and Michigan Republicans who took control of the state two years ago, and the result of a change of position by Gov. Rick Snyder, a political novice who had long avoided the issue because, he had said, it was too divisive. It is also an effort being closely watched — and fueled, labor leaders say — by national conservative groups who see the outcome in Michigan as an emblem for similar measures in other states with far thinner union histories.

“Everybody has this image of Michigan as a labor state,” said Bill Ballenger, the editor of Inside Michigan Politics. “But organized labor has been losing clout, and the Republicans saw an opportunity, and now the chickens are coming home to roost.”

Since the wave of Republican wins in 2010 in statehouses in the Midwest, campaigns to limit unions have boiled over in Wisconsin, Ohio, Indiana and elsewhere. But in Michigan, where Republicans also won control, those efforts had seemed more muted, with some in the party, including Mr. Snyder, shying away from the broadest, most sweeping measures.

“When you’re proposing to make changes of this magnitude in a culture that’s steeped in a long legacy involving labor, it’s going to take a long time to communicate with and educate people,” said Mike Shirkey, a Republican state representative.

Supporters of such a limit on unions, which is already the law in many in Southern and Western states, say it grants workers freedom and attracts new businesses to the state. Detractors say it lowers workers’ salaries and weakens unions. Indiana passed such a law this year, the first new state to do so since 2001.

Mr. Snyder, an accountant and venture capitalist in his first term as governor, prided himself on avoiding partisan labels and said over and over that a “right-to-work” measure was not on his agenda. “This is not Wisconsin,” Mr. Snyder told a group of union members last year as a battle over limits to collective bargaining raged in Madison.

Still, labor leaders complained that Mr. Snyder and lawmakers were harming unions in other ways: trying to prevent school districts from deducting dues from paychecks, for instance, and allowing state-appointed managers to toss out union contracts in the most financially troubled cities. Labor leaders went on the offensive, proposing the unusual ballot measure to enshrine collective bargaining rights into the state Constitution, a move Mr. Snyder opposed.

As it has throughout the country, membership in unions has fallen here in recent decades — about 17.5 percent of Michigan residents are members — and the statewide ballot proposal failed by 14 percentage points on Nov. 6 even as Mr. Obama won the state.

Read more ...

Unions disagree on legislation in Ontario — International Union of Operating Engineers wants Bill C-377 scuttled, CLAC wants the bill redrafted for privacy and constitutional concerns

Earlier we posted a discourse by an Ontario Canada union official, Mike Gallagher, business director of Local 793 of the International Union of Operating Engineers.  Gallagher oversees the finances of one of the largest construction unions in Ontario.  He wrote of his concern about Bill C-377, "An Act to Amend the Income Tax Act (Labour Organizations)" which raised the question of legislation that cut into union independence and the privacy of union employees.  At least that's how Mr Gallagher saw the situation, and it made him damn mad.  Today we notice that the Christian Labour Association of Canada has also called the Federal government into account on the proposed legislation, seeking a drastic redraft.  CLAC wants to retain "disclosure of financial information by unions to members."  That's vitally important.

— Albert Gedraitis

Hat Tip to The reformational Daily, Steve Bishop editor

CLAC (Nov26,2k12)

CLAC Calls on Ottawa to Take Control of Bill C-377

DATE: November 19, 2012

Mississauga, ON—CLAC today called on the federal government to take control of Bill C-377 by asking the sponsoring Member of Parliament to withdraw the bill and having it redrafted after review by privacy and constitutional law experts. 

CLAC laid out its position in a letter to Prime Minister Stephen Harper. 

“We support disclosure of financial information by unions to members,” says Dick Heinen, CLAC’s executive director, “but C-377 is too flawed to become law without substantial amendments. The government needs to have its legal experts review and redraft the bill and bring it back as a government initiative.

“Testimony at the Finance Committee hearings on C-377 from witnesses such as the Canadian Bar Association and the Privacy Commissioner for Canada raised considerable doubt about the constitutionality of the bill. Whatever legislation is brought back should take these parties’ concerns and suggestions into account.

“C-377 clearly requires public disclosure of private information. CLAC believes only union members and the government should have access to sensitive financial information.”