POLITICS SEPTEMBER 6, 2010
-
Read Later
READ LATERAvailable only to subscribers. SUBSCRIBE TODAY
-
Listen
ARTICLE AUDIO
- Font Size

Washington—Watching the great civil rights march on television in August 1963, I couldn't help but notice that hundreds carried signs with a strange legend at the top: "UAW Says." UAW was saying "Segregation Disunites the United States," and many other things insisting on equality.
This "UAW" was a very odd word to my 11-year-old self and I asked my dad who or what "U-awe," as I pronounced it, was. The letters, he explained, stood for the United Auto Workers union.
It was some years later when I learned about the heroic battles of the UAW, not only on behalf of those who worked in the great car plants but also for social and racial justice across our society. Walter Reuther, the gallant and resolutely practical egalitarian who led the union for many years, was one of Martin Luther King Jr.'s close allies.
Remembering that moment is bittersweet on a Labor Day when so many Americans are unemployed, when wages are stagnant or dropping, and when the labor movement itself is in stark decline.
Only 12.3 percent of American wage and salary workers belong to unions, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, down from a peak of about one-third of the work force in 1955. A movement historically associated with the brawny workers in auto, steel, rubber, construction, rail, and the ports now represents more employees in the public sector (7.9 million) than in the private sector (7.4 million).
Even worse than the falling membership numbers is the extent to which the ethos animating organized labor is increasingly foreign to American culture. The union movement has always been attached to a set of values—solidarity being the most important, the sense that each should look out for the interests of all. This promoted other commitments: to mutual assistance, to a rough-and-ready sense of equality, to a disdain for elitism, to a belief that democracy and individual rights did not stop at the plant gate or the office reception room.
You might accuse me of being a union romantic, and in some ways I am, having grown up in a union town, loved the great union songs, and imbibed such novels about labor's struggles as John Steinbeck's fine and underrated "In Dubious Battle."
So, for the record, I am fully aware of the union movement's failures. I recognize that certain unions became corrupt and others were decidedly undemocratic, that some union contracts proved excessive, and that "solidarity" could turn into intimidation.
Yet these problems get more than ample attention, while labor's achievements go largely unmentioned. The hugely constructive contributions of Reuther (or Sidney Hillman or Eugene V. Debs) are barely noted in standard renditions of U.S. history. Few Americans under 35 have much direct experience with unions. When the word "union" appears in the media these days, it is typically invoked in stories about teachers resisting school reform or the pension costs burdening local governments.
All but forgotten is the fact that our nation's extraordinary prosperity from the end of World War II to the 1970s was in significant part the result of union contracts that, in words the right-wing hated Barack Obama for saying in 2008, "spread the wealth around." A broad middle class with spending power to keep the economy moving created a virtuous cycle of low joblessness and high wages.
Between 1966 and 1970, as Gerald Seib pointed out last week in The Wall Street Journal, the United States enjoyed an astonishing 48 straight months in which the unemployment rate was at or below 4 percent. No, the unions didn't do all this by themselves. But they were important co-authors of a social contract that made our country fairer, richer and more productive.
There are many complicated reasons why these arrangements broke down, but I do not see things getting substantially better unless we find ways of increasing the bargaining power of wage-earners—precisely what Reuther and his fellowship dedicated their lives to doing.
Beth Shulman, a writer, lawyer and union leader who died of cancer earlier this year at the age of 60, called our indifference to those who labor for low wages "The Betrayal of Work," the title of her classic 2003 social portrait of our time. Whatever else they achieve, the unions remind us of the dignity of all who toil, whatever their social position, color or educational attainments. We should miss labor's influence more than we do.
E.J. Dionne, Jr. is is a Washington Post columnist, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution, and a professor at Georgetown University. He is the author of, most recently, Souled Out: Reclaiming Faith and Politics After the Religious Right.
(c) 2010, Washington Post Writers Group
3 comments
Indeed there's a lot of union bashing, and it became especially fashionable with St. Ronnie. In yesterday's "Wall Street Journal Sunday" section of our local Sunday paper business section, there was an article about unions and it had some surprising observations in favor of unions (which surprised me being a WSJ article). Basically it said that, first, France, with it's fractious labor issues, is even less unionized than the US. The other surprising observation was that countries with heavy union participation (Scandinavian countries and Germany for example) have economies that are vastly outperforming ones like the US/France with low union membership. Closer to home, he compares heavily unionized UPS to FedEx, and how UPS has outperformed FedEx; another example is Southwest, a heavily unionized airline that does quite well. http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Unions-Can-Be-a-Good-Thing-or-wallstreet-1693393721.html And I'm sure I'll now hear 200 reasons why these conclusions are wrong and how unions are evil. Last I checked the unions don't run the company and the execs still not only call the shots but are richer than ever while firing hordes of workers. It takes two to tango, and unions may be corrupt but unions did not wreck global economies the last 2 years (nor caused the S&L crisis, nor the dot com implosion, or the LTCM fiasco, etc. etc.)
- tnmats
September 6, 2010 at 2:49pm
I read this yesterday in Investors Business Daily.
- CRS9TNR
September 6, 2010 at 3:46pm
The left remembers the great days of organized labor; per Dionne 1946-70. I would place the start date earlier, in the 30's. That they made an enormous contribution to the country in those years this Republican --old enough to remember much of it--has no doubt. What happened? In my view, globalization, which I view as inevitable and inexorable, has gutted the great industrial unions. In the quarter century after WWII, we found ourselves, first, as the only industrial power not destroyed by the war, and second, with oligopolistic great industries that were minimally impacted by labor demands. Post-1970, our advantages began to wane rapidly, and the first victims were industries that could no longer offer quality advantages and were increasingly at a disadvantage on wage structures. That has been a continuing theme. What can labor leaders in the industrial unions urge in the face of world-wide facts? Protectionism and a diminution of nationwide solidarity. For labor, it's no longer we're all in this together; it's sauve qui peut. May be sad, but understandable. Legislative achievements have also had the peculiar effect of diminishing the power of organized labor's universal message. Safety issues; we have OSHA. Discrimination issues; we have a battery of laws in place. We're back to wage issues (mining conspicuously excepted). Some of the old agenda has been fulfilled. The recent growth in organized labor has been in government; particularly state and local government. That segment is now under great political pressure: their wages appear to be at least comparable to the private sector, their benefits currently look better and more stable, and their pensions currently look extravegent. We shall see what is to come. As concerns teachers, I have mixed feelings. On the one hand, they often appear to defend indefensible members of their profession. On the other hand, all of the failures of our youth appear to be dropped on their heads. Family contributions to academic failure are explained away. Nobody asks whether the teacher's function has changed from pedagogue to zookeeper or rescue worker. Some look to Europe to defend the continuing relevance of organized labor, particularly to Germany. My impression, which may be incorrect, is that Germany's success is based principally on producing high quality products, which command a price premium, where labor costs are not competitive outcome-determinative. The record in the rest of the EU is far less clear. My view of the future is cloudy. I think America's economic future will be heavily dependent on entrepeneurial development of new industries. Whether American workers produce the products our entrepeneurs conceive will depend on whether our country can produce superior workers to produce those goods. Time will tell.
- lsernoff
September 6, 2010 at 8:29pm