Good article in yesterday's Guardian about anti-unionism and its effects on African American communities.
Unlike issues such as abortion and immigration, which are basically just talking points used by politicians to get votes, labor unions are something about which Congress and the corporate sector do in fact feel quite strongly. As a result, anti-unionism in the United States can boast much success, with membership in almost perpetual decline, especially as of the 1980s.
Somewhere between presidents Carter and Reagan, the assault on labor went into high gear. "At virtually every level, I discern a demand by business for docile government and unrestrained corporate individualism," said union leader Douglas Fraser, in his resignation letter from Carter's Labor-Management Group. "Where industry once yearned for subservient unions, it now wants no unions at all."
Just this past June, the Supreme Court ruled 5-4 against non-union workers paying "fair share" fees to public-sector unions, a major setback to organized labor. This was merely the latest measure in the decades-long drive against unions, to weaken them with an eye toward obliteration.
Of course, anti-unionism is not unique to this country. In just about any system of governance—democracies, monarchies, dictatorships—you will historically find labor organization at the least begrudgingly tolerated, at the most violently suppressed. And the reason is easily inferred: unions represent workers, which make up most of a given population. Ideally, they offer a voice and leverage against industrial and corporate forces whose interests are in opposition to labor's. This is, to say the least, not a new story.
That one of the side-effects of anti-unionism is that it weakens black communities will be viewed by some as an added bonus. This is another case of hoping white America will support legislation harmful to the working class in general—such as tax breaks to corporations—because otherwise "they" stand to benefit. This is tantamount to encouraging white workers to "take one for the team." The problem, however, is that there is no team—just the taking. If one stocks shelves at Walmart or is a teller at Chase Bank, then the executive officers and board members at those organizations are hardly on your team.
Like the word "welfare" (see here, New York Times, Aug. 6), efforts have been made to charge the word "union" with negative connotations. Now in my mid-forties, I have for decades heard both these terms used derogatorily, among (mostly white) blue and white collar groups. I am not surprised, but saddened, when it occurs in affluent groups, though I am always surprised (though perhaps shouldn't be) as well as saddened when I hear it voiced by working class people.
Nevertheless, public approval of unions sits at the typical 60 percent, the figure one routinely encounters in opinion polls concerning the vast majority of political issues. As with many facets of American political life, the three-fifths either votes against its interests, or lets the two-fifths make the decisions.
There is a disconnect between what we want and what we get and/or vote for. Redressing the disconnect will require speaking up, and unions are a vital tool in such an endeavor. Unions are inherently democratic institutions, and the state they are in reflects the state of that democracy.
