ANALYSIS/OPINION:
For a quarter-century’s worth of Labor Days, assessing the status of unions has been easy. The American labor movement has been in steady decline on most fronts - losing members, losing key elections, losing legislative battles and losing bargaining strength vis-a-vis corporations.
But this Labor Day, that assessment has become more difficult. Labor’s decline is facing off with labor’s possible renewal, and it’s unclear which will win.
Should labor and its allies be rejoicing about finally turning the corner, as corporate America braces for an offensive from a revived movement whose 16 million members are done taking it on the chin? Or should labor’s foes be exchanging high-fives about having dodged the bullet, while labor mourns a missed opportunity?
Labor has some long-awaited signs of hope. Its Democratic friends now dominate Congress, and it finally was on the winning side in a presidential election. Polls show a widely held public belief that the pendulum has swung too far to the corporate side on a range of issues. Union membership figures have even edged upward two years in a row, which hadn’t happened in eons.
And yet, a gnawing frustration tempers the enthusiasm of some union activists and rank-and-file members. Their top priority, the Employee Free Choice Act, which would help in organizing new workplaces, is languishing in Congress. The new president they worked so hard to elect has found other legislative priorities to tackle. Jobs are still vanishing. And union leaders are as absent as ever from Sunday morning talk shows, where the impact of the recession on ordinary Americans is endlessly dissected by the most unordinary among us.
Though conditions are ripe for labor to make its presence felt after years in the desert, obstacles keep arising. President Obama’s focus on economic stimulus, then on the auto bailout, now on health care has helped land EFCA squarely on the back burner. Beyond a thoughtful choice for labor secretary, some trade unionists look at an administration replete with Wall Street types - and wonder whether labor’s days of being marginalized are really in the past. Teamsters President James P. Hoffa, fresh from yeoman campaign work among blue-collar voters in Ohio and Pennsylvania for Mr. Obama, finds himself distracted by an annoying dispute with the White House over Mexican trucks in the U.S.
One has to ask: If labor doesn’t make a decisive comeback now - given favorable political circumstances and economic problems that have put big business on the defensive - how will it ever reverse the vicious cycle of declining membership, dwindling bargaining clout and an inability to influence critical legislation, which has plunged it into a decades-long tailspin? The short answer is that if it can’t, it won’t.
Democrats are at political risk if the consternation of some in labor turns into a broader discontent. While media reports have focused on the more public disaffection of another key constituency - seniors upset over health care reform - few groups are more vital than labor to Democratic electoral prospects. Take away the union vote, and the 2006 and 2008 elections were a wash. Looking ahead, even a mild diminution of enthusiasm in labor’s ranks could have huge implications for 2010 and beyond.
It’s important not to overstate things. After eight years of what they regarded as the most anti-labor administration ever, union folks harbor a reservoir of good will toward this White House. And they hope - having been assured in recent private sessions - that if the president achieves health care reform, he’ll move EFCA to the forefront. But unless labor leaders can show results to their members, on what basis will they motivate and mobilize the troops for November 2010 - to beef up an already veto-proof Senate majority?
As they work their way through this conundrum of success with few tangible gains, labor leaders might consider how their own decisions contribute. Every election cycle, labor deploys its energy, treasure and volunteers to elect specific candidates, hoping for access to friendly officials willing to deliver on promises. But serving as the logistical wing of a political party through endless phone banks and canvassing and get-out-the-vote efforts is just one approach labor can take.
Another would be for labor to seize control of its own fate by making its issues and values part of the national political dialogue, part of the mix that voters hear and ponder. It could be explaining, for example, why labor-law reform is needed, because in few other industrial democracies is it as difficult for workers to form a union, or it could discuss the links between a strong labor movement and a thriving middle class, or it could outline how poorly written and poorly enforced trade deals hasten the disappearance of the manufacturing sector and the impact this has on the nation’s economy and security.
If labor promotes discussions on concepts like these, during campaigns and beyond, its agenda might be part of a postelection mandate from which politicians couldn’t easily walk away and the general public might actually understand why unions still matter. The bounce labor would get from this just might produce future Labor Days that are a bit less ambiguous.
• Philip Dine, author of “State of the Unions: How Labor Can Strengthen the Middle Class, Improve Our Economy, and Regain Political Influence,” is a Washington-based journalist and a frequent speaker on labor issues.
Please read our comment policy before commenting.