Unions

In response to a poll done by a Christian magazine, a retired clergyman who was also a long-time member of a union stated that “unions have done more to help the working[person] than our churches could ever do.” But another pastor, who was also a former mechanic, was much less generous in his response: “Unions go to any extent to hold power” (“Christians on the Picket Line,” p. 27). This diversity is typical of Christians today who, in spite of common principles and worldviews, see trade unions in various lights and make decisions concerning their involvement with unions accordingly. To help Christians deal with this conflict, this article will evaluate the modern-union worldview, which union leaders claim is characterized by justice, according to the biblical standard of justice.

Evolution of the Union Worldview

Unions are controversial bodies, as are the methods that they employ. The worldview of the labor movement itself is shaped by its history of dealings with employers, governments and the courts; its perceived mandate as an agent of social change and its acceptance of the adversary system as its best form of protection.

In the 1860s American unions began to organize Canadian workers. Some of these groups attempted to base their objectives and practices on Judeo-Christian principles. The Knights of Crispin, for instance, drew their name and inspiration from a third-century nobleman, Saint Crispin, who gave up his privileged position to work among the boot makers of France and Italy. That union soon folded but was succeeded by the Knights of Labor, founded in 1869 by Uriah Stevens, who studied for the Baptist ministry. The Knights of Labor saw as their task to “Make industrial and moral worth, not wealth, the true standard of individual and national greatness.” In the 1880s the Knights were one of the two dominant grassroots movements among the working class in Ontario, the other being the Salvation Army. Each organization was an outlet for strong religious convictions of members of the laboring class of the day. The editor of the Knight’s principal newspaper, for instance, took the view that “the doctrines of Jesus Christ the carpenter—who would have been called a tramp and a Communist had he lived in these days—if applied to the present conditions would solve the question satisfactorily” (Marks, pp. 103-4). The Knights of Labor eventually disappeared from the North American scene, to be supplanted by more secular counterparts.

While early union leaders could be characterized more as social reformers than militant organizers with fat contracts in view, as idealists with lofty visions and compassion for the truly exploited and as fighters for changes that the most right-wing among us today would support, no corresponding chord of Christian charity could be discerned among the employers whose abuses they addressed or the legislatures and courts that rushed to the owners’ aid. Unions eventually learned to respond in kind.

The history of unionism in the nineteenth and through much of the twentieth century in North America is marked by fierce, even ferocious, resistance on the part of employers to any attempts by unions to interfere with their preferred style of management and employee relations. But in the mid-1930s in the U.S. a series of dramatic strikes against Ford and General Motors and against U.S. and Bethlehem Steel led to the arrival of trade unions as successful advocates for workers regarding wages, hours and working conditions. A boom in union membership ensued, although it has waned in recent years. It was only in 1936 in the U.S. and in 1944 in Canada that workers were finally granted the right to organize and bargain collectively without employer interference.

The Union Movement’s View of Its Mandate

In describing its priorities and values, labor stakes out the moral high ground. In fact, many union leaders see themselves and their unions as taking the leadership in ensuring that justice is done in our society despite the best efforts of corporations and governments to subvert and exploit vulnerable individuals and groups. This concern goes well beyond bread-and-butter issues such as wages and working conditions. The Canadian Labour Congress (CLC), for instance, believes that such matters as child poverty, health care, education, equality of men and women, child care, unemployment and other political and social issues fall within its mandate (White, p. 38). Its definition of a morally just society, of course, does not necessarily employ a traditional Judeo-Christian understanding of morality. This is evident from CLC criticism of the largely Christian women’s organization REAL (Realistic, Equal, Active, For Life) Women. The CLC attacked REAL Women because they “purport to represent the women of Canada although they wish to deny rights to lesbians, homosexuals, feminists, [and] pro-choice advocates” (“Canadian Labour Congress,” p. 9).

Unions and Adversarialism

Beyond considerations of the proper mandate of the labor movement, trade unions see themselves as being in a disadvantaged position vis-à-vis the employer and the government. Unions fear that without the right to strike as protection from the arbitrary use of employer power, the individual worker is highly vulnerable to exploitation. The late Tommy Douglas, the first socialist to head a government in North America and a Baptist minister, defined the nature of the relationship of workers with their managers as follows: “The essence of industrial relations is conflict. It is a confrontation in which the workers through their collective power seek to wrest from the employer what they deem a fair share of the wealth they helped to create” (Douglas, p. 11). Industrial relations scholar Jack Barbash agrees: “Conflict in industrial relations, or more often the threat of it, far from being pathological or aberrant, is normal and even necessary. The principle is that the parties can be kept `honest’ only by countervailing checks and balances” (Barbash, p. 131).

Nevertheless, two schools of thought have developed in recent years within the union movement. One argues that the highly competitive international situation requires unions to work together with employers in a partnership that embraces teamwork, total quality management, even profit sharing and jointly managed retraining programs. The second and more dominant position rejects the notion of worker-initiated ways of improving the competitive capacity of employers. Such initiatives are viewed as ultimately requiring harder work for less pay and the concession of workplace rights.

A Biblical Critique of the Union Worldview

The early Christian influence on the labor movement has clearly waned to the point at which many Christians have a personal problem with any involvement with a union. Others have no difficulty with union membership and urge Christians to become more involved. What follows is an attempt to critique the union understanding of justice because it is on the basis of the pursuit of justice that unions chose many of their objectives and tactics.

Biblical justice. Biblical justice has a particular concern for those on the margins of society, the vulnerable and exploitable, and is not prepared to ignore them in the pursuit of some cause, however important to the person in a position of power (Jeremiah 22:13-17). The biblical understanding of justice includes an extra component beyond dispassionate fairness. It is often characterized as love in action. Words such as righteousness, love and compassion are often found together with justice in describing God’s dealings with humanity (for example, Psalm 89:14; Jeremiah 9:24; Hosea 12:6; Luke 11:42). The biblical perspective on economic life is shot through with the idea of just relationships and objectives. Economic pursuits are never to include the exploitation of another’s weakness or ignorance. Material goods are to be viewed as gifts from God and to be used in the development of a society characterized by economic justice and balance. Life is not one of self-indulgence or self-interest but of concern for raising up the vulnerable, enabling them to live a meaningful life, even at the expense of one’s own self-interest.

Unions and justice. On the surface justice would appear to be a major preoccupation of labor unions, especially in their many pronouncements about their concern for the vulnerable members of society, whom they feel are open to exploitation by either big business, big government or the courts. But while the trade union movement has to a certain extent included notions of justice within its stated objectives, it has ignored a number of other instances in which it could be accused of unjust practices of its own. Justice in reality is reserved for the union members themselves, too often without sufficient regard for those who might be exploited or ignored while the union is pursuing its objectives. This could include a weak employer whose livelihood is sacrificed by a powerful national union pursuing a master contract for a total industry, which many smaller employers in that industry could not afford. Innocent third parties are frequently inconvenienced and even genuinely harmed by such job action as strikes by teachers, health-care workers, postal workers and so on.

So-called fairness that only benefits union members in accord with the majority of the union, while ignoring others who might not benefit or who in fact may lose as a result of union success, is not justice at all, at least not in the biblical sense. Such justice lacks its sister values of love and reconciliation. What we are really seeing is a form of utilitarianism; that is, that which benefits the greatest number, with the minority, who are affected by the union’s actions but not benefiting from them, losing out.

Justice and worker independence. It is precisely in this area of biblical justice, however, that a strong case can be made for one of the union movement’s most important contributions—worker independence. Workers, if they are to realistically expect just treatment at the hands of employers, need the kind of protection that unions provide.

The Bible is quite realistic with respect to the issue of exploitation. It takes for granted that individuals in a more powerful position will inevitably exploit those weaker or more vulnerable than themselves, even within the ranks of the church. Thus, while the authority of church leaders was to be acknowledged and respected by church members (1 Tim. 5:17; 1 Peter 5:2), church leaders had to be warned not to take advantage of their positions to enrich themselves or to abuse their authority (1 Peter 5:2-3). Similar warnings of abuse were issued to husbands vis-à-vis wives (Ephes. 5:21-28; Col. 3:18-19; 1 Peter 3:7), parents in their relationship with their children (2 Cor. 12:14; Ephes. 6:4; Col. 3:21) and masters as they supervised their employees or slaves (Ephes. 6:9; Col. 4:1). In the Judeo-Christian tradition those in a dependent or vulnerable position have the right to expect just treatment and to be protected from exploitation, and those in a position of authority are never to exercise that authority in a self-interested fashion, but with a view to accomplishing just objectives.

Recent studies in the United States have clearly shown that workers lacking union membership have experienced exploitation that might not have occurred with the protection unions provide. Trends identified by the respected Business Week journal have included productivity rising faster than the wages of the increasingly productive employees; real wages of workers actually falling, especially in industries experiencing deunionization; executive pay rising at a breathtaking clip; and owners of capital realizing gains on their investments triple that of wage increases during the same period (Bernstein, pp. 70-82). Consequently, even hard-line opponents of American labor such as Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) have said: “There are always going to be people who take advantage of workers. Unions even that out, to their credit. . . . If you didn’t have unions, it would be very difficult for even enlightened employers to not take advantage of workers on wages and working conditions because of [competition from] rivals” (Bernstein, p. 70).

Conclusion

As I said at the beginning, unions are controversial bodies. Common criticisms cited are that unions abuse their right to strike and pursue their objectives without regard for their impact on vulnerable parties. Others praise union accomplishments when they parallel Christian objectives. From a Christian perspective one must be concerned with any organization that claims to pursue just goals either through unjust means or with a corrupted view of justice. Involvement in such organizations presents the challenge of assessing both union means and ends from a thoroughly biblical worldview and deciding how one will respond.

» See also: Conflict Resolution

» See also: Management

» See also: Organization

» See also: Power

» See also: Strikes

» See also: Technology

» See also: Trades

» See also: Work

References and Resources

J. Barbash, The Elements of Industrial Relations (Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1984); A. Bernstein, “Why America Needs Unions but Not the Kind It Has Now,” Business Week, 23 May 1994, 70-82; “Canadian Labour Congress (CLC) Opposes REAL Women,” Reality 10, no. 4 (1992) 9; “Christians on the Picket Line,” Faith Today (September-October 1989) 27-32; T. C. Douglas, “Labor in a Free Society,” in Labor Problems in Christian Perspective, ed. J. H. Redekop (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1972) 11-13; L. Marks, “The Knights of Labor and the Salvation Army: Religion and Working Class Culture in Ontario,” Labour/Le Travail 28 (1991) 89-127; R. White, “Labor’s Political Goal: Defeat Corporate Agenda,” Canadian Speeches: Issues of the Day 6, no. 5 (1992) 41.

—John R. Sutherland