8-Labor
'Still the most democratic' By Msgr. George G. Higgins
The American labor movement has little to cheer about this Labor Day. Even of the political and economic climate unexpectedly improves and the administration's handling of the air controllers' strike paradoxically redounds to labor's advantage, the movement would still have serious problems, at least in the short run. Like all our major institutions, the labor movement is beset by a crisis of identity and credibility which only the painful process of self-criticism and internal renewal can resolve. I'm confident labor can undertake this process on its own. However, some academic critics believe internal renewal is impossible and eventually labor will have to come to them for a solution. They apparently would have unions forsake democratic procedures and consult outsiders rather than their own members. An extreme example of this elitist approach was a recnt article by Douglas McCabe, assistant professor of industrial and labor relations at Georgetown University's School of Business Administration. McCabe argued that "it is useless for the rank and file to .hope that its present leadership will become statesmen of unionism." He urged the labor movement to begin all over again, and he recommended two immediate steps. The first is "the drafting of a declaration of American labor philosophy, just as the Declaration of Independence codified the American political philosophy."
The second step is "to draft proper union constitutions adequate for implementing the principles in the declaration of American labor philosophy, just as the Constitution implements the political philosophy of the Declaration of Independence." Who will draft these documents? The dues-paying membership, acting democratically through their duly elected leaders? No way. "Unlike colonial America," McCabe said, "unionism today has no founding fathers in its ranks - willing and able to do the job; the rank and file can't do it in a bootstrap operation." The job requires creation of "an institute of labor philosophy staffed by three types of individuals: union officials, appointees of the U.S. Secretary of Labor and academic experts." Academia has produced dozens of similar articles in the past 40 years. Typically they are condescending, but Professor McCabe's piece takes the prize. The article's contempt for labor leaders and the intelligence of the rank and file are apparent, while its lack of confidence in the democratic process almost defies belief. McCabe's confidence in the superior wisdom of "academic experts" as opposed to "powerhungry" union leaders is too self-serving to be taken seriously. There must be men and women in academia who know better than to believe that academicians are as smart and labor leaders as stupid as he has made them out to be. I don't wnt to start a fight
with McCabe. My purpose in citing his article is merely to suggest that this kind of criticism is counterproductive. Both the rank and file and their leaders will scornfully reject criticism of this sort. They know perfectly well that the labor movement has problems and that they need the help of objective outside experts. But academicians who want to help the labor movement must, above all, understand that representative democracy is the very essence of a free labor movement. Despite its limitations, the American labor movement stiU fits this category. Its democratic procedures are admittedly imperfect and even sometimes violated, but it is still the most democratic of all our major institutions, including our educational institutions. This is something for academicians to think about on .labor's national holiday.
Human dignity "Human dignity is not an abstract or ethereal reality. It is realized in the concrete conditions of personal, social, economic and political life - conditions which are defined by human rights. Throughout Catholic social teaching, these rights are presented as a kind of base line - a set of minimum conditions of material well-being which must be met if human dignity is to be protec:ed." - From the Labor Day message of the U.S. Catholic Conference
Let's Honor The Working People ... Our Nation's Life Source!
UNITED FOOD & COMMERICAL WORKERS UNION LOCAL 1325 291 McGowan Street Fall River, Massachusetts 02723 John J. Barron, President Louis Spetrini, Executive President Noe Gouveia, Secretary-Treasurer
..l.
Labor Day WASHINGTON (NC)-Carrying on a tradition begun by labor advocate Msgr. George G. Higgins, the U.s. Catholic Conference Office of Domestic Social Development has issued u Labor Day statement. It said efforts to solve the present economic crisis could provide the opportunity to build a more just society. Msgr. Higgins, who retired from the usce in September 1980 after 36 years, had issued an annual Labor Day statement for more than 30 years. The Office of Domestic Social Development will continue the tradition. There is a sense of crisis in the nation, along with willingness to try new approaches and to seek new solutions, the 1981 Labor Day statement said, touching on a broad range of labor-related issues. "We must decide, in effect, the very identity of our society." Noting that this year is the 100th anniversary of the American labor movement and a major anniversary of three papal encyclicals on social and economic issues, the statement declared that the foundation of all Catholic social teaching is the dignity of the human person and the common good. It cited as evidence the three encyclicals: "Rerum Novarum" (1891), "Quadragesimo Anno" (1931) and "Mater et Magistra" (1961). Current budget and tax cuts constitute one of the largest redistributions of wealth and income in America's history, from low and moderate income families to the wealthy, according to the social development office statement. "These Congressional actions on budget cuts and tax cuts are important in themselves, but in a larger sense, they are extremely significant because of what they symbolize - a dramatic shift in our commitment as a nation to use government policies as tools for building a more equitable and just society, a substantial retreat from路 our common goal of providing a minimally adequate standard of living for all our citizens," it added. "Do we want a government that is a protector and promoter of human dignity and human rights, a government that guarantees that people in the richest nation on earth do not go without adequate income, employment, food, housing, medical care and other basic necessities of life, a government that helps to achieve greater equality?" said the statement. "Or do we want a government that is a protector of the wealthy and a producer of greater inequality - a government of the rich, by the rich and for the rich?" the statement asked. Specifically, "it is appropriate in the context of this Labor Day statement to call attention to a theme that is found throughout the encyclical documents of the past 90 years - the dignity of work and the rights of workers," it added. Adequate employment is considered to be a basic human riglllt, the statement said, citing Pope John Paul II's comment, that "providing employment must not be taken lightly or considered a secondary aspect of the economic order and of development. It should be a central element in the aims of economic theory and practice." Is it not possible, the statement queried in conclusion "to build! on positive values, to use the symbols and themes of our religious tradition as cornerstones for the construction of a better future? Is it not possible to construct a social and economic system which is so rooted in respect for human dignity that all human rights are guaranteed, a society that is so committed to full human development that none of its memb~rs go without basic necessities? "Ar'e we not capable of developing an economic policy in which the dignity of work is so important that full employment is the first and most important goal, a policy in which jobs are guaranteed for all? Can we not build a public consensus that the common good takes precedence over private gain, that the poor should be fed, clothed and housed before the rich are permitted to accumulate luxuries? "And finally, is it not possible to achieve these social goals by building on the positive symbols and institutions that are the heart of our nation's everyday life - the family, the neighborhood, the parish, the workplace?