MyDD :: De-Ghettoizing Progressive "Special Interests"

De-Ghettoizing Progressive "Special Interests"

by Chris Bowers, Fri Feb 18, 2005 at 02:14:08 AM EST

There has long been a history of friction between environmental groups and labor unions, specifically labor unions in the manufacturing sector (which actually only make up 15% of union membership nowadays). As a labor activist, this friction recently entered my personal life, as I started becoming, um, "friends" with a long-time environmental activist. (Hey, who says you can't build alliances between labor unions and environmental groups?) Among other things, this has brought a lot of environmental groups, issues, websites and literature to my attention. This piece focuses on one such article, and how to build better alliances between unions and environmental advocacy organizations.

Back in October Michael Shellenberger and Ted Nordhaus published an article entitled the Death of Environmentalism that has since generated discussion far and wide. The piece is quite lengthy, but the basic strategic gist of the article is that environmentalism is failing because, like many other progressive causes and issue movements, it has ghettoized itself into isolation from the progressive cause as a whole. This has created a serious problem when seemingly non-environmental "issues" have actually thwarted progressive environmental goals, and where liberals are lacking in a coherent vision they can collectively work toward. Instead, they just have a series of issues. Shllenberger and Nordhaus claim the solution is to create a broader progressive coalition with a unified coalition that breaks down the barriers between the various groups that jointly prevent their goals from being achieved:

Once in power, conservatives govern on all of their issues -- no matter whether their solutions have majority support. Liberals tend to approach politics with an eye toward winning one issue campaign at a time -- a Sisyphean task that has contributed to today's neoconservative hegemony.

Environmental groups have spent the last 40 years defining themselves against conservative values like cost-benefit accounting, smaller government, fewer regulations, and free trade, without ever articulating a coherent morality we can call our own. Most of the intellectuals who staff environmental groups are so repelled by the right's values that we have assiduously avoided examining our own in a serious way. Environmentalists and other liberals tend to see values as a distraction from "the real issues" -- environmental problems like global warming.

If environmentalists hope to become more than a special interest we must start framing our proposals around core American values and start seeing our own values as central to what motivates and guides our politics. Doing so is crucial if we are to build the political momentum -- a sustaining movement -- to pass and implement the legislation that will achieve action on global warming and other issues.(...)

Environmentalists need to tap into the creative worlds of myth-making, even religion, not to better sell narrow and technical policy proposals but rather to figure out who we are and who we need to be.

Above all else, we need to take a hard look at the institutions the movement has built over the last 30 years. Are existing environmental institutions up to the task of imagining the post-global warming world? Or do we now need a set of new institutions founded around a more expansive vision and set of values?

If, for example, environmentalists don't consider the high cost of health care, R&D tax credits, and the overall competitiveness of the American auto industry to be "environmental issues," then who will think creatively about a proposal that works for industry, workers, communities and the environment? If framing proposals around narrow technical solutions is an ingrained habit of the environmental movement, then who will craft proposals framed around vision and values?

Tearing down the walls that separate the various progressive "special interest" ghettos from one another is an idea with which I agree wholeheartedly. Yes, we need a broader coalition. Yes, we are going to repeatedly fail if we try to defeat conservative ideology one issue at a time. Yes, we are never going to enact positive, sweeping change the various groups are at each other's throats.

However, I would like to point out an important difference between the labor movement and other ghettoized progressive "special interests," that this article sublimates. It is a difference that I have repeatedly seen either sublimated or completely ignored by the non-labor progressive movement as a whole. It is a difference that we must realize if this broader coalition is ever to be built.

The goal of environmental organizations is to improve the environment. The goal of civil rights organizations is to increase civil rights. The goal of labor unions, however, is not just to improve benefits and conditions for workers. Instead of just improving conditions for workers, the actual goal of the labor movement is to give workers a say over their working conditions. The primary means by which this is achieved is collective bargaining. This is the fundamental difference between the labor movement and other issue advocacy organizations, and it is a difference that must be understood in order for any broader alliance of progressive interests that includes labor to be formed. While the labor movement, like other "special interests," does work to pass legislation that furthers its aims, unlike other "special interests," this is not the end all, be all of labor activity. In fact, it is a very minor part of labor activity. The primary goal of the labor movement in our post-radical labor era, is to increase the number of workers who are presented by collective bargaining agreements. While other issue advocacy organizations bargain with the government and the population at large, the labor movement works so that workers can bargain with employers.

For all their much needed cries about the need to form alliances and break down the barriers that have ghettoized special interests and prevented them all from achieving broader progressive goals, this is a difference that Shellenberger and Nordhaus fail to realize in their article. This failure makes them profoundly unresponsive to the actual goals of the labor movement. Particularly illuminating to me was the following passage:

The environmental leaders we interviewed tended to reinforce the industry position by responding to it, in typical literal fashion, rather than attack industry for opposing proposals that will create millions of good new jobs. In a written statement, Pew's Josh Reichert said, "Ultimately, the labor movement in this country needs to become positively engaged in efforts to address climate change. They need to recognize that, if done properly, reducing greenhouse gases will not be detrimental to labor. On the contrary, it will spawn industries and create jobs that we don't have now." The unspoken assumptions here are a) the problem, or "root cause," is "greenhouse gases", b) labor must accept the environmental movement's framing of the problem as greenhouse gases, and c) it's the responsibility of labor to get with the program on global warming. The problem is that environmental leaders have persuaded themselves that it's their job to worry about "environmental" problems and that it's the labor movement's job to worry about "labor" problems. If there's overlap, they say, great. But we should never ever forget who we really are. (p. 26)

The authors are right to attack special interests for the barriers they put up between themselves, but they also seem to treat the labor movement as the Sierra Club for workers. What they fail to realize is that the point for workers is not just about making new jobs. Instead, the core of the labor movement is about workers having a say over their jobs. Thus, just creating lots of new good jobs in new, sustainable industries is not entirely acceptable to the labor movement. The point would be to create new jobs where workers have a say over their working conditions--new jobs where they can collectively bargain.

Considering this, a true alliance between labor and environmental groups could be formed not just by working to dismantle industries that are not sustainable and replacing them with new, sustainable industries, but instead by working with labor to change the laws surrounding collective bargaining that currently are overwhelming slanted in favor of employers. With current organizing, bargaining, and job action laws, any new industry, no matter how sustainable or "progressive" on its face, will almost certainly remain unorganized. Whatever new jobs are created will almost certainly not be jobs where the workers have a say over their working conditions.

To form a true alliance that take the interests of workers and the progressive movement into account, environmental and civil rights groups must join with the labor movement to collectively call for a revamping of organizing laws that recognizes the difference between labor and other special interests. Specifically, they must all call for national, private-sector card check laws that would dramatically improve the ability of labor unions to help more workers engage in collective bargaining. They must work to help repeal the Orwellian named "right to work" laws in all twenty-two states where they currently exist. Rather than just helping to create new jobs or reduce the cost of health care, in other words advocating on behalf of workers, they need to help labor unions allow workers to advocate on their own behalf when talking to employers. The goal of labor unions is not to be mere advocacy organizations that improve the working conditions for workers in a top-down fashion, much like the Sierra club works to improve the environment. Instead, the goal of labor unions is for workplaces to be democratic areas that allow workers a voice in their working conditions. We are not just interested in people having better jobs or new job in sustainable industries. The goal is collective bargaining and workplace democracy: people having a say over their jobs.

Especially for younger progressive activists, the vast majority of whom have never been in a labor union and for whom progressive politics primarily means working with top-down special interests groups, this important difference between labor unions and other issue advocacy organizations might not be apparent. This also might cause unnecessary friction between such activists and unions that is counter-productive to the absolutely essential coalition building described in Shellenberger and Nordhaus' article. While environmental, civil rights and labor organizations are often listed side-by-side in a way that makes them look equivalent, they most certainly do not all have the same function or purpose. Further, the difference between them is not just the different issues they were created to focus upon. If the labor movement's goals were the same as other special interests, collective bargaining would not exist. Instead, top consultants would work simply to pass laws that improve people's working conditions without any input from the worker's themselves. This, however, is not what labor unions do. Unless this is realized, the coalitions described in the article cannot be formed. At the same time, if the coalitions described in the article are not formed, than we are all in a lot of trouble.

Tags: Labor (all tags)

Permalink :: 26 Comments :: Post a Comment

Divide and Conquer (3.00 / 1)

It's the elites best tactic against the masses.

Yes, there is no reason for unions to be against regulatory standards both environmental or otherwise. The fact is that there's a reason all the groups considered Democrats find themselves in the same party. It's because the elites used them as tools to counteract others.

Elites are simply smart enough to pit the union guys against the enviornmentalists by saying "it's about jobs". But it never was about jobs, but about the future of our society. United we stand, divided the Republicans win.

by risenmessiah on Fri Feb 18, 2005 at 02:35:09 AM EST

There was a time - before extremism (3.00 / 1)

I speak of environmental groups that took it upon themselves to 'frame' the discussion by setting fires to university buildings and pounding spikes into trees.

In the 80's, I was part of a group of 'environmentalists' that had actually gotten to the table in discussion with timber workers, unions, company officials and government. We had everything on the table: clearcutting, replanting, rotation of harvest areas, reclamation of staging areas, etc. Over the course of three weeks (four meetings) we had everyone talking, compromise was in the air and I thought there was a possibility of taking clearcutting out.

Before we could return to the table, a group of Earth First! goons trashed about $500,000 worth of equipment at one of the saw mills. My sources tell me that they were pissed that we were meeting with 'the enemy', that we were sellouts and traitors.

Industry officials, unions and the locals blamed us for the attack. Hey, all of us liberals are the same, right?

Needless to say, talks ended and the Cascades of WA State has a few more scars on their slopes today.

When timber workers, unions, timber communities think of environmentalists they think of burning buildings, spiked trees, and destroyed lives.

Before we restart our movement, we have to clean out our own basement first. End all support for groups like Earth First! once and for all.

by davidaquarius on Fri Feb 18, 2005 at 02:56:39 AM EST

Riiiight. Kill off Earth First. (1.00 / 1)

The world is a positive/negative feedback
system. The combined, mathemetical effects
of system breakdown will runaway at a critical
point that we will see in our life time.
The radicals won't disappear, they attach
themselves to you not the other way around.

Kill off earth first?

You'll kill earth.. first.

Embrace god. Give your heart to the lord.
Find your peace in your holy mission to
make the skies cleaner, children happier...
ever seen a veggie tales dvd. Starts off
with a child playing.. then it says.

"Why we do what we do"

and the kid is laughing, smiling.

My money, the kid can be playing in
a ghetto but if they have the strength
and peace of god, they'll survive.

Earth First - no. They're good people.
But the spiritual vaccuum all of this
is occurring within distracts
everyone from their task. Gays,
straights - up down, pink, red, white
brown and yellow. There is a black one..
that doesn't like the white one ...

Got to be everyday, people.

by turnerbroadcasting on Fri Feb 18, 2005 at 07:33:14 AM EST

Feedback loop (3.00 / 1)

Chris,

I've read what you've written several times, but you must be right, because I still don't completely get it. Are environmental groups acting against the organization of workers when they suggest programs that will create new jobs? Are new jobs bad/neutral/good if they are created in a context without union organization?

When we talk about 'sustainability' (a horribly unfortunate frame that Bill McDonough is working to rename) it is usually described as a tripod of care for the environment, economy and social equity. At a fundamental level I would believe that this includes equity in representation. So... I don't really see how most environmental groups are in any way inhibiting a good relationship with organized labor.

I'll throw down the gauntlet. In what ways do the fundamental precepts of the labor movement support goals of a healthy and diverse environment?

We can all work together if we are willing to dig down and find a 'common rock' to build our house upon.

by PghArch on Fri Feb 18, 2005 at 09:08:23 AM EST

Re: Feedback loop (none / 0)

Thank you. Excellent point. When I see organized labor supporting increased levels of CO2 in the air because there will be more mining jobs in the midwest, I have a hard time working up much interest in supporting organized labor.

by weinerdog43 on Fri Feb 18, 2005 at 10:25:37 AM EST
[ Parent ]

They don't (none / 0)

Admittedly, the goals of the labor movement were formed long before any of the issues we ow associate with conservation and environmentalism had mcuh, if any, of a foothold in the public consciousness. In my experience, the general approach to the environemental movement among labor unions is either one of apathy (the 85% of unions that do not work in manufacturing), or something apporoaching hostility (the 15% that do). I worked with education unions mostly, and while our campaigns always worked to bring in community, religious and civil rights groups on anything we were working toward, environmental groups never crossed our mind. I have also heard of campaigns where unions and environemental groups were openly opposed to one another.

I don't thinkthe goal should be to point out who is at fualt in this, although I am almsot inevtiably prone to take the side of labor. I just wanted to point out a difference between the types of groups so we could come to a better understanding of our goals and build the sort of colaitions that mutually support each other, as the article suggests. You can't build a coalition if you fail to understand each other. Just check out JamBoi's recent diary for more proof of that fact.

by Chris Bowers on Fri Feb 18, 2005 at 12:19:31 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: They don't (none / 0)

My point was only partially to call out what bothered me by your post above. More so, I posted because I do think there is significant common ground that we often ignore. I work in the construction industry in Pittsburgh, so I certainly know enough about unions. An interesting development here is that the union contractors have stepped to the lead in gaining expertise in the issues of green building, workplace cleanliness, etc. This is a perfect example of how unions can take the lead and prove to owners that they are getting more value for their money. The labor movement, just like the environmental movement, is best served when it can clearly articulate the benefits that are received (by an employer or taxpayer) as a result of the larger investment.

This is worth working on.

by PghArch on Fri Feb 18, 2005 at 05:48:44 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Ahem ... (none / 0)

As a labor activist, this friction recently entered my personal life, as I started becoming, um, "friends" with a long-time environmental activist.

Cute. And well put.

by niq on Fri Feb 18, 2005 at 09:20:37 AM EST

Frame environmentalism as protecting worker safety (none / 0)

Management has used the spector of job losses to make unions hostile to the environmental movement. But much of the environmental movement has improved worker safety and health and that is where we can build bridges. The environmental movement stopped the use of asbestos (and created an industry removing it), most chlorinated solvents and other carcinogens in the workplace. Working to solve environmental concerns cooperatively and creatively often ends up being more efficient in the long run and saves jobs. That is what we need to stress.

by Freder Frederson on Fri Feb 18, 2005 at 09:20:48 AM EST

speaking of frames and friends (3.00 / 2)

First, I just want to point out that environmentalists, labor unions and other progressive groups that are organized for the public good are not special interests. We are public interest groups, because those of us who work for change do not personally profit from social change in our paychecks or our stock holdings. Corporations are special interests. Let's not allow the Right to rename us in a feeble attempt to slander our motives.

I think your attempt to reach across the ghetto borders that divide us is admirable. I understand what you are saying, and it is true that unions are organized in a fundamentally different way than issue groups. However, I don't think that precludes Unions from the responsibility to have a broader vision for their workers any more than it excuses environmental groups from letting progress be defined by stopping bad policy. I think the article is urging both sides to look beyond defense and to shape the context in which we fight for the kind of world we want to live in.

If Unions are constantly bargaining with big multinationals for their piece of the pie, then that's what we will get. And that piece will keep getting smaller and smaller. I believe that workers deserve more, and that it is possible to live in a world where part of operating a business that makes profit is treating labor with respect and sharing wealth with the people who made that wealth possible. GM does not believe that, and as long as they hold the cards -- we will be playing their game.

I am not saying that environmentalists are any better. If I had a nickel for every "Stop the Rollback" campaign that I worked on, I would be starting my own progressive economy. I just think that as progressives we need to think bigger, talk bigger and win bigger. I also believe that we can win and we will.

by Levana on Fri Feb 18, 2005 at 09:49:10 AM EST

Re: speaking of frames and friends (none / 0)

I really liked the way that you reframed environmentalists as public interest groups rather than a special interest.

But then I thought, wouldn't it be easy to treat unions as a special interest (in the same way that corporations are)?

by Abby on Fri Feb 18, 2005 at 11:43:37 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: speaking of frames and friends (none / 0)

I certianly don't think that the difference I tried to point out in the way these groups are organized precludes labor from needed a broader vision. In my experience and in my study, that broader vision is sorely lacking among many people in the labor movement. Unions are pitted against one another instead of the employer, against other groups instead of the employer, and even--and this is the worst--against units that are already organized and potential new units to be organized. All of this does nothing but damages the goals of the labor movement itself, while protcting the every shrinking turf of shrinking segments in the working population. Labor is certainly to blame in many respects for a lack of vision.

Going beyond collective bargaining into something different, however, is an extremely difficult, if not a downright impossible task for labor to achieve. For workers to have even more direct ownership and voice over their jobs and the production of our economic system than colective bargainning is not something that is exactly openly welcomed by the pwoers that be, or even 955+ of our population. As a long time radical, I am open to such ideas, but as a long time radical I am also dubious of their chances to succeed. Eliminating shareholders and management from the equation and having the workers start, own and run a company by themselves in a sustainable fashionhas been tried many times in the past. As long as workers don't own a run the copany their work for, collective bargainning is going to have to be the way.

by Chris Bowers on Fri Feb 18, 2005 at 12:31:43 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: speaking of frames and friends (none / 0)

I think the sweatshop issue is a good example of how unions can take on non-union card issues. Charles Kernagan works closely with the AFL-CIO (think they are a primary funder of the NLC) on this but presumably, the immediate goal is not to unionize the workers in Honduran Textile factories (although I'm sure they'd like to). The immediate goal is to improve conditions (and to increase costs) so there is a more equitable playing field for local workers. So, it is not a stretch to see unions also supporting getting "outsourcing" countries to implement tha same environmental protections and costs we have (so the playing field is equitable).

by lojo on Fri Feb 18, 2005 at 02:33:46 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Yes, you are a PIG (none / 0)

Public interest group.
You probably don't want the acronym,
though, do you.

Found this today on my midmorning
caffeine laden surf session.

http://www.cnn.com/2005/TECH/science/02/17/global.warming.reut/index.html

This should stop you in your tracks.
America is the best entertained, least
informed country in the world.

I promise you, 10 years from now
this is how the last two days will
look:

life was discovered yesterday on mars.
global warming was confirmed today.

I am going to teach my children to fear
the lord and to handle a gun and to be
a fighting liberal.

We stop this thing now, maybe we'll only
get 20 years of chaos. We stop it later
with the blood of our children.

And dats da word straight from da ghetto,
holmes. Word.

who am i kiddin' who am I foolin
when they ask, what's up - tbs -
and I say - 'coolin!'

later homeys. time to go cruise the ghetto
in my fucking Escalade.

by turnerbroadcasting on Fri Feb 18, 2005 at 11:06:31 AM EST

Turtles and Teamsters (none / 0)

This coalition could be the most powerful if it were to ever come to true fruition. I see it happening more on the West Coast where the enviros have more resources and are more organized.

Working in a dying industrial city, our enviros are totally underfunded and understaffed (they do WONDERFUL work - but it is what it is). So, what ends up happening is that Labor, which is more entrenched on the East Coast, takes a dominant role. Whereas on the West Coast, Labor has to work with the enviros to get things done because they are not as dominant.

Does this make any sense to people?

by unionmark on Fri Feb 18, 2005 at 11:20:38 AM EST

caveat (none / 0)

I think the major environmental groups are much more concerned with and aware of labor issues than you might give them credit for.

For example, every global warming policy proposal offered by Sierra Club et al. includes extensive resources for job retraining and extensive discussion of impacts on labor.

In contrast, when the labor movement opposes fuel economy standards or supports drilling in ANWR, I am simply baffled.

by snaktime on Fri Feb 18, 2005 at 11:30:17 AM EST

It's the Sierra Club's fault (none / 0)

I no longer contribute to the Sierra Club, et al., because of their flat-footed handling of economic and social issues. In the back and forth about old growth forests, it was obvious that they made no effort to reach out to workers or make clear the lack of long-term benefit to them from logging (because the logs get shipped to Japan and result in a continuing decline in work for them). The notion that pollution tends to be associated with poverty or political disenfranchisement is a no brainer---the worst environmental hazards have always been on the wrong side of the tracks and disproportionately affected wage earners. A tiny bit of grounding in history makes this clear. The middle class college-boy types in environmental organizations, earnest as they may be about trees and animals, have a long history of clueslessness about people. NB: I am a PhD who hikes and has a scholarly as well as personal interest in ecology; I'm also a union man's kid who has little faith in the inherent wisdom of educated elites---a stance that has only been reinforced by my life among such folks.

What I find striking is that the historic preservation folks (I'm also interested in architectural history and urban design), who tend to be very elitist on a number of levels, often appear to be more open and responsive to dealing with worker and minority issues than environmentalists.

by rich on Fri Feb 18, 2005 at 11:45:45 AM EST

Republican Governor anti-Labor, anti-Environment (3.00 / 1)

Mitch Daniels, the former Bush Budget Director who was recently elected Governor of Indiana certainly reflects modern conservative thinking on many issues. In the first week of his new administration he took action on the environment and on labor.

On the environment, check out this snip from the Indy Star (article now archived for $$) describing Daniels speaking to employees of the Indiana Dept of Environmental Mgmt shortly after firing 7 top officials of that agency:

Daniels addressed agency employees Tuesday afternoon, making it clear that his -- and their -- top priority should be to help businesses create new jobs in Indiana.

"Nowhere can a bigger difference be made more swiftly than by the people in this room," said Daniels, who has criticized the agency as being too slow and inconsistent in issuing permits to industries that pollute.

He said environmental protection and public health are important, but "a poor Indiana will not be a green Indiana."

So environmental management is all about creating jobs.

Daniels also took action on labor. From the Hoosier Review is this description of his anti-union activities.

Ending a 15 year policy maintained by his Democratic predecessors, new Hoosier Governor Mitch Daniels took steps yesterday to cancel union contracts covering approximately 25,000 state workers, as reported in the Indy Star today. Since Indiana Law does not grant collective bargaining rights to state workers, it is the Governor's perogative to either recognize or deny unions the right to bargain collectively on behalf of state employees.

While Daniel's action left untouched the 2005 pay increases already negotiated for state employees, he rescinded contracts that would have allowed three unions to negotiate future working conditions for a variety of state employees, from welfare caseworkers and health care professionals to conservation officers and Excise Police officers.

Sure, Mitch is the Governor of a red state, but he is deeply entrenched in conservative thought. What is happening in Indiana will certainly happen nationwide if Republicans continue to wield power.

Labor activists and environmentalists had better find common cause against the rise of Republicanism lest America end up with no organized labor and no environmental protections.

by Curt Matlock on Fri Feb 18, 2005 at 11:47:33 AM EST

Speaking of coalitions (none / 0)

KPFK was interviewing the author of a book dealing with the Black and Brown Coalition, that had something to do with the Mexican Revolution. The emphasis was on the common political and economic goals that united blacks and browns more than the issues and goals that divide them.

I've got a better coalition for KPFK. How about the Black, Brown and Honkey Peckerwood Coalition?

Or perhaps we can get back to the Rainbow Coalition. Any thing that unites progessives makes us stronger. Identity politics and some of the other cultural and ethinic issues that divide the progressive community and also divide progressives from mainstream or even conservative Democrats need to also get on board the Rainbow Locomotive.

by Gary Boatwright on Fri Feb 18, 2005 at 11:48:34 AM EST

Yes, But... (3.00 / 2)

I agree with the general thrust of this post, but I have a problem with this:

This is drawing a false distinction--or rather, two.

(1) It is simply not true that "Instead of just improving conditions for workers, the actual goal of the labor movement is to give workers a say over their working conditions."

First, there's no "instead." Improving conditions cannot be separated from gaining power for workers.

Second, the primary purpose of gaining power for workers is improved working conditions.
(2) The same thing can be said about the civil rights movement and the environmental movement as well. Empowering citizens in environmental decision-making is a vital part of the environmental movement, as evidenced in community right-to-know laws, EIR processess and the like. The same is true of the civil rights movement.

What I think this shows is that Chris's argument should be restated a bit, and that it goes both ways. People involved in any issue area need to gain a much deeper understanding of the internal workings in other issue areas.

This isn't easy. Perhaps the best way to do it would be a sort of "foreign exchange" system, whereby young activists in one issue area spend a year working in another one. The mechanics of this would have to be done right, but the experience of spending a year with labor organizers would undoubtedly change a young environmental activist's perspective for a lifetime. There's nothing like working with people day after day to really get where they're coming from and why. Sharing the work they do, working toward the same concrete goal--that should leave a depth of understanding that will last a lifetime.

by Paul Rosenberg on Fri Feb 18, 2005 at 12:02:02 PM EST

The rest of us need to understand (3.00 / 1)

that unions, even pitiful corrupt ones, work first and foremost for their existing members. And that is NOT wrong. Dues from members fund the apparatus, so members have a right to expect that unions will care for their current members first.

In addition, good unions (and there are a few) are also more or less democracies, so those existing members have a lot of influence through elected officers on union policies. Oh sure, staff make things work from day to day, but if they get too far from the membership, they will be challenged.

And also, good unions (and there are a few) DO understand that potential jobs in changing industries and potential members in those new jobs have to be the future of the labor movement -- that organizing them is the only hope of protecting their existing members.

But it truly requires farsightedness and vast political, diplomatic skills to convince a broad base of American workers of these truths. The task is probably at least as hard as convincing Americans of things they haven't seen yet like the consequences of climate change.

Public interest advocacy groups aren't even broken democracies (though their "membership" does vote by giving or withholding their donations). The political skills required to run an environmental non-profit are quite different from those required to run a successful labor union or labor council. The cultural gulf is vast.

FWIW, I have worked for both unions and advocacy non-profits and have great respect for both.

Can It Happen Here?

by janinsanfran on Fri Feb 18, 2005 at 12:21:58 PM EST

See The Decembrist for more on this (none / 0)

Mark Schmitt has some typically excellent commentary on the Death of Environmentalism paper, the ideas within, the role of foundations, and possible other cooperative efforts such as the Apollo Alliance -- on his page now,

http://markschmitt.typepad.com/decembrist/

scroll down a little

by Andmoreagain on Fri Feb 18, 2005 at 12:28:23 PM EST

Agree and Disagree. (3.00 / 1)

I think your comments about the environmental movement misperception of organized labor's goals are accurate. However, I think they also convey some misperception about the goals of the environmental movement that is significant to this issue of strengthening the bonds between both movements.

While familiar environmental legislation obtained through the efforts of the environmental movement include a top-down aspect to them in the form of broad regulatory requirements, many of them also include what I will call citizen empowerment provisions (e.g., right to sue, right to notice and participation). These provisions were designed to give the public a place at the table with government and industry or leverage such a place.

Importantly, these provisions, not unlike labor's efforts to secure bargaining rights, did create some opportunity for a local/regional/national environmental action group to bargain a solution to an environmental issue with the particular industry agent of the moment. These kinds of provisions were sought and fought for by the environmental movement alongside their demands for top-down government administered regulations.

However, these citizen empowerment provisions have been weakened by conservative judges and anti-environment administrations over the last 20 years. Unfortunately, labor did not lend much help to resist this weakening despite the parallels between these empowerment goals of the environmental movement and labor's own empowerment goal.

My point? Misperceptions of environmental and labor groups seem to flow both ways and both groups need to do more work to address them.

by dicta on Fri Feb 18, 2005 at 12:43:47 PM EST

greens and labor (none / 0)

There are some environmental groups out there that are completely irrational and anti-market. However, most of the reputable groups understand the economic tradeoffs between concern for the environment and economic efficiency.

Rational greens should not be held responsible for the words or actions of groups like Earth First. To the extent so-called environmental activists engage in acts of vandalism or violence, they should be caught put in jail, plain and simple.

I do think greens have hurt themselves at times by not being more discerning in their advocacy positions. Not every idea that is "green" is good. Red herrings such as recycling and energy conservation, which could and should have been dictated by market forces, have distracted us from the most important issues: (1) global warming, (2) preservation of nature, and (3) water/air pollution.

The fact is that it is capital and not labor that is most reponsible for making environmental improvements. Businesses are very adapt and finding cost-effective ways to make their products greener when they have to do. Every time that car companies have been forced to improve emission standards, for instance, they have complained that the new standards were impossible, and every time, they found ways to meet these standards. In short, it's not a win/lose proposition between labor and greens.

It's possible that workers in some industries may lose out as a result of green-friendly reforms. But there's no reason that government policy can't be implemented to ease to financial burden of such changes and train workers for different careers. A reality of this day and age is that people in all fields often have to or choose to change careers.

At a certain point, something has to be done. I remained skeptical about global warming for a long time, probably long beyond the time most people on this board did. At this point, I don't think any reasonable person can deny that (i) it exists, (ii) it poses a massive problem, and (iii) action needs to be taken now.

Labor and greens at a certain point have to establish a dialogue and listen to each other. Not every "green" idea is good; some cost a lot more money than they are worth. I've met a lot of smart environmentalists that understand this, but I've met some dumb ones who don't either. On the other hand, the necessity of preserving the earth for us and our descendants is more important than an individual job.

by alhill on Fri Feb 18, 2005 at 02:41:37 PM EST

Re: greens and labor (none / 0)

This is quite confused:

Not every idea that is "green" is good. Red herrings such as recycling and energy conservation, which could and should have been dictated by market forces, have distracted us from the most important issues: (1) global warming, (2) preservation of nature, and (3) water/air pollution.

It falsely assumes that:

(1) Market get prices right. But they don't. There are huge externalities involved. The true cost of not recycling is not paid by those who fail to recycle. It is deferred for others to pay. Ditto energy conservation.

(2) Energy conservation has nothing to do with global warming.

(3) Recycling has nothing to do with preservation of nature and water/air pollution.

(4) One facet of environmental concerns distracts from other facets, rather than illuminating them and being intimately connected to them.

by Paul Rosenberg on Sat Feb 19, 2005 at 09:29:40 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Goal of labor unions cuts to the chase (none / 0)

Wow! Thank you for clarifying this difference between labor unions advocacy groups. In my picture-making about an Apollo project being implemented and of what Patrick Doherty calls the "innovative economy" and the jobs it will create, I kept coming up with a fuzzy sense of this problem. This is an important piece to understand. The importance of the union role is now much clearer.

I posted a long note in response to your later piece, "Structural Flaws"
at Ideology :: Sat Feb 19th, 2005 at 01:09:01 PM EST ::, that went into my idea of a long-term progressive project being to "incorporate the corporation and capitalism into our democracy." At the risk of being seen as a fanatic,that idea seems to fit here as well. If "the goal of labor unions is for workplaces to be democratic areas", I don't think it can be achieved without re-designing the corporation and doing away with the doctrine of `shareholder primacy' we--America--has set in place. This doctrine mandates that directors and managers of corporations maximize the profits of its shareholders. As such, it seems to me that it is in fundamental and permanent opposition to the goal of labor unions. Democratizing the corporation--one helluva job--is the only solution I see at this point that can reconcile our capitalism with our democracy.

Further, such an objective could be a unifying force for progressives. Virtually ever cause progressives advocate runs up against corporate power. And it is an objective that can the ear and concern of the vast majority of citizens in the country. And it could be a defining influence on a progressive foreign policy.

joncehart

by joncehart on Sat Feb 19, 2005 at 07:28:48 PM EST

You are not logged in.

In order to post a comment, you must be logged in. If you have a member account, please log in to comment.

If not, you can make an account right here. It's quick and free.