war and the labor movement

War and the Labor Movement

WorkingUSA—Winter 2001–2002 3

WorkingUSA, vol. 5, no. 3, Winter 2001–2002, pp. 3–8.© 2002 M.E. Sharpe, Inc. All rights reserved.ISSN 1089–7011 / 2002 $9.50 + 0.00.

War and the LaborMovementImmanuel Ness

TIMES of crisis have traditionally steeled the collectivespirit of our nation, calling attention to our unity and mini-mizing divisions. At no time since World War II has the

call to unify against an enemy been received as so starkly im-perative to so many. At this point, most Americans, regardlessof background, seem to support the U.S. military expedition inAfghanistan. The most important long-term guarantor of unityin this diverse country, however, is sharing the military, economic,and social cost of the war. In time of war, no group should beseen as immune from the sacrifices borne by the population atlarge, nor should any group be seen as bearing an overwhelm-ing share of the burden.

Yet, strikingly absent from the military agenda crafted byWashington is any sense of shared cost. Indeed, corporateAmerica is brazenly using the crisis as a pretext for exacting eco-nomic concessions from the federal government at a time whenmany Americans face a decline in their standard of living. Re-strictions on civil liberties, rationalized by the Bush administra-tion as necessary to the “war on terrorism,” can also impede theefforts of workers to improve their economic conditions throughorganizing and political action.

At this writing, the only unanimity in the United States ap-pears to be the steadfast opposition by the president and mostin Congress to an economic stimulus package that would tan-gibly assist the growing ranks of working people now suffer-ing the aftermath of the events of September 11, which pushed

Ness

4 WorkingUSA—Winter 2001–2002

an already reeling economy over the edge.We hear only two policy responses from Washington, neither

of which would benefit the majority of Americans struggling topay their bills and maintain their living standards. Republicansin the House are demanding further tax cuts for business—aneconomic stimulus plan that includes $70 billion in tax cuts andconcessions for corporations. According to the Institute forAmerica’s Future, the plan would give IBM $1.4 billion, GM $833million, and GE $671 million in retroactive tax cuts.

Democrats are opposing these tax breaks but have advancedno plan of their own to revive the economy to help workingAmericans. Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle advocates fed-eral spending limits, fearing that a stimulus package directed atmiddle-income Americans might undo the fiscal disciplineachieved by the Clinton administration, another policy trend thatdisproportionately benefited business and those in upper-incomebrackets. Yet, as the recession percolates through the economy,the Democratic leadership has suggested nothing that wouldameliorate the hardships American workers are enduring evennow. By backing off from any plan that would help workingAmerica, they are, in effect, ceding the political agenda to Re-publicans. Indeed, the first pro-business measure was takenimmediately after the September 11 attack, a $15 billion federalbailout of the airline industry just as it was laying off thousandsof workers. The insurance and tourism industries are now lin-ing up for their share of government largesse.

No equivalent federal bailout is on the agenda for the nearly 1million newly unemployed who lost jobs before and after Sep-tember 11. No federal plan is envisioned to assist states underbudgetary pressure to slash health, education, and social ser-vices that serve the poor, the elderly, and low-wage workers,who will be hit first and hardest by the economic downturn.The fifty-member Progressive Caucus in the House has proposed



a $200 million federal budgetary stimulus package that wouldimprove and expand unemployment benefits, provide healthcare and social services as more people fall into poverty, fundpublic works projects to repair the national infrastructure andprotect the nation from further attacks, and give tax rebates tolow- and lower-middle-income people excluded from the Bushspring 2001 tax cut. Unfortunately, there is little hope this mea-sure will gain support in Congress. As expected, Republicansoppose government-sponsored economic security. What is new,but not so surprising in the neoliberal era, is that the economicresuscitation plan is also not gaining ground among the Demo-cratic congressional leadership, who in the past could be countedon to support stimulus programs to help working people.

There is no historical precedent for this anomaly. During WorldWar II, the U.S. government actively engaged in macroeconomicpolicy initiatives, spending money to lift all boats, not just cor-porate America and the affluent. The notion of a nation at wartranslated into efforts to reduce economic inequality and in par-ticular to help those most at risk. Today, as our nation’s leadersmobilize for war and ask for sacrifice, no similar efforts are be-ing made.

Whither Organized Labor?

What does the war against terrorism mean for the labor move-ment? Organized labor enters the post–September 11 era weakerthan at any time in the last sixty years. This condition stands inmarked contrast to the situation during World War II, the lastmajor conflict supported by a vast majority of Americans. Bythe end of the war in 1945, just ten years after passage of theNational Labor Relations Act, union density had reached 35 per-cent, a figure not matched since 1954. Today union density islower than in any period since the Great Depression and contin-

Ness


ues to drop precipitously, having fallen to 13.5 percent in 2000(9.1 percent in the private sector). The current year is projectedto be a disaster for organized labor as union jobs hemorrhagethroughout the economy—good for business seeking to cut costs,but catastrophic for maintaining American labor standards.

To be sure, under the Bush administration, labor already faceda hostile political climate. September 11 added to it—beyondthe tragic loss of life—severe economic and organizationalstresses. Hotel workers and public-sector workers—two majorareas of trade union strength in the past six years under the AFL-CIO’s Sweeney—have been hit particularly hard. Hotel and res-taurant workers, who unionized in remarkable numbersthroughout the 1990s, now confront massive layoffs and mem-bership loss. Public-sector workers—the backbone of uniongrowth in the past generation—face the threat of looming stateand local budget cuts. Declining state revenues threaten the jobsof these workers, who are now unfairly expected to bear theburden of hard times through concessions and givebacks, eventhough they did not benefit economically during the boom yearsof the 1990s.

But can labor flex its flaccid muscles in time of war? Can work-ers organize and strike without appearing unpatriotic? Will re-strictions on civil liberties now threaten organizing activity andcollective bargaining? Will immigrant organizing, a leading com-ponent of recent union growth, be repressed as xenophobic fearsincrease? What is clear is that workers today cannot avail them-selves of legal protections that restrained employer abuse dur-ing World War II. Over the past twenty years, private-sectorworkers have faced relentless retribution for organizing, fromemployers intent on maintaining union-free workplaces. Thispattern can be expected to continue and gather steam in a timeof war.

To resist these trends, a unified labor movement must articu-



late a program that would help American workers, not just cor-porations. What would such a program look like in a wareconomy? Four items are essential.

• Increase unemployment benefits. Unemployment is projectedto reach 6 percent by early 2002, a figure that in fact ignoresmore than 60 percent of the jobless. Extending the durationof unemployment insurance, increasing the amount of ben-efits, and expanding coverage to those currently excludedfrom benefits would stimulate the economy while assistingpeople who have lost their jobs.

• Establish an economic stimulus program for full employment.Such a plan could include rebuilding the federally financedinfrastructure—roads, railways (including the introductionof high-speed trains), the air transport network—protect-ing the environment from biological and chemical hazards,extending improved health care to more Americans, andbuilding new schools.

• Change labor law to defend workers. Reduce impediments tojoining unions to allow workers to improve their wages andliving conditions. Such changes would mitigate the dam-age to workers in a wartime environment and thereby en-gender a greater sense of national solidarity.

• Create living-wage jobs. Require government contractors topay a living wage, and direct government aid and tax cred-its to low- and middle-wage workers. Such a program, asexamined in this special issue on economic development,could significantly enhance workers’ rights. To help pay forthe program, a federal revenue-sharing program should bereintroduced to strengthen state budget reserves and subsi-dize states unable to balance budgets.

The September 11 events intensified a national recession that

Ness


To order reprints, call 1-800-352-2210; outside the United States, call 717-632-3535.

was already under way. The initial responses of the federal gov-ernment favor corporations and the affluent and disproportion-ately burden working people. Apart from jingoistic, at timesmaudlin, media hype, Washington has shown little interest inensuring a lasting consensus through sharing the costs of war.Instead, those who can best weather the storm are rewarded andthose most vulnerable are left to face uncertainty and economicpain. In the absence of a labor movement that can build a na-tional consensus around policies benefiting working people, theunspoken class divide in this country will widen further, evenas elected officials and the media call for shared responsibilityand sacrifice.

war and the labor movement

Documents