Unions: good for Democrats (and democrats)

By Kathy G.

The crisis in Detroit, and the ensuing debate over whether Uncle Sam should bail out the auto industry, has of late led to a round of union-bashing that, to the best of my recollection, is well-nigh unprecedented.

Over the next couple of days, I'll be responding to the many shameless distortions and lies being cooked up by the bashers (and that includes you, Gary Becker, Richard Posner, and serial offender Mickey Kaus!). But first, I wanted to add something to the pro-union arguments that Kevin Drum and Ezra Klein have already made.

Kevin's and Ezra's arguments focus on what I would call the first-order effects of unions: i.e., that they improve job conditions, increase earnings, and decrease wage inequality.

But their benefits don't stop there. If you care not only about the economic well-being of low- and middle-income Americans, but about the long-term viability of the Democratic Party -- nay, of democracy itself! -- you should be a strong supporter of unions and the American labor movement.

What do I mean by this? First of all, let's look at the impact of unions on the Democratic Party. Unions, of course, provide invaluable aid to the Democratic candidates. As Matt Stoller explains here, unions provide candidates with money, field and GOTV operations, media surrogates, and more. Even though, in numbers and influence, organized labor has declined dramatically over the past couple of decades, it is still, as Stoller has written, "the single most reliable, organized and powerful segment of the Democratic political coalition."

Secondly, and perhaps even more importantly -- unions are, among other things, institutions that more or less create Democrats. This is because union members overwhelmingly tend to vote for the party that, however imperfectly, is more likely to protect their economic interests. This is true even when those union members belong to groups -- such as gun owners, weekly churchgoers, and white, non-college educated males -- which otherwise tend to vote Republican.

Take, for instance, these stunning statistics from the last election, which have not gotten anywhere near the attention they merit:

Fifty-seven percent of white men favored McCain, but 57 percent of white male union members favored Obama. White gun owners cast 68 percent of their votes for McCain, but 54 percent of white gun owners who are also union members preferred Obama. Among white weekly churchgoers, McCain scored a landslide, receiving 70 percent of their votes. But Obama had a slight edge (49 percent to 48 percent) among white weekly churchgoers who were union members. Similarly, 58 percent of white non-college graduates voted for McCain, but 60 percent of white union members who didn't graduate from college tilted to Obama. Overall, 53 percent of white women cast ballots for McCain, but [pollster Guy] Molyneux found that a whopping 72 percent of white women union members favored Obama.

Other recent elections show similar results. For example, in 2004, white males who weren't in a union went for Bush by 31 percentage points, while those who were voted for Kerry by 7 points. Similarly, in 2000, Bush won white nonunion men by 33 points, while Gore won white male union members by 3 points.

America is far more racially diverse than it used to be, so fortunately, the Democrats no longer need the support of a majority of white voters to win elections. Nevertheless, if they are to prevail, they will still have to peel off a significant chunk of white, working class voters. Yet white, non-college educated voters will probably always tend to be culturally conservative and nationalist, and as such, they will lean heavily Republican. If the Democrats want to remain competitive with these voters, they've got to get them to vote their economic interests. But unless the economy is tanking in a big way (as it is now), this can be a tough thing for the Dems to pull off, given the powerful, lizard brain appeal of the GOP's culturally conservative, Nixonland-style politics.

This is where the unions come in. Unions devote enormous resources to voter education and outreach efforts for their members. They orient their members into voting economics rather than culture. And they tend to flip just enough white, working class voters into the Democratic column to enable the Dems to remain competitive in national elections.

I've often thought that if you wanted a quick-and-dirty institutional explanation for the dramatic rightward lurch this country took between 1968 and 2004, you could do far worse than to point to the decline of unions, on the one hand; and the rise of Christian right churches, on the other.

Given the heavily Democratic orientation of the American labor movement, It stands to reason that the waxing of union density in this country would likely be accompanied with the waning of the Republican Party. This is why, if you're a progressive, you should strongly support policies (such as the proposed Employee Free Choice Act) that make it easier to organize unions. You may be indifferent, or ambivalent, or even hostile, to unions as such. But if you strongly support policies like getting out of Iraq, protecting the environment, or strengthening civil liberties, reproductive freedom, or rights for gays and lesbians, you should strongly support unions, as well. Union members are a crucial segment of the progressive coalition, and without them, there would be far less support for left of center political candidates in this country.

Is it any wonder why so many right-wing Republicans have been so bitterly opposed to bailing out the auto industry, and so eager to use the turmoil in Detroit as an opportunity to punish (and, they no doubt hope, destroy) the auto workers' unions?

I said earlier that unions are good not only for Democrats, but for democracy writ large. This is a trickier argument to make, but here goes. On one level, unions are good for democracy because they support the party, the Democrats, which is more likely to support small-d democratic policies. Democrats, for example, have a far better record of supporting voting rights, and Democratic presidents are far less likely than their Republican counterparts to use the Constitution for toilet paper.

But in a broader sense, unions are good for democracy because they promote democratic values. They educate their members, which make them more informed and thus better prepared to participate in  civic life. Which is why it's not surprising that, if you belong to a union, you're much more likely to vote -- one study found that, although by the year 2000 union density in America was only 14%, union households made up fully 26% of the electorate.

As author and labor lawyer Tom Geoghegan (of whom I'll have a lot more to say later on today) points out in his forthcoming book (which I've had the pleasure of reading in manuscript form), unions put ordinary people in positions of leadership, which promotes democratic values. The union status of their jobs gives union members a stake to protect. And this in turn gives them an impetus to participate as active members of our democracy.

The economic benefits unions provide to their members are critically important, of course. But let's not forget the less tangible benefits they provide for society as a whole. Without unions, support for a progressive politics in this country would be far weaker, and our democracy would be far less vibrant.

Comments

[Sir Charles]

Kathy,

Agreed on all points. I would also add that unions make the work place more democratic -- the boss can't just fire you because he feels like it, or cut your pay or benefits without negotiations -- and since work is where most people spend a sizable chunk of their waking hours, this strikes me as an important cultural fact in addition to its enormous importance economically.

p.s. I sent $100 in for Geoghegan on the Act Blue page today. Definitely worth a post or a link.

[alex]

kathy,

you mention the correlation between the decline of union density, the rise of the mega-church, and republican ascendancy; this topic should really be explored in much more depth (and it may have been for all i know).

a few years ago i read a great mike davis essay on the rise of pentecostalism in the 3rd world slums along with the decline of marxian liberation movements. the point davis made was that the new churches supplanted the community and education that would be provided by these economic movements, focusing their members inward into a mutual support network that, while useful, completely obscured and directed away from broader and more egalitarian macro-strategies. this seems to be the same process that unfolded here in the states.

i'm a union researcher and one of my colleagues has been arguing for the establishment of auxiliaries that get labor back into the community building business. this is quite similar to the whole "democrats work" that i saw starting up during the campaign. my hope is that the obama campaign's emphasis on organizing and active engagement translates into an ongoing community presence that goes beyond the electoral game

[Pipefitter Bill]

Hello Again, Kathy G. Just FYI, I also went to the Act Blue page and gave a C Note to Tom G. for Congress.

I totally agree with Alex that we need to engage people in many different ways. As a Union member my biggest complaint about the Labor Movement is that we dream small, and we do not conduct ourselves as a social movement. We should have run somebody for President in the primaries back in the 80s and 90s, but we continue to relegate ourselves to the phone banks every election cycle. Other than the Economic Policy Institute, we have no home grown intelligentsia, so why should the Democrats want anything but our money and our muscle? We were a strident, intelligent and daring bunch in the 20s and 30s, with our own community organizations and art groups. Now we give money by the tens of millions to people who never really fight for us.

What we should do with some of that election cycle money is start our own weekly or monthly magazine. I get a monthly magazine from my International Union (mailed to 400K members), and I bet the budget for this thing is high 6 figures. If all of the Unions cut that figure in half, and put the rest into a genuine publication (like The Nation or The American Prospect), then we could start getting the word out in a big way. This magazine would be sent free to every Union household in the country, which would mean a monthly circulation of about 30 million people. Kathy, you and your guy are writers--what writer in America wouldn't eat (whatever) to get her work into a publication going to 30 million people? Within five years, it would be an important publication, and we could develop the practical means and the intellectual philosophy that could advance our interests and improve our country.

As far as Unions and democracy: A few years back I wrote an essay (one of many that didn't make it past the interns) in which I made the case for Unions vis a vis the Founding Fathers. Here's part of it, and here goes nothin'.

The justification for a politically strong labor movement can be traced back to James Madison's Federalist Essay No. 10. Madison's definition of a faction is well known, but he elaborated in a mnner that presaged our various Gilded Ages: "The most common and durable source of faction has been the various and unequal distribution of property.... The regulation of these various and interfering interests forms the principal task of modern legislation."

When defined in this context, the role of labor unions becomes clear. The most powerful faction in American society is the business faction, and our inequitable distribution of income and power is a growing, virulent proof of that fact. This is not to say that corporations are evil, but we cannot expect them to act in the greater public interest. That task falls to institutions that must balance, and often oppose, the tunnel vision of the business community. It is arguable that labor unions are the most important and durable of these balancing agents, as they are afforded by force of law the ability to wield power within the very areas most critical to the interests of the business faction. This is precisely the type of situation Madison contemplated when he wrote: "...the CAUSES of faction cannot be removed and that relief is only to be sought in the means of controlling its EFFECTS." (Emphasis in original.)

The media are now directing a timely scrutiny to many factors that will decide the nature of work in the American economy of the new century. The next logical step is essential: American workers must take a powerful and legitimate place at the table of discussion. What that discussion must focus on is Victor Reuther's premise that democracy is impossible without the accompnying pillar of economic democracy. Labor unions will have a place at that table because it is in the nature of democracy for such institutions to exist.

It remains to be seen what tactics the radical wing of the business faction will employ to advance its antiquated and short sighted strategy. What is certain is that oppositions to labor's voice will be intense, and that much of the opposition will coalesce outside the public eye. If the American Labor Movement is denied its rightful political role due to some artfully construed legal fiction such as the basic right wing filibuster...well, we'll cross that 21st Century bridge when we get to it."

[Ninja Zombie]

Support unions because they support democrats? I believe there is a word for this reasoning.

It's called "cronyism".

[gappy]

Intersting post. I agree on some major points, i.e., that unions improve the living conditions of existing workers, and that they are forging Democrats. However, if this is an overall defense of unions, I find it very biased and superficial. Without delving into the immense literature, both empirical and theoretical, on unionism, there a couple of points I have experienced directly. First, unions are not different than any other coalition. They promote the interests of their members, not the general interest. In heavily unionized countries there are higher barriers to entry in the labor market, caused by labor contract rigidity and wage distortion. I don't think that one conclude that in the US there is a causative relationship between union membership and any welfare measure. Union membership has declined since the 50s. Has US welfare (utiliarian, rawlsian, you-name-it) declined since then? The second issue I have is that forging Democrats is good only if you assume that feeding the larger coalition of the Democratic Party automatically promotes the general interest. I would not make this assumption for any party.

[Joel Rutstein]

Recently, two of the three Dem candidates for Governor in VA, Creigh Deeds and Terry McAuliffe, affirmed their support of VA's Right to Work status - http://www.newdominionproject.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=36

I'm not holding my breath that the third Dem, Brian Moran, will be the maverick on this issue.

Not to pick on McAuliffe, but I wonder to what extent he would have been on the opposite side of the issue if he were running in a different state. Maybe he's doing what he thinks he needs to do to win in VA. I think Mark Warner and Tim Kaine, the last two VA Governors, both Dems, also supported Right to Work.

It's a shame that with the tailwind of Obama's victory, which included an historic win in VA, and the coincidence of hard economic times and VA's statewide elections this year, our Dem candidates can't be bolder.

[jean]

Well, Mr. Geoghegan now has at LEAST $300.
Having been in a union for most of my working life, let me say it is also a community, it decreases the isolation that can be felt in a workplace. While the union reps used to set my teeth on edge, I certainly appreciated every effort they made to assure my job was as safe as it could be against a large organization that would make expedient decisions, 'regretting' job loss, etc, etc.
Growing up in Detroit, my father's union membership brought us out of povery level to at least the lower middle class. It was a scary time; at more than one strike the guns were out, and even though I was very young, I knew things were very serious.