 |
|
 |
|
 |
|
 |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Both brilliant and hard working (he wrote 56 years of weekly columns), Father Higgins didn't limit his activism to labor. He was also a passionate defender of religious liberty in the American tradition, and was very influential in the Second Vatican Council's statement on behalf of human dignity and freedom. And yet he would also be known by his primary concern for workers, and thus the moniker: "the labor priest." In American parlance, of course, being for labor implies a strong support of labor unions. In the 1980s, before the collapse of Communism, he traveled to Poland to support the Solidarity movement, the main organizing body opposing the Communist dictatorship. In this context, support for the labor union was consistent with supporting laborers generally. Under Communism, all laborers were slaves of the state (not of capital per se) and to thus champion their right to organize is to favor their freedom of association against exploitative state industries that would deny their rights. It was different in the United States. Under the setting of a market economy, laborers are not the slaves of anyone. They have the freedom to choose any job that gives them the best pay and working conditions. Private enterprise might like to pay as little as possible, and spend as little as possible on matters of safety and worker well being, but competition between firms for workers requires them to attract workers with better pay and working conditions. It is the competitive engine of the market economy that becomes the primary ally of workers. Labor unions, on the other hand, are not about individual choice but rather collective bargaining that starts with the assumption that private capital is not the friend of labor but its antagonist. It is not at all clear that the Catholic intellectual movement that has traditionally backed organized labor has ever understood the difference between labor under socialism and labor under the market economy. In the case of Msgr. Higgins, with whom I enjoyed spirited debate from time to time, his support for labor unions drew him into the controversial case of the California grape workers boycott of 1960, led by Cesar Chavez. On the political left, Chavez was seen as a force for liberation, and Msgr. Higgins supported that position. The Left was undoubtedly correct in observing that the grape workers were need of higher pay and benefits. What seemed lost on those who uncritically backed the attempt to create a grape-pickers union was that these workers did in fact enjoy freedom of choice. They were mostly migrant workers who flocked to do this seasonal work precisely because it offered better terms than they would otherwise find in other pursuits. And the reason these terms were available was not because of the presence of union organizing but because of the free market for agricultural projects that made their labor valuable to producers and consumers. Business has a moral obligation to treat workers well. The economic system under which that moral obligation is mostly likely to be fulfilled — because it makes the resources available and allows both worker and business owner the freedom to make contracts — is the free-market economy. The presence of a market system of economics alone does not fulfill that moral obligation of workers and managers to do their duty, but it does insure that whatever deals they enter into are accepted without coercion and to their mutual advantage. A contemporary look at the numbers of who is active in labor unions today tells a story of the relative merits of collective versus individual bargaining. In the private sector, union membership has declined from a postwar high of 35.7 percent in 1953 to 9 percent today. In the public sector, the numbers are nearly reverse: In 1953, 11.6 percent of workers were members, whereas today 37.5 percent are. Despite dramatic increases in the number workers, the total number of union members has remained flat for nearly a half century. In the private sector, the total number has plummeted from 16 million in the 1950s to 9.1 million today. This huge decline in interest in joining unions has occurred despite federal regulations that weight bargaining power in favor of unions, and a Department of Labor that is dedicated to policing business for any perceived violation of worker rights. In the private sector, unionization has ground to a halt simply because workers do not wish to pay the price in terms of union dues and their own individual bargaining power. I know no young person who aspires to union membership, for example. (Unionization has increased in the public sector because pay scales are not determined by contract but by a rigid system of central planning, which is how it must be. This means that workers cannot generally depend on their personal productivity to guarantee their rights. Moreover, labor regulations are so heavily weighted toward unions in the public sector, it is surprising that the figures are as low as they are.) Working conditions during the 20th century dramatically improved for all workers in capitalist countries, but the role of labor unions per se in making this possible has been exaggerated. Data from the Dallas Federal Reserve on a century of work shows a huge shift away from jobs that entailed repetitive-motion injury, and backbreaking industrial labor, to those that do not. The percentage of workers that have jobs that surveys regard as undesirable (logging, coal mining, metalwork, construction, garbage collecting) has plummeted (generally from 16 percent to 5 percent of the workforce) and shifted to jobs people regard as desirable. Unions can often increase wages for their members, but they have had no influence over this sector-to-sector shift in type of work. This change was made possible by rising capital investment and productivity, which in turn are made possible by free markets for labor and capital. At the same time union membership has fallen, unemployment has declined, while wages and benefits have risen. Work stoppages, endemic in the age of unions, are very rare these days. Many companies offer bounties for employees who recruit other workers. Companies have a huge range of benefits as additional enticement for working. The number of hours that people work per week have fallen, mostly because workers value time off and employers value a happy workforce. If the old-line theory of labor economics were correct — that unions are the path to rising wages and better working conditions — the opposite would have happened. One can even make an argument that unions, by seeking closed-shop rules and imposing wage rates that made marginal workers unemployable — have actually hindered economic progress not only for the masses of workers, but union members themselves. Msgr. Higgins dedicated his life to helping to guarantee the rights of workers and to improving the conditions under which they fulfill their vocations in the workplace. His moral voice made a difference, not only in championing worker rights but also when he broke ranks to denounce unions for corruption, racism, and violence. Also making a difference was the market economy itself, a truth which Msgr. Higgins's intense focus on the merits of unions shielded from his view. Nonetheless, he was a great man with a big heart who was completely dedicated to the principles of Catholic social teaching. Most fundamentally, he believed in the right of workers to the freedom of association. It is precisely this right, operating within a democratic capitalist framework, that is achieving his aims. May God grant him a just reward for his labor. — Rev. Robert Sirico, a Catholic priest, is president of the Acton Institute for the Study of Religion and Liberty in Grand Rapids, Michigan. |
|
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
<% dim printurl
printurl = Request.ServerVariables("URL")%>
onsignor
George G. Higgins, who died at the age of 86 on May Day 2002, dedicated
his social ministry to the goal of improving the lives of workers. As
a priest with a doctorate in labor economics, he was uniquely qualified
to speak on behalf of Catholic social teaching concerning the dignity
of the worker. 
