Church Teaching on Unions

[Millie1997]

Can anyone tell me what the Catholic Church teaching is on unions? What about unions controlled by corrupt leadership, mandatory membership/dues for workers, dues used for political issues/candidates with which a member disagrees or which are contrary to Catholic teaching on faith and morals, poor stewardship of funds by leaders? How about public employee unions where there is no “greedy, profit-seeking company” as the opponent, but rather other taxpayers, including those of low-income who subsidize with taxes and increased cost of goods & services the excessive benefits and unwieldy management and extra costs that such public unions engender? How about the social justice of maintaining high cost benefits which lead to bankruptcy of civil government units? In light of all this, why do so many church leaders think such unionism is socially just?

 

[Ender]

In light of all this, why do so many church leaders think such unionism is socially just?

The Church’s position was initially laid out by Pope Leo XII in the encyclical Rerum Novarum in 1891. He saw unions as mutual assistance societies based largely on the old guild systems. He was speaking out against the efforts of some countries to outlaw private associations, specifically unions:

49. The most important of all are workingmen’s unions, for these virtually include all the rest.

• 1. Private societies, then, although they exist within the body politic, and are severally part of the commonwealth, cannot nevertheless be absolutely, and as such, prohibited by public authority. For, to enter into a “society” of this kind is the natural right of man; and the State has for its office to protect natural rights, not to destroy them; and, if it forbid its citizens to form associations, it contradicts the very principle of its own existence, for both they and it exist in virtue of the like principle, namely, the natural tendency of man to dwell in society.*

It appears to me that the idea that Leo XIII was vindicating the existence of modern unions is overreach. He was careful about what he was allowing as his very next comment was this:

52. There are occasions, doubtless, when it is fitting that the law should intervene to prevent certain associations, as when men join together for purposes which are evidently bad, unlawful, or dangerous to the State. In such cases, public authority may justly forbid the formation of such associations, and may dissolve them if they already exist. But every precaution should be taken not to violate the rights of individuals and not to impose unreasonable regulations under pretense of public benefit.

Around the turn of the century, when unions were beginning, there was a need for them, section 51 (above) was the relevant passage, and I think local parishes strongly supported union activity. Times have changed but the perception of unions - historical inertia - has not. Now it’s time to focus a bit more on section 52.

Ender

 

[Millie1997]

Thank you for responding, Ender. That is helpful information and analysis.

 

[white_sheep]

The unions we currently have are much different than just workers organizing or the unions of the 19th century.

 

[Cojuanco]

Can anyone tell me what the Catholic Church teaching is on unions? What about unions controlled by corrupt leadership, mandatory membership/dues for workers, dues used for political issues/candidates with which a member disagrees or which are contrary to Catholic teaching on faith and morals, poor stewardship of funds by leaders? How about public employee unions where there is no “greedy, profit-seeking company” as the opponent, but rather other taxpayers, including those of low-income who subsidize with taxes and increased cost of goods & services the excessive benefits and unwieldy management and extra costs that such public unions engender? How about the social justice of maintaining high cost benefits which lead to bankruptcy of civil government units? In light of all this, why do so many church leaders think such unionism is socially just?

That some organizations are corrupted does not necessarily make them immoral to belong to, in the same vein that an army that has some officers committing immoral actions does not make the army as a corporate organization unjust. Same with labor unions.

Also note that the Holy Father says that they may be dissolved, not that they ought to act in one way or another, especially in the cases you mentioned, where it is not, in fact, clear-cut (for the State can subject its workers to unjust conditions, as much as any private employer can). This would be, in essence, up to the consciences of everyone involved and the practicality of any such arrangement.

Furthermore, to assert that unions have necessarily outlived their usefulness is not necessarily true. For it could be that the only thing preventing an injustice on the part of the employer is that the union exists, which he knows is protected by the civil law, and that they will defend the gains that unions have made.

And it could further be that the civil government may simply use some things as a pretext to dissolve otherwise honorable associations of workers in order to render them defenseless against any return of abuses. For laws, after all, can be repealed, and the guarantees against abuses placed in the law may be of no effect at the desire of the government. (There are attempts at this even in our own country!)

Furthermore, what of the union shop? It operates on the principle that since you benefit of the fruits of their negotiations and contracts, as a worker you ought to pay compensation for that.

 

[Newbie2]

The Church’s position was initially laid out by Pope Leo XII in the encyclical Rerum Novarum in 1891. He saw unions as mutual assistance societies based largely on the old guild systems. He was speaking out against the efforts of some countries to outlaw private associations, specifically unions:

49. The most important of all are workingmen’s unions, for these virtually include all the rest.

• 1. Private societies, then, although they exist within the body politic, and are severally part of the commonwealth, cannot nevertheless be absolutely, and as such, prohibited by public authority. For, to enter into a “society” of this kind is the natural right of man; and the State has for its office to protect natural rights, not to destroy them; and, if it forbid its citizens to form associations, it contradicts the very principle of its own existence, for both they and it exist in virtue of the like principle, namely, the natural tendency of man to dwell in society.*

It appears to me that the idea that Leo XIII was vindicating the existence of modern unions is overreach. He was careful about what he was allowing as his very next comment was this:

52. There are occasions, doubtless, when it is fitting that the law should intervene to prevent certain associations, as when men join together for purposes which are evidently bad, unlawful, or dangerous to the State. In such cases, public authority may justly forbid the formation of such associations, and may dissolve them if they already exist. But every precaution should be taken not to violate the rights of individuals and not to impose unreasonable regulations under pretense of public benefit.

Around the turn of the century, when unions were beginning, there was a need for them, section 51 (above) was the relevant passage, and I think local parishes strongly supported union activity. Times have changed but the perception of unions - historical inertia - has not. Now it’s time to focus a bit more on section 52.

Ender

I agree.

With the industrial revolution, there was plenty of opportunity of those with the capital to start and run businesses to exploit workers. That seems like a rarity nowadays; most organized employees make a decent, fair wage…and some make more in the public sector unions than in private sector unions.

 

[tommcguire]

archmil.org/News/StatementRegardingtheRightsofW.htm This is a link to Bishop Jerome Listecki’s, February 16, 2011 statement: Regarding Rights of Workers and the Value of Unions.

I recommend reading reading Bishop Jerome Listecki’s statement on unions in light of what is happening in Wisconsin. Here is a quote.

Governments, for reasons of economic utility, often limit the freedom or the negotiating capacity of labor unions. Hence traditional networks of solidarity have more and more obstacles to overcome. The repeated calls issued within the Church’s social doctrine, beginning with Rerum Novarum [60], for the promotion of workers’ associations that can defend their rights must therefore be honored today even more than in the past, as a prompt and far-sighted response to the urgent need for new forms of cooperation at the international level, as well as the local level. #25]

 

[Tigg]

I rather like this commentary from the Wanderer. It does raise some interesting questions:
(emphasis mine)

CHICAGO — To the Most Rev. Jerome Listecki, archbishop of Milwaukee: What in the world possessed you to turn out a statement conveying the view of all the state’s bishops that comes down on the side of the amply well- paid union workers in Wisconsin?

I write as a labor union member in good standing ( American Federation of Television and Radio Artists AFL- CIO). Your statement maintains it is a plea for “ the legitimate rights” of public employees. Thus it was immediately snapped up by the liberal media as an endorsement of the well- paid public employees under the misleading rubric of “ social justice.”

Archbishop, where is the “social justice” when taxpayer- paid lawmakers flee the state to avoid a democratic vote in an era when citizens are rebelling against a looming public- pension crisis that threatens bankruptcy in cities,counties, and states — a crisis made possible by public employees, already protected by civil service and who cannot be terminated, who hold politicians hostage in their collective bargaining?

Tell me, Archbishop Listecki, where is the social justice when public school teachers phone in lying that they are “ sick” and thereupon having closed school districts down in Milwaukee, Madison, and Janesville — and on the demonstration site a cadre of physicians issues willy- nilly bogus “ ill- health notes” to justify the demonstrators’ absence from work?

In your press release, you instruct us on “ the legitimate rights” of union members. What about “ the legitimate rights” of taxpayers? Isn’t this implicit if not explicit in Catholic tracts on social justice? Granted, you’re aware of the heavy debt Wisconsin is carrying. Do you understand that Catholic social justice does not belong to employers alone but to organized labor depriving the public of legitimate services to which they are entitled? If so why did you make no mention of this?

I urge you and your colleagues in the Catholic hierarchy — often hobbled by teaching that is outdated, pegged to an era when unions were weak and involved only private sector negotiations — to understand that the world has entered upon a new phase where the old monopolistic robber barons are gone and new monopolists exert unimaginable power over a people who pay their taxes in good faith and who are deprived of vital services such as the education of their children.

thewandererpress.com/ee/wandererpress/index.php

 

[tafan]

I agree.

With the industrial revolution, there was plenty of opportunity of those with the capital to start and run businesses to exploit workers. That seems like a rarity nowadays; most organized employees make a decent, fair wage…and some make more in the public sector unions than in private sector unions.

I almost agree, not quite. Unions have played a very important role in our economy, but the last 30-40 years it seems as if they have completely lacked strategic vision, failed their members, and have not served the public interest. The loss of manufacturing jobs in this country, which is often lamented and attributed to outsourcing to third world countries, has been a long-term trend and is much more attributed to technology changes and automation than outsourcing (when one looks at the numbers in detail). In the 1950s, detroit was a model city of the middle class. Largely due to unions and auto companies. But the unions have ignored addressing the impact of automation and technology changes from a strategic fashion. They should have seen the writing on the wall and stressed to their members the need for better education and the need to be able to fill the economies needs furing this transition. But they did none of this on a large scale, as it would have endangered their membership (which has shrunk anyway with the downtrend of need for manufacturing workers).

As to not service the public interest, there is nothing that says the right to collectively bargain is absolute and covers all conditions. It is apparent that it should not be done in the face of harm to society and the public employees union have taken it way too far. It does not work in the public sector because there is not an absolute need for profit. At the end of the day, in the private sector, unions have always, albeit begrudingly at times, recognize the long-term need for the employer to stay profitable. With this lacking in the public sector, it has swung the power way too far in the direction of the employees, all balance has been lost.

On the other hand, there are cases now of workers where unionization and collective bargaining could do a lot of good, IMO. For example, retail sector employees. Anytime an industry starts being controlled by a few, very large companies AND it relies on non-professional level employees, there is a good chance that collective bargaining is called for (think Walmart). Unfortunately, it is now doubtful is any union would ever approach the problem with the correct mindset.

 

[pnewton]

I rather like this commentary from the Wanderer. It does raise some interesting questions:
(emphasis mine)

The Wanderer has no Church authority and appeals to no Church authority. The bishop has authority within his diocese, as this bishop was addressing, and appealed to Catholic doctrine. It should be noted that the topic here is Church teaching, not Wanderer teaching.

 

[FAB]

The Church’s position was initially laid out by Pope Leo XII in the encyclical Rerum Novarum in 1891. He saw unions as mutual assistance societies based largely on the old guild systems. He was speaking out against the efforts of some countries to outlaw private associations, specifically unions:

49. The most important of all are workingmen’s unions, for these virtually include all the rest.

• 1. Private societies, then, although they exist within the body politic, and are severally part of the commonwealth, cannot nevertheless be absolutely, and as such, prohibited by public authority. For, to enter into a “society” of this kind is the natural right of man; and the State has for its office to protect natural rights, not to destroy them; and, if it forbid its citizens to form associations, it contradicts the very principle of its own existence, for both they and it exist in virtue of the like principle, namely, the natural tendency of man to dwell in society.*

It appears to me that the idea that Leo XIII was vindicating the existence of modern unions is overreach. He was careful about what he was allowing as his very next comment was this:

52. There are occasions, doubtless, when it is fitting that the law should intervene to prevent certain associations, as when men join together for purposes which are evidently bad, unlawful, or dangerous to the State. In such cases, public authority may justly forbid the formation of such associations, and may dissolve them if they already exist. But every precaution should be taken not to violate the rights of individuals and not to impose unreasonable regulations under pretense of public benefit.

Around the turn of the century, when unions were beginning, there was a need for them, section 51 (above) was the relevant passage, and I think local parishes strongly supported union activity. Times have changed but the perception of unions - historical inertia - has not. Now it’s time to focus a bit more on section 52.

Ender

For many years the Church Supported unions since they fell in line with teachings stressing the rights of workers for fair wages.
Since Roe V Wade, there has been greater distance developing since unions support exclusivly democats and we know what that party supports.
The Church continues to support the right of workers to organize.

 

[pnewton]

From the Venerable Pope John Paul II:

All these rights, together with the need for the workers themselves to secure them, give rise to yet another right: *the right of association, *that is to form associations for the purpose of defending the vital interests of those employed in the various professions. These associations are called labour or trade unions.

vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/encyclicals/documents/hf_jp-ii_enc_14091981_laborem-exercens_en.html

From Pope Benedict XVI

Through the combination of social and economic change, trade union organizations experience greater difficulty in carrying out their task of representing the interests of workers, partly because Governments, for reasons of economic utility, often limit the freedom or the negotiating capacity of labour unions. Hence traditional networks of solidarity have more and more obstacles to overcome. The repeated calls issued within the Church’s social doctrine, beginning with Rerum Novarum[60], for the promotion of workers’ associations that can defend their rights must therefore be honoured today even more than in the past, as a prompt and far-sighted response to the urgent need for new forms of cooperation at the international level, as well as the local level.

vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/encyclicals/documents/hf_ben-xvi_enc_20090629_caritas-in-veritate_en.html

If anyone proposes that the Church’s teachings on labor unions has changed, ask them to show from church teaching where the Catholic Church teaches that it has changed.

 

[Tigg]

The Wanderer has no Church authority and appeals to no Church authority. The bishop has authority within his diocese, as this bishop was addressing, and appealed to Catholic doctrine. It should be noted that the topic here is Church teaching, not Wanderer teaching.

As my post clearly indicates, this is a commentary on the subject matter. It does specifically address the question in the OP, : “How about the social justice of maintaining high cost benefits which lead to bankruptcy of civil government units? In light of all this, why do so many church leaders think such unionism is socially just?”

Of course, the question remains unanswered.

 

[FAB]

From the Venerable Pope John Paul II:

vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/encyclicals/documents/hf_jp-ii_enc_14091981_laborem-exercens_en.html

From Pope Benedict XVI

vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/encyclicals/documents/hf_ben-xvi_enc_20090629_caritas-in-veritate_en.html

If anyone proposes that the Church’s teachings on labor unions has changed, ask them to show from church teaching where the Catholic Church teaches that it has changed.

The Church still supports the idea of unions, and the right of association for the betterment of the worker yes. It also supports the right of individual. Cohersion to to join a union, taking away secret votes to form a union, violence intimination is not part of that support. Niether are the unions support of pro-choice canidates. Union dues are largely used for such canidates. A Catholic or orther Christian who is pro-life has their money used, which is taken without choice, to be used for this.
If unions are to truely represent the worker, they must also support all their rights.

 

[Brendan]

For many years the Church Supported unions since they fell in line with teachings stressing the rights of workers for fair wages.
Since Roe V Wade, there has been greater distance developing since unions support exclusivly democats and we know what that party supports.
The Church continues to support the right of workers to organize.

That is correct, but where most modern union exceed their moral mandate is in the forced membership or forced payment of dues.

The Church, in R.N., has considered these organizations to be voluntary. As such, the concept of “Right to Work”, where a worker is free to NOT join a union and to enter into a personal contract with the employer is to be recognized.

 

[pnewton]

Union dues are largely used for such canidates. …If unions are to truely represent the worker, they must also support all their rights.

The first document I linked addressed this very issue.

In this sense, union activity undoubtedly enters the field of *politics, *understood as *prudent concern for the common good. *However, the role of unions is not to “play politics” in the sense that the expression is commonly understood today. Unions do not have the character of political parties struggling for power; they should not be subjected to the decision of political parties or have too close links with them. In fact, in such a situation they easily lose contact with their specific role, which is to secure the just rights of workers within the £ramework of the common good of the whole of society; instead they become an instrument used for other purposes.

 

[FAB]

The first document I linked addressed this very issue.

Is there a union in the United States which is not involed in politcs?
There might be one somewere, so according to the documents, the Church supports the right of workers the organize for common cause to improve working conditions and wages, but not when they become an arm of politics.

 

[pnewton]

Is there a union in the United States which is not involed in politcs?
There might be one somewere, so according to the documents, the Church supports the right of workers the organize for common cause to improve working conditions and wages, but not when they become an arm of politics.

The Church supports their right to organize anyway. It just does not support this aspect of unions. There are other limitations. However, these limitations do not nullify the rights of workers, even when the unions go to far, as they usually do.

 

[tommcguire]

The good economic conditions in the United States is directly related to the work of labor unions. To attack unions is not the solution to today’s problems. Yes, politics is involved because government is an important stack holder in what does and does not benefit workers.

Today there are individual men who make one billion dollars a year. For the middle income person whose gross income in rounded figures is $29,000.00, it would take that person 34,000 years to make a billion dollars. Consider that in any American home there are few items manufactured in the United States. These are complicated issues; there are no simple answers.

The Church does not just support unions, she encourages solidarity which allows for participation of the worker in the process of decision making. Rather than attacking unions, the Catholic position would suggest a need for renewal of unions and a greater emphasis of solidarity. In Laborem Exercens, On Human Work, John Paul II states:

For this reason, there must be continued study of the subject of work and of the subject’s living conditions. In order to achieve social justice in the various parts of the world, in the various countries, and in the relationships between them, there is a need for ever new movements of solidarity of the workers and with the workers. This solidarity must be present whenever it is called for by the social degrading of the subject of work, by exploitation of the workers, and by the growing areas of poverty and even hunger.

 

[bbarrick8383]

The good economic conditions in the United States is directly related to the work of labor unions. To attack unions is not the solution to today’s problems. Yes, politics is involved because government is an important stack holder in what does and does not benefit workers.

It’s not so much of an attack on unions outright as it is public sector unions. They are part of the government and, as the voters have been saying for the past couple of years, government needs to step back and watch what their spending as well.

Today there are individual men who make one billion dollars a year. For the middle income person whose gross income in rounded figures is $29,000.00, it would take that person 34,000 years to make a billion dollars. Consider that in any American home there are few items manufactured in the United States. These are complicated issues; there are no simple answers.

The problem is not that an individual man makes a billion dollars. It’s what he does with that billion dollars. Many of them donate huge sums of money to great causes and buy bankrupt businesses, saves the employees by turning the product around to make it more desirable. Then you have some like Buffett who prey on businesses suffering from closure because of the death tax. Who are we to tell others what to do with what they own? It is their decision to behave as a Christian, it is not a Christian thing to do to force them to behave like a Christian through legislation.

The Church does not just support unions, she encourages solidarity which allows for participation of the worker in the process of decision making. Rather than attacking unions, the Catholic position would suggest a need for renewal of unions and a greater emphasis of solidarity. In Laborem Exercens, On Human Work, John Paul II states:

For this reason, there must be continued study of the subject of work and of the subject’s living conditions. In order to achieve social justice in the various parts of the world, in the various countries, and in the relationships between them, there is a need for ever new movements of solidarity of the workers and with the workers. This solidarity must be present whenever it is called for by the social degrading of the subject of work, by exploitation of the workers, and by the growing areas of poverty and even hunger.

I can agree with this. I don’t see many Americans suffering from poor work environments, maybe a ****** boss on occasion, I’ve had that problem. But it’s nothing we can tend to ourselves. I do however see many Americans living way beyond their means, and part of this has been promoted by government. Go ahead, take that loan out for 25 percent of your monthly income, we will provide the safety net.