Historian’s thoughts about Catholics and Labor on Labor Day

[Beau_Ouiville]

Well, this is a different take on labor and Catholicism.

"When I was growing up, we considered the Labor Day parade on Market Street one of the high points of the year. Women marched in the parades, but back then if you asked me or my fellow students at St. Agnes School, we would have told you that our dads worked and our moms stayed home. If our dads did not sit at desks at City Hall or wear police or fire department badges, they mostly wore union buttons while they hefted freight on the docks or nearby warehouses, drove trucks, and built and maintained the city’s downtown offices and department stores and uptown schools and houses.

Every other Sunday, our family joined those of my dad’s seven brothers and sisters for dinner at my grandparents’ house after 11:00 o’clock Mass at St. Vincent’s in Petaluma. After the meal, my dad and my four uncles, veterans of the battles to unionize workers who were not yet enrolled in Congress of Industrial Organization (CIO) or American Federation of Labor (AFL) unions, traded stories from the front lines of the labor wars.

An abiding theme in these late 1940s discussions between my dad and my uncles was their conviction that they were doing God’s work by spreading the gospel of union solidarity. They could quote by heart passages from Leo XIII’s Rerum Novarum (1891) and Pius XI’s Quadragesimo Anno (1931). …They had faith in the Church’s social justice teachings that offered pride of place to democratic (and anti-Communist) unions. What they could not understand were fellow Catholics who failed, in the language of a popular song of the day, to “accentuate the positive” when discussing the labor movement. "

catholic-sf.org/news_select.php?newsid=6&id=57527

 

[rlg94086]

Well, this is a different take on labor and Catholicism.

"When I was growing up, we considered the Labor Day parade on Market Street one of the high points of the year. Women marched in the parades, but back then if you asked me or my fellow students at St. Agnes School, we would have told you that our dads worked and our moms stayed home. If our dads did not sit at desks at City Hall or wear police or fire department badges, they mostly wore union buttons while they hefted freight on the docks or nearby warehouses, drove trucks, and built and maintained the city’s downtown offices and department stores and uptown schools and houses.

Every other Sunday, our family joined those of my dad’s seven brothers and sisters for dinner at my grandparents’ house after 11:00 o’clock Mass at St. Vincent’s in Petaluma. After the meal, my dad and my four uncles, veterans of the battles to unionize workers who were not yet enrolled in Congress of Industrial Organization (CIO) or American Federation of Labor (AFL) unions, traded stories from the front lines of the labor wars.

An abiding theme in these late 1940s discussions between my dad and my uncles was their conviction that they were doing God’s work by spreading the gospel of union solidarity. They could quote by heart passages from Leo XIII’s Rerum Novarum (1891) and Pius XI’s Quadragesimo Anno (1931). …They had faith in the Church’s social justice teachings that offered pride of place to democratic (and anti-Communist) unions. What they could not understand were fellow Catholics who failed, in the language of a popular song of the day, to “accentuate the positive” when discussing the labor movement. "

catholic-sf.org/news_select.php?newsid=6&id=57527

Unions are a good thing; however, they can also be a negative. The union movement was properly linked to Communism, because their goals were co-opted by Socialists and Communists who hate Democracy. I’m generally pro-union, but only if unions are seen in their proper role within the free enterprise system - organized workers negotiating with owners. There is limited need for governmental action - to protect the rights of unions to negotiate. For whatever reason, most pro-union voters feel the need to create a nanny state (which is contrary to Catholic social teaching).

 

[Beau_Ouiville]

The union movement was properly linked to Communism, because their goals were co-opted by Socialists and Communists who hate Democracy.

Setting aside whether socialists hate democracy, I still disagree. The argument that unionism was linked to communism is the same argument that was used linking the civil rights protests to communism. Just because the communists agree with a movement’s aims does not make the movement bad nor does it make it a tool of the communists. Folks always had a hard time hauling that in.

 

[rlg94086]

Setting aside whether socialists hate democracy, I still disagree. The argument that unionism was linked to communism is the same argument that was used linking the civil rights protests to communism. Just because the communists agree with a movement’s aims does not make the movement bad nor does it make it a tool of the communists. Folks always had a hard time hauling that in.

So, you are claiming that Communists did not get involved in and/or co-opt union efforts? It’s not an “argument.” It’s history:

depts.washington.edu/labhist/cpproject/grijalva.shtml

After 1933 the Communist Party (CP) made great strides by switching from activism in the unemployed sector to aggressive union building among those who did have jobs. There was a great upsurge in Communist participation and influence in labor unions – especially in the Pacific Northwest. This participation brought the Party new members and new credibility. In his book* Labor and Communism: The Conflict That Shaped American Unions*, historian Burt Cochran argues that the party gained influence and credibility by taking the lead in union-building struggles and doing the hard work of organizing and taking risks where others held back. Party members gained a reputation as fighters for the working class:
Beyond winning relief for some of the needy and making the country conscious of the national problem, the marches and demonstrations, the moving of furniture back into apartments whose tenants had been dispossessed, the countless sit-downs in relief offices and other so-called job actions were important in carving the image of Communists as intrepid fighters for the underdog.[ii]
The Pacific Northwest saw a great deal of Party union building activity during the 1930s, although it is hard to figure the exact dimensions of Party influence or the numbers of Communists in any particular union since many wanted their affiliation kept secret due to fears of attack and ostracism. One sphere where Communists were effective was in the various industries where there was a high percentage of immigrant workers. A good example of this is the canning industry where the Cannery Workers and Farm Labor Union that formed in 1933 was alleged to be Communist-dominated.[iii] The Alaska canning industry had a high percentage of Filipino workers, some of who were drawn to the CP because of the Party’s position against racism and imperialism. Communists argued that one ‘ism’ existed because of the other and that the Party was fighting against both.[iv] (on the early years of the union see Filipinos and the Cannery Workers Union by Crystal Fresco).

 

[Beau_Ouiville]

My argument is that the trade union movement had valuable aims. Some of the members of the movement were communists, some socialists, some democratic socialists and many were Catholic.

However, the trade union movement was not communistic nor communist controlled.

That whole ‘communism’ bugaboo should be discarded. Folks use it as a red herring.

 

[rlg94086]

My argument is that the trade union movement had valuable aims. Some of the members of the movement were communists, some socialists, some democratic socialists and many were Catholic.

However, the trade union movement was not communistic nor communist controlled.

That whole ‘communism’ bugaboo should be discarded. Folks use it as a red herring.

I’ve given historical facts. History is not a “bugaboo” that should be “discarded.” Nor, is it a “red herring.” I never claimed that the whole movement was communistic, but as the link I provided shows, the Communists did co-opt the union movement and Communists did take leadership roles. I’m sorry if you prefer to deny reality.

I stand by my earlier statement that unions have value but can also be a negative. I also stand by my contention that pro-union voters tend to also favor a nanny state, which the Church firmly teaches against.

 

[jamanne]

Why is it only in America I have heard about church leaders being drawn into taking sides about Unions and Non Unions ?I always thought that this was a secular decision and have never heard of the Church making any statements supporting one side or the other.all I know is it states in the bible that a person should be paid fairly for his work and an employee should give a days work for his pay .this is open to a million translations I have belonged to unions since I was fifteen my father led the hunger marches from Glasgow, Scotland to London during the depression NO ONE WORKED HARDER THAN HIM including a stint in two world wars and I don,t ever remember any clergy being mentioned as being involved one way or another.by the way my father was very anti communistic.

 

[rlg94086]

Why is it only in America I have heard about church leaders being drawn into taking sides about Unions and Non Unions ?I always thought that this was a secular decision and have never heard of the Church making any statements supporting one side or the other.all I know is it states in the bible that a person should be paid fairly for his work and an employee should give a days work for his pay .this is open to a million translations I have belonged to unions since I was fifteen my father led the hunger marches from Glasgow, Scotland to London during the depression NO ONE WORKED HARDER THAN HIM including a stint in two world wars and I don,t ever remember any clergy being mentioned as being involved one way or another.by the way my father was very anti communistic.

There are Catholics on both sides of the issue of Labor Unions.

The right to organize labor is very much supported by the Church. However, that doesn’t mean that everything Unions do and/or stand for is supported by the Church. It is not a black/white situation.

I disagree with conservative Catholics who believe in unrestrained capitalism. On the other hand, I also disagree with liberal Catholics who believe in an increased Social Assistance State, which the Church also teaches against. I don’t know about Unions in other countries, but in the US, they tend to support the Social Assistance State. That’s where I have an issue.

Unions are important to keep the bean counters from forgetting about human dignity. However, a Social Assistance State is harmful to human dignity.

 

[curlycool89]

Unions are a good thing; however, they can also be a negative. The union movement was properly linked to Communism, because their goals were co-opted by Socialists and Communists who hate Democracy. I’m generally pro-union, but only if unions are seen in their proper role within the free enterprise system - organized workers negotiating with owners. There is limited need for governmental action - to protect the rights of unions to negotiate. For whatever reason, most pro-union voters feel the need to create a nanny state (which is contrary to Catholic social teaching).

I think the unions have had their days. Back when the trade union movement was just getting going and their primary goal was to make sure workers were not treated drastically unfairly (long days with many of them in a row, low pay), that was pretty noble. The problem is that much of that is now anachronistic.

For example, the strict “8-5 workday” in many cases is useless. Retail stores often open until 10 or 11pm, restaurants till even later, and some gas stations/convenience stores are open 24 hours. Really, the “8-5 workday” only really works in an office environment, and even then it doesn’t always work.

In my job last summer, I started as early as 5am and worked till as late as 10:30pm, and I worked days as long as 14 hours (no union obviously, or else they would have had a conniption fit). I just got paid lots of money (the point of overtime pay is to dissuade companies from working people too many hours after all). My boss worked in the office and he was often there before me, left after me and came in on the weekends to catch up He would have been months behind if he did 8-5.

This past summer I worked for a union, and the only thing the union seemed to accomplish was to make the job almost impossible to do. I worked with a government agency which monitors watersheds, and part of the job was going out into the field and visiting remote stations by rivers, streams, lakes and whatever else we were looking after. The union pretty much ignores the fact that the job is dictated mostly by the weather (more rain = more work), and the weather doesn’t follow an 8-5 M-F schedule. We could have collected some great (and important) data on weekends, but we were forbidden (weekends were exclusively double time pay, so the only reason they sent someone out was an emergency). Some days ended up being longer (10 hours was the average) due to many factors, and the bosses would practically freak (their preference was to stop at 5 and pick a hotel in wherever you were closest to, despite the fact that it would cost double or more what they’d have to pay to drive back). But there’s no way to get some of the stations without going overtime practically.
There were also people who worked in the office, and they were months behind (granted, they were also short-staffed).

The point of “8-5” now seems to be (in some cases) to protect older workers from younger ones. The “oldies” don’t like that the young ones come in and are willing to work a lot of hours and therefore make lots of money. I know that older people have more commitments and stuff (legitimate ones like children), but it’s not like young people can take over every position in a company right away. I think if people want to work longer hours, and if they actually have work to do, then they should be allowed to. It’s kind of full circle, the unions original job was to prevent companies to overworking the employees, but now all they’re preventing is employees from working longer when they want to. In this case, I take the libertarian viewpoint.

 

[Tsuwano]

I’ve given historical facts. History is not a “bugaboo” that should be “discarded.” Nor, is it a “red herring.” I never claimed that the whole movement was communistic, but as the link I provided shows, the Communists did co-opt the union movement and Communists did take leadership roles. I’m sorry if you prefer to deny reality.

I stand by my earlier statement that unions have value but can also be a negative. I also stand by my contention that pro-union voters tend to also favor a nanny state, which the Church firmly teaches against.

I agree with some of what you’ve written and disagree with other parts. I agree that members of the Communist Party attempted to influence American labor unions and may even have had some leadership roles in the 30’s, but by the 60’s it was quite apparent that they had failed to influence the movement significantly. American labor unions were never big supporters of Gus Hall and the American Communist Party and if you can name any labor leaders from the 60’s who were members of that party, I would be very surprised. I disagree that pro-union voters, your average working stiff, tends to favor a nanny state, though I do think members of labor unions feel that the Government has a role to play in insuring that worker’s rights are protected by the law. Heck, so do I! Is it possible for unions to become so powerful that the genuine interests of workers or the legitimate interest of the state are ignored? I certainly think so, but powerful conglomerates can also go too far. As with most things, balance is always necessary.

 

[Rich_Olszewski]

I agree with some of what you’ve written and disagree with other parts. I agree that members of the Communist Party attempted to influence American labor unions and may even have had some leadership roles in the 30’s, but by the 60’s it was quite apparent that they had failed to influence the movement significantly.

It was Jewish women unionists, mainly Socialists, in the International Ladies’ Garment Workers’ Union, once one of the largest labor unions in the United States, who drove the Communists out of the union in the 30s.

 

[latin_rite]

I’ve given historical facts. History is not a “bugaboo” that should be “discarded.” Nor, is it a “red herring.” I never claimed that the whole movement was communistic, but as the link I provided shows, the Communists did co-opt the union movement and Communists did take leadership roles. I’m sorry if you prefer to deny reality.
.

I’m not a big fan of unions. But that’s more to do with personal issues i had with some union officials laziness and greed. But there has been times, where i have been glad i was in a union. Anyway… I know some communists gravitated towards the union movement in the west. Probably more to do with some misguided belief that all workers were ready to rise up against the system. Boy did they get suckered in. But i digress. At the end of the day, I’m glad we have unions. If it weren’t for them 10 yr old kids would still be going down coal mines. Forget your public holidays. Not to mention. you would have to kiss goodbye your safety regulations. decent pay. job security. So really. I don’t care if the person who helped give me all those conditions and more was a raging pinko. I know there are people who didn’t or don;t need a union to get those conditions. I myself, don’t really need them now, either. But many did and many many more still do. Because remember. All those good work conditions the majority of people. Enjoy today… Are because of unions. Employers didn’t give them to us out of the goodness of their hearts.

 

[rlg94086]

At the end of the day, I’m glad we have unions. If it weren’t for them 10 yr old kids would still be going down coal mines. Forget your public holidays. Not to mention. you would have to kiss goodbye your safety regulations. decent pay. job security… I know there are people who didn’t or don;t need a union to get those conditions. I myself, don’t really need them now, either. But many did and many many more still do. Because remember. All those good work conditions the majority of people. Enjoy today… Are because of unions. Employers didn’t give them to us out of the goodness of their hearts.

Agreed. I’ve never said that unions are/were all bad. I’ve said they are good, but also have negatives.

 

[canadianguy1143]

When I was in Intermediate Accounting class, the teacher explained to us that one of the biggest reasons why the Big 3 (GM, Chrysler and Ford) were in financial trouble was because of the expensive pensions that Unions had fought for in there.

By contrast the Japanese automakers were union free and as such in better financial shape.