From the print edition of Political Affairs, April 2005.
It’s no secret that today, a powerful debate rages in the labor movement. For most union members and supporters, notwithstanding the newspaper articles and discussions taking place in their union halls and work sites, there is probably more confusion than clarity. Everybody seems to be for or against the same things.
There is a great danger that the everyday health and safety of workers might become a casualty of this great debate. The purpose of this commentary is to not take sides with one group or the other. On the contrary, it is argue for the expansion of the historic mission of organized labor to protect workers from increasingly dangerous working conditions.
Every organizing survey shows safety and health as a major reason for workers seeking union protection.
There is no disagreement that labor did a rather good job in mobilizing members to vote in 2004. Most of labor agrees that the Democratic Party dropped the ball. The independent role of labor is a principle that most agree on.
Labor is also of one mind in believing that increasing the number of workers under union protection is essential to increasing labor’s power. Some however have argued that numbers is not the only issue. A militant and progressive vision is needed to motivate and encourage workers to join and stay in unions.
There is also general agreement that the struggle to increase wages and lessen working hours is essential. Similarly there’s a consensus that negotiated health benefit programs must be protected and expanded as labor continues to fight for a national health program that covers everyone.
Not as openly highlighted is the imperative that working conditions be improved. This issue, working conditions or occupational safety and health, has become a bone of contention by a number of the unions.
Eliminate S&H Departments?
One recurring theme from a number of unions that once formed the New Union Partnership (NUP) was to eliminate safety and health departments from all unions including the national office of the AFL-CIO and to spend that money on organizing. With the dismantling of the NUP, it was hoped that this proposal would be set aside. It hasn’t been.
The unfortunate aspect of this largely behind-the-scenes debate is the separation of two major issues: organizing on the one side and health and safety on the other. This division makes no sense.
International unions with safety and health departments have always been supportive and in many instances participated in organizing drives. And, labor organizers and union organizing drives have practically always had to respond to occupational safety and health hazards raised by angry workers and their families. Every organizing survey shows safety and health as a major reason for workers seeking union protection.
What better use of staff expertise in worker safety and health than organizing workers and keeping them organized?
Corporate Expertise and Political Action Must Be Challenged and Defeated
At stake in this debate is the danger of underestimating the willingness of corporate power to use its own medical and scientific experts to redetermine what is and what is not safe in the workplace. And, the same goes for influencing state capitals and Congress to change and pass laws allowing employers to further exploit their workers.
Do you subscribe to Political Affairs?
click image to find out how
Since the passage of the 1970 Occupational Safety and Health (OSHA) law, labor has been able to reverse decades of corporate control over the workplace. Granted, the OSHA law has been stripped of many of its powers under Reagan and the two Bushes (and, Clinton didn’t help matters). But, abandoning safety and health in Congress and in state capitals to corporate power is a victory that the Chamber of Commerce, the National Association of Manufacturers and the Heritage Foundation could not have won themselves.
Let’s Get Real
Eliminating safety and health departments from unions and the AFL-CIO national office will not solve the problem of low union membership and inspire more organizing. And, the diversion money spent on safety and health to organizing will not significantly increase organizing budgets. There is simply no proof that either will happen: neither will net the results being trumpeted.
Some activists worry that elimination of safety and health departments is actually a reaction by some union officials against an issue that they find hard to control. It is true that safety and health conditions are never fully resolved. That they often are used by rank-and-file activists to rally forces in insurgent election campaigns is probably true. But, here again, this is not the reason to try to sweep resolving safety and health conditions under the rug – they won’t go away.
So What Is the Answer?
Combining the power of an aggressive, union medical/scientific safety and health department with an organizing and political action department will attract tens of thousands of workers into labor unions. If it means larger union departments with subdivisions for health and safety, so be it. The problem with that approach is that with any organization, budget minded officials may cut corners and provide less financial support to the “super” department that health and safety resides in. Organizational behavior is organizational behavior. It makes much more sense for health and safety leaders to sit at the table when staff leadership meets and executive boards deliberate.
Racist Edge
There is a racist edge to this issue. It is well known that employers hire “people of color” into the worst jobs in the plant. Nowadays that means immigrants from all over the world. That is the net result of employment discrimination. And, department, not plant-wide, seniority keeps people in their original departments. It is not a political stretch to postulate that closer attention to issues like employment discrimination and dangerous jobs might get lost under this downgrading of health and safety. It is an issue to keep track of.
In the meantime, as the debates continues, make sure that rank-and-file, staff and union leaders don’t negotiate out health and safety for workers for other important goals. The health and safety of workers is not negotiable, anywhere and anytime. They all fit into the new labor movement.
--Phil E. Benjamin writes a health column for Political Affairs.
