Miners demonstrate in front of UMWA Health and Retirement Funds Headquarters in the 1970s.

‘There is Power in a Union’

The past, present and future of America’s labor movement

BY Steve Weinberg

Unlike when corporations show a solid front, when unions demonstrate solidarity, those in the power structure see the monolithic behavior as un-American. How does that compute?

For the millions of Americans who do not read In These Times, labor unions have probably been relegated to the realm of the anachronistic, if not downright unpatriotic. For the much smaller number of Americans who do read In These Times, writing about the virtues of labor unions probably falls into the realm of preaching to the congregation.

But in his new (and at 784 pages, massive) book There Is Power in a Union: The Epic Story of Labor in America (Doubleday, September), Philip Dray provides plenty of information about the virtues of unions for labor evangelists to draw upon.

Dray offers a grand context for thinking about labor-management relations in a society beset by ill will in millions of workplaces. He notes that the saga of organized labor in the United States is “much more than a catalog of strikes, picket lines and flailing police batons. The debate about work and industry and the struggle for workers’ rights and dignity have been consuming subjects since the birth of our nation; they have shaped laws and customs, acted as a crucible for social change, and ultimately helped define what it means to be an American.”

Taken as a whole, the book is a celebration of organized labor. Dray is clear-headed, so he knows the valentine is ephemeral. Although he wishes it were not so, the book carries the seeds of a eulogy.

Dray offers an insightful example of trouble for the labor movement as part of his dramatic opening scene, one of many–calling them “turning points” seems warranted–throughout the book. On Jan. 13, 1874, during a recession, thousands of unemployed workers gathered at Tompkins Square in New York City. Municipal police and politicians, instead of listening to the grievances of the unemployed, used force to disperse them.

Two of the men at Tompkins Square personified the rift in labor, which meant a lack of solidarity in the unions’ battles with the almost always unified ownership class. Samuel Gompers, a member of the cigar makers union, would a decade later direct the American Federation of Labor. While many employers hated Gompers, those employers should have felt blessed because Gompers practiced non-violent negotiation. Also at Tompkins Square was Justus Schwab, who represented a strategy of violence when it seemed useful and believed capitalism would never allow employee-employer fairness and thus needed to be dismantled.

Gompers and his allies endured; Schwab and his followers became marginalized. Violence against management by downtrodden laborers, or at least the threat of violence, became unacceptable in America (as opposed to Europe). Even union organizers who abhorred violence understood that labor would suffer from a lack of options when facing off against anti-union management.

As a youth, Dray encountered the tensions surrounding unionism in his everyday life. He recounts a moment in March 1976, as he sat in the office of Doris Johnson, an advertising manager at the Minneapolis Star Tribune. He wanted a part-time job, and Johnson, a soft-spoken older woman, seemed favorably inclined to offer him one.

He had already benefited from a brief union membership at age 16 while laboring as a bus boy in a suburban supper club. Dray said nothing to Johnson about unionization, but, as a 20-something, he had developed positive feelings about unions. He thought of unions–the AFL-CIO, United Mine Workers, Teamsters–as entities that “fought for workers, brought dignity to people’s lives, decent hours, the five-day week, benefits, and paid vacations.”

Then, unexpectedly, Dray heard Johnson “talking about a recent attempt to unionize the workers in the advertising department; she wondered if I’d ever be inclined to join such an effort” at the Star Tribune.

Dray immediately recognized the “correct” answer was “no.” Still, he felt surprise “that so direct and obviously determinative a question had come from this otherwise pleasant-looking person.”

Why Dray at a young age and Johnson at an older age had reached such different conclusions about the value of labor unions is a mystery for the ages. When corporations show a solid front against unionization, the power structure does not criticize such monolithic behavior. But when unions demonstrate solidarity, those in the power structure see the behavior as un-American. How does that compute?

Dray notes that the United States is unique in the way “organized capital so resisted organized labor, perhaps because in contrast to England and Europe, prosperous American corporations began to develop before the emergence of strong centralized government … By the time unions came to strength or legislatures took an interest in industry affairs,” Corporate America had already gained control over its own fate.

Still, Dray writes, against overwhelming odds labor leaders such as Gompers, Eugene V. Debs, Mother Jones, Bill Haywood, John L. Lewis, Sidney Hillman and Walter Reuther helped their unions’ members move toward the ideal that “workers have a right to be equitably paid for the work they do, treated with dignity, and to believe their efforts might better their own prospects and the lives of those dear to them.”

There Is Power in a Union mixes well-known struggles, such as the organizing of factory women in Lowell, Mass., before the Civil War, with dozens of less-known occurrences, such as the adoption of union-approved working conditions instituted by the progressive owners of National Cash Register in Dayton, Ohio, during the early decades of the twentieth century. The book favors breadth over depth, but that is because Dray chose to produce something semi-encyclopedic, to represent the sweep of labor history.

The final chapter carries the narrative to the present, although Dray halts the detailed treatment of management-labor struggles in 1981, when President Ronald Reagan attacked the principle of collective bargaining by breaking PATCO, the air traffic controllers’ union. After that debacle for labor, defeats in the private sector at Hormel Foods and Caterpillar seemed to signal permanent weakness for unions.

Dray explains that with globalization, bottom-line economics has, for now, triumphed over humane treatment of workers.

The overall value of unions to society at large is not in question. Yet many, many generally intelligent, humane individuals do not share, what to us, is an obvious conclusion. This split is akin to that between believers in a Christian God and atheists. Each side harbors great minds, each side is certain of its rightness and rarely does anybody switch sides without a rare revelation involved.

Dray is a refreshing chronicler of history, because he combines his thoroughness as an even-handed researcher with a clearly stated personal point of view: “It is this book’s faith that there is power in a union, as the old labor song goes, and that in losing them we risk losing something worthwhile in ourselves.”

Steve Weinberg is an investigative reporter in Columbia, Mo. His latest book is Taking on the Trust: The Epic Battle of Ida Tarbell and John D. Rockefeller.

More information about Steve Weinberg

  • Reader Comments

    The IWW had it right, and still does. Unionize yourselves, strike “on the job,” work to rule, and organize by industry instead of by trade. adhere to the belief that An Injury to One is an Injury to All, and remember: Direct Action Gets the Goods. Check out the growing and revitalized union at www.iww.org.

    Posted by ozonekid on Aug 27, 2010 at 8:33 PM

    Yes, we organized with a national union about a year and a half ago, mainly for protection against unjust termination.

    Since then, I’ve concluded that our reason for being is not to regain past glories or numbers so much, but to fight the fight in the trenches so to speak. As long as we exist as a unit, we force management to treat workers better to AVOID union organizing efforts. I see this as a win.

    Would I like more organized workers? Yes. But I also want workers in general treated better. If that is what we have to settle for now, so be it.

    The power of the oppressed will continue to struggle for fairness.

    Posted by benlomand on Aug 28, 2010 at 3:29 AM

    “Unlike when corporations show a solid front, when unions demonstrate solidarity, those in the power structure see the monolithic behavior as un-American. How does that compute?”

    I don’t care what the “power structure” says or thinks. My own thoughts have changed recently.

    There was a time when I was totally anti-union.

    Some of the stupid things I encountered or observed:

    1. When I was 19 and at my first trade show, we had to get a union electrician to simply plug in a light cord. (Chicago, 1958)

    2. At my first an only corporate job office workers, like myself who were making low wages and would not benefit by the strike, had egg shells filled with paint thrown at us.

    3. Later at the same company I had a grievance filed against me for using two hands while carrying a very light box of brochures — it required “trucker” with a cart.

    4. In the 1970s the US auto industry was unable to compete in the international market due too union added costs. VW, Honda, etc. took the market and look where the industry is today.

    Today, however, the CEOs have outdone even the most egregious union excesses — making up to 500 times as much as the average employee in their corporations by selling our best jobs to the lowest bidders.!

    Greed and unlimited power is not good for the country regardless of who is benefitting in the short term.

    Posted by whattheheck on Aug 28, 2010 at 8:31 AM

    What happened to the edit feature?

    Posted by whattheheck on Aug 28, 2010 at 8:33 AM

    Air Jordan Ol School III 5/8 Spring 2010 Jordan Brand changed the Flight 45 from a low/mid slice to its new hightop configuration, and is now going in undo for to the Ol School III. The Air Jordan Big Fund 5/8 will be distributing next leap in a two population of the colourways youd expect. First up is the pitch black nubuck couple pictured atop that benefits the correct shade of colour plan of the brought up Air Jordan Big Fund UJG Edition 310003 110, added to a translucent outsole segment that peaks up Triax-style to uncover a heel Air cushion. The other couple is in addition pitch black, but moves with Carolina sky-blue accents. Last but not slightest is the obligatory white metallic bright nod, which lets depart in March. Expect those sprayed Uni-blue connections in February, along with the pitch black red pair. http://www.nikeairjordansshoes.com/

    Posted by lin on Sep 1, 2010 at 12:54 AM
  • extended discussion >>>Continued...

    Discussions with more than 5 comments are continued on our special discussion page to encourage continuity and ease of use. There are currently 7 posts.