UNIONS IN AMERICAN NATIONAL POLITICS By the same author SPECIAL INTERESTS AND POLICYMAKING UNIONS IN AMERICAN NATIONAL POLITICS Graham K. Wilson Lecturer in Government University of Essex © Graham K. Wilson 1979 Softcover reprint of the hardcover 1st edition 1979 All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced or transmitted, in any form or by any means, without permission First published 1979 by THE MACMILLAN PRESS LTD London and Basingstoke Associated companies in Delhi Dublin Hong Kong Johannesburg Lagos Melbourne New York Singapore Tokyo British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data Wilson, Graham K. Unions in American national politics I. Trade unions- United States-Political activity 2. United States-Politics and government - 1945- 1. Title 322'.3 HD8076 ISBN 978-1-349-03875-6 ISBN 978-1-349-03873-2 (eBook) DOI 10.1007/978-1-349-03873-2 This book is sold subject to the standard conditions of the Net Book Agreement For my father, brother and family, and Philip Williams Contents Preface IX Some Common Abbreviations xii I. AMERICAN LABOUR TODAY 2. UNIONS AND ELECTIONS 17 3. LABOUR AND THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY 36 4. LABOUR'S LOBBYISTS 57 5. POLITICS AND THE UNION MEMBER 87 6. THE GOVERNING OF LABOUR 96 7. LABOUR AND FOREIGN POLICY 127 8. CONCLUSIONS: THE RESTRICTED SUCCESS OF AMERICAN UNIONS 135 Notes 150 Bibliography 160 Index 165 vii Preface Trades unions are not a subject conducive to dispassionate study. For obvious reasons unions have become a bete noire for conservatives in both Britain and the United States. The existence and strength of unions rest on collective action rather than individual rights; umons (which still represent predominantly the working class) always seem on the verge of changing the distribution of income; and the reluctance of unions to submit to unfavourable legislation (be it an injunction to return to work under the Taft-Hartley Act in the USA or the Industrial Relations Act in Britain) can be construed as a challenge to the rule of Jaw. The attitude of the Left to unions is more complicated. Even European socialists with both intellectual and institutional ties to organised labour feel somewhat ambivalent about unions which, they think, are all too often vehicles of narrow self interest rather than idealism or, as in the famous cartoon image of the British TUC as a cart horse, embody the unthinking, conservative aspects of the working class. Marxists tend to be even more disparaging about unions. Support for trades unions is but a paltry step for the workers in the formation of class consciousness; as Lenin noted the working class on its own is capable of mere trades union consciousness (emphasis added). Unions are often accused from the Left of class collaboration, of betraying the long term interests of their members by short term compromises. American radicals, Jess influenced than the European Left by the Marxist tradition of seeing the working class as the means for transforming society, are even more sceptical about unions. Indeed, unions are often seen not as a potential source of aid to disadvantaged groups but as a barrier to their progress through their alleged complicity in discriminatory labour practices. In some ways, unions encourage the application of unusually high standards to themselves. Ringing phrases that the labour movement is a crusade or it is nothing are heard frequently in Britain where even union constitutions contain commitments to seeking the socialist society. Similar paper commitments to a long term ideal (even if not always ix Preface X socialism) can be found amongst European and American unions, too. In writing this study I have avoided any preconceptions about what the role of unions in society ought to be. This is partly because I do not find class theories a useful approach to the study of unions or labour movements, which seem to me to display an enormous diversity. As Walter Kendall has demonstrated in his study The Labour Movement in Europe, history, politics, economics and social forces combine to create a different union movement from country to country, even within Western Europe. Too many discussions of American unions and politics seem to me to start with a model of what the authors take to be a model of normal union development and then proceed to explain the American departure from it. The model of union development used is usually one in which unions, eager to promote the development of socialism, form a class-conscious political party to further their ideals. Such a model seems to me to fit remarkably few countries, even in Europe, and little is to be gained, therefore, by starting with the assumption that American unions should fit that model. Another reason why I have tried to avoid any preconceptions about the form that the political involvement of unions should take is that I have long suspected that much ignorance and confusion surrounds a much simpler question; namely, what the nature of the relationship between unions and politics is, particularly in the USA. Why this question has been so little researched is something of a mystery to me. Perhaps it is the case that because so many people have strong views on what they think the relationship between unions and politics ought to be, they assume that they know already what that relationship is in practice. I suspect, and indeed hope, that many people do not know what the relationship between unions and politics is in the USA, and will be somewhat surprised by the conclusions which I reach. I suspect, too, that my findings will be interpreted in different ways by radicals and conservatives. Radicals will be struck by the unadventurous goals which American labour has sought, while conservatives will stress that unions have been playing politics instead of advancing their members' interests. I hope that I shall at least provide some fresh evidence for both sides. I wish to express my thanks to the many senators, congressmen, and officials of the Department of Labor, American Federation of Labor Congress of Industrial Organizations, (AFL-CIO), Teamsters, United Auto Workers and other unions who gave me their time and patience. A very special word of thanks is due to Evelyn Dubrow of the In ternational Ladies Garment Workers' Union who did much to help me Preface xi arrange interviews. I should add that none of the people interviewed or who helped in any way can be held responsible for any of the errors of fact or opinion which may exist in this book. The Brookings Institution provided me with an ideal base from which to work; Mrs Joanne Kirchner typed the manuscript with great care and skill; Mr Harry Goldstein, Mr David Robertson and Mr Philip Williams provided useful comments, again without being responsible for any surviving mistakes. Finally, none of the research on which this study is based would have been possible had it not been for the generosity of the Nuffield Foundation in funding my research. I hope it will not seem a major departure from objectivity if I say that one of the joys of working on this project has been meeting so many pleasant people. University of Essex Graham K. Wilson August 1978