Today's Labor Movement Needs a Bigger Vision

[This article is part of a Labor Notes roundtable series: How Can Unions Defend Worker Power Against Trump 2.0? We will be publishing more contributions here and in our magazine in the months ahead. Click here to read the rest of the series.—Editors]

During the Cold War, many of the people with a radical vision of the world were driven out of our labor movement. Today, as unions search for answers about how to begin growing again, and regain the power workers need to defend themselves, the question of social vision has become very important. What is our vision in labor? What are the issues that we confront today that form a more radical vision for our era?

The labor movement needs a freedom agenda. When Zohran Mamdani spoke after his primary election victory in New York City, he declared, "We can be free and we can be fed." Mamdani is telling our unions and workers that we can reject the old politics of agreeing to war abroad and repression at home, in the hopes that at least some workers will gain.

PEACE ECONOMY

We don't have to go back to the CIO and the radicalism of the 1930s to find voices in labor calling for a radical break from the past.

In the 1980s, while Reagan was President, William Winpisinger, president of the Machinists, told his members, thousands of whom worked in arms plants, that they would gain more from peace than from war. Under union pressure in 1992, Congress even passed a bill calling for redirecting a small part of military spending into conversion for a peacetime economy.

One big part of that program is peace. Another is reordering our economic priorities.

Right now working class people have to fight just to stay in the cities. They’re being driven out, and this has a disproportionate impact on workers of color. Unions and central labor councils need to look at economic development, and issues of housing and job creation. That would start to give us something we lack, a compelling vision.

IMMIGRANT RIGHTS

Since 2006 millions of people have gone into the streets on May Day. The marches in 2006 were the largest outpourings since the 1930s, when our modern labor movement was born. In one of the best things our labor movement has done, we began raising the expectations of immigrants when we passed the resolution in Los Angeles in 1999 changing labor’s position on immigration.

We put forward a radical new program: amnesty, ending employer sanctions, reunification of families, protecting the rights of all people, especially the right to organize. That came as a result of an upsurge of organizing among immigrant workers themselves, and support from unions ranging from the United Electrical Workers to the Carpenters.

Congress, however, has since moved to criminalize work and migration, and proposed huge guest worker programs. States have passed bills that are even worse.

Mississippi, for instance, made it a state felony for an undocumented worker to hold a job, with prison terms of up to ten years. Florida has made it a crime to give an undocumented person a ride to a hospital. And administrations from Bush to Trump have implemented by executive order the enforcement and guest worker measures they couldn’t get through Congress.

LABOR’S SILENCE

When Democrats campaigned against Trump by accusing him of sabotaging an immigration bill that would have put billions of dollars into immigration enforcement, they prepared the way for Trump's onslaught once he was elected. Labor, which should have prepared our own members for the fight to come, stayed silent.

In the wave of raids that have followed, hundreds of our own members have been taken, not just for deportation, but on bogus criminal charges or simply swept off the streets by masked agents. Unorganized workers have been terrorized by the raids—a gift to employers as workers are pressured to give up any hope of a union or a higher wage.

Some unions today are part of the network fighting to protect workers and communities from immigration raids. SEIU California leader David Huerta faces misdemeanor federal charges after opposing ICE during a raid in Los Angeles' garment district.

It is time for the labor movement to use its organization and resources to fight to stop this wave of repression. As part of that effort, labor needs to propose a freedom agenda for immigrants that will really give people rights and an equal status with other workers on the job, and their neighbors in their own communities.

DEFEND CIVIL RIGHTS

In the past, the possibility of fighting for our ideals—what we really want—has been undermined by beltway deal making. We have to be consistent in our politics.

Labor needs an outspoken policy that defends the civil rights of all sections of U.S. society, and is willing to take on an open fight to protect them. If Trump's raids and terror campaigns scare unions into silence, few workers will feel confident in risking their jobs (and freedom) to join them.

Yet people far beyond unions will defend labor rights if they are part of a broader civil rights agenda, and if the labor movement is willing to go to bat with community organizations for it.

JOBS FOR ALL

A new direction on civil rights requires linking immigrant rights to a real jobs program and full employment economy. It demands affirmative action that can come to grips with the devastation in communities of color, especially African-American communities.

And none of that can be done without challenging Trump's war policies, but equally the war policies that have come from Democratic administrations.

CLIMATE JUSTICE

Today part of a freedom agenda is not only conversion from military production, but conversion from fossil fuel dependence.

Jeff Johnson, past president of the Washington State Labor Council, drew the connection between labor support for climate conversion legislation and social justice. "I knew we had to educate my members, so that they would understand that we can't support more fossil fuel exploration," he told me. "We have an existential crisis that is social, political and racial, in addition to climate. And we know that the impact of climate change will hit those communities who had the least to do with causing it."

INTERNATIONAL SOLIDARITY

At the heart of any radical vision for our era is globalization—the way unions approach the operation of capitalism on an international scale.

When the old Cold War leadership of the AFL-CIO was defeated in 1996, I heard incoming AFL-CIO Secretary-Treasurer (later President) Richard Trumka say unions should find partners in other countries in order to face common employers. At the time it represented a big change—that unions would cooperate with anyone willing to fight against our common employers. It rejected by implication the anti-communist ideology that put us on the side of employers and U.S. foreign policy, and that shamed us before the world.

Three decades later, however, this idea is no longer radical enough. It’s an example of pragmatic solidarity, although it was, at the time, a good first step out of that Cold
War past.

What’s missing is a response from the labor movement to U.S. foreign policy. International solidarity involves more than multinational corporations. There is no doubt that military corporations benefit from selling the bombs that Israel uses in its Gaza genocide, but political support from Trump, and Biden before him, for Israel is more than just an effort to defend their profits.

SUPPORT LABOR NOTES

BECOME A MONTHLY DONOR

Give $10 a month or more and get our "Fight the Boss, Build the Union" T-shirt.

Corporate globalization and military intervention are intertwined, and in the labor movement there’s not enough discussion about their relationship. That’s why we got manipulated in the response to 9/11, and by justifications for the Iraq and Afghanistan wars.

WHICH SIDE ARE YOU ON?

Unions in the rest of the world are not simply asking us whether we will stand with them against General Electric, General Motors, or Mitsubishi. They want to know: Will you take action to oppose the Gaza genocide and arms shipments? What is your stand about aggressive wars or coups?

U.S. corporations operating in a country like Mexico or El Salvador are, in some ways, opportunistic. They’re taking advantage of an existing economic system, and trying to make it function to produce profits. They exploit the difference in wages from country to country for instance, and require concessions from governments for setting up factories in their countries.

But what causes poverty in a country like El Salvador? What drives a worker into a factory that, in the United States, we call a sweatshop? What role does U.S. policy play in creating that system of poverty?

In our union movement, we need that kind of discussion. We turn education into simply a technical matter about techniques for grievance-handling and collective bargaining. We don’t really work with our members to develop a framework to answer these questions. So our movement becomes ineffective in fighting about the issues of war and peace, globalization, and their consequences, like immigration.

EDUCATE THE MEMBERS

When the AFL-CIO campaigned in Washington against the Central American Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA), for instance, labor lobbyists went up to Capitol Hill and tried to mobilize pressure on Congress to defeat it. But what was missing was education at the base of the labor movement.

Had we educated and mobilized our members against the Contra war and the counterinsurgency wars in El Salvador and Guatemala (and certainly many of us tried to do that), U.S. workers would have understood CAFTA more clearly a decade later.

The root of this problem is a kind of American pragmatism that disparages education. We need to demand more from those who make the decisions and control the purse strings in our unions.

Since grinding poverty in much of the world is an incentive for moving production, defending the standard of living of workers around the world is as necessary as defending our own. The logic of inclusion in a global labor movement must apply as much to a worker in Mexico as it does to the nonunion worker down the street.

That’s why the debate over the Iraq War at the AFL-CIO convention was so important. From the point when it became clear that the Bush administration intended to invade Iraq, union activists began organizing a national network to oppose it through U.S. Labor Against the War. What started as a collection of small groups, in a handful of unions, became a coalition of unions representing over a million members, the product of grassroots action at the bottom of the U.S. labor movement, not a directive from the top.

That experience was put to work when the genocide began in Gaza, as national and local unions and activists organized the National Labor Network for a Ceasefire. When the United Auto Workers endorsed its call, the union also set up a divestment and just transition working group, "to study the history of Israel and Palestine, the union’s economic ties to the conflict, and to explore how to achieve a just transition for U.S. workers from war to peace."

Opposing intervention and war means fighting for the self-interest of our members. It means being able to identify that self-interest with the interest of Palestinians in Gaza and the West Bank. The same money that pays for bombs for the Israeli government is money that doesn’t get spent on schools here at home. We can’t have a full-employment economy in the U.S. without peace.

The arguments by political centrists in the Democratic Party that we must choose to fight only about workers' immediate economic interests, and stay silent about Gaza or racism, hides the connections workers have to make to challenge the sources of their own poverty and the attacks against them. As veteran organizer Stewart Acuff says, "While economic justice must run through everything our movement does, we cannot deemphasize any strand of injustice."

Union members are not ignorant of this basic fact. In fact, they are becoming more sophisticated, and better at understanding the way global issues, from war to trade, affect the lives of people in the streets of U.S. cities. But the percentage of union members is declining, and the organization they need to put that understanding into practice is getting smaller. Deeper political awareness alone will not create a larger labor movement.

NEED A SOCIAL MOVEMENT

Just after World War II , unions represented 35 percent of U.S. workers. It’s no coincidence that the McCarthy years when the Cold War came to dominate the politics of unions was the moment when that strength began to decline.

By 1975, after the Vietnam War, union membership had dropped to 26 percent. Today only 9.9 percent of all workers, and 5.9 percent in the private sector, are union members.

Declining numbers translate into a decline in political power and economic leverage. California (with one-sixth of all union members) and New York (with one-eighth) have higher union density than any others. But even there, labor is facing an all-out war for political survival.

While the percentage of organized workers has declined, unions have made important progress in finding alternative strategic ideas to the old business unionism. If these ideas are developed and extended, they provide an important base for making unions stronger and embedding them more deeply in working-class communities. But it’s a huge job. Raising the percentage of organized workers in the United States from just 10 to 11 percent would mean organizing over a million people. Only a social movement can organize people on this scale.

In addition to examining structural reforms that can make unions more effective and concentrate their power, the labor movement needs a program that will inspire people to organize on their own, one which is unafraid to put forward radical demands, and rejects the constant argument that any proposal that can't get through Congress is not worth fighting for.

A BROADER VISION

The labor movement has to become a movement that inspires people with a broader vision of social justice. Our standard of living is declining. Workers often have to choose between paying their rent or their mortgage or having health care. There’s something fundamentally wrong with the priorities of this society, and unions have to be courageous enough to say it.

Working families need a decent wage, but they also need the promise of a better world. For as long as we’ve had unions, workers have shown they’ll struggle for the future of their children and their communities, even when their own future seems in doubt. But it takes a radical social vision to inspire the wave of commitment, idealism, and activity.

The 1920s were filled with company unions, the violence of strikebreakers, and a lack of legal rights for workers. A decade later, those obstacles were swept away.

An upsurge of millions in the 1930s, radicalized by the Depression and left-wing activism, forced (relative) corporate acceptance of the labor movement for the first time in the country's history.

There are changes taking place in our unions and communities that can be the beginning of something as large and profound. If they are, then the obstacles unions face today can become historical relics as quickly as did those of an earlier era.

David Bacon is a labor journalist and photographer, author of Illegal People: How Globalization Creates Migration and Criminalizes Immigrants and other books.