The Church's Teaching on Unions

In view of the recent attempt by organized labor to unseat Wisconsin governor Scott Walker, and the Supreme Court's ruling in the case of Knox v. Service Employees International Union that unions need explicit permission to spend certain monies on political causes, I found the Church's teaching on organized labor a fruitful reflection. Below are two paragraphs from the Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church, after which I'll hazard to offer a few comments:

306. The Church's social doctrine teaches that relations within the world of work must be marked by cooperation: hatred and attempts to eliminate the other are completely unacceptable. This is also the case because in every social system both “labour” and “capital” represent indispensable components of the process of production. In light of this understanding, the Church's social doctrine “does not hold that unions are no more than a reflection of the ‘class' structure of society and that they are a mouthpiece for a class struggle which inevitably governs social life”.[Laborem Exercens, 20] Properly speaking, unions are promoters of the struggle for social justice, for the rights of workers in their particular professions: “This struggle should be seen as a normal endeavour ‘for' the just good ... not a struggle ‘against' others”.[Ibid., 20] Being first of all instruments of solidarity and justice, unions may not misuse the tools of contention; because of what they are called to do, they must overcome the temptation of believing that all workers should be union-members, they must be capable of self-regulation and be able to evaluate the consequences that their decisions will have on the common good.[CCC, 670]

307. Beyond their function of defending and vindicating, unions have the duty of acting as representatives working for “the proper arrangement of economic life” and of educating the social consciences of workers so that they will feel that they have an active role, according to their proper capacities and aptitudes, in the whole task of economic and social development and in the attainment of the universal common good.[Gaudium et Spes, 68] Unions and other forms of labour associations are to work in cooperation with other social entities and are to take an interest in the management of public matters. Union organizations have the duty to exercise influence in the political arena, making it duly sensitive to labour problems and helping it to work so that workers' rights are respected. Unions do not, however, have the character of “political parties” struggling for power, and they should not be forced to submit to the decisions of political parties nor be too closely linked to them. “In such a situation they easily lose contact with their specific role, which is to secure the just rights of workers within the framework of the common good of the whole of society; instead they become an instrument used for other purposes”.[Laborem Exercens, 20]

Two things strike me as salient: First, the Church is extremely pro-union. That organization of workers is not only a right but also a means to promote justice and solidarity is quite clear. No meaningful discussion of unions can ignore this message. Second, however, it seems equally clear that the practice of American organized labor at present falls short of the Church's full vision.

One may argue whether unions or their opponents are responsible for the present bout of vitriol; in either case, labor relations are at present characterized by hatred rather than cooperation. Likewise, while it is reasonable for non-unionized workers who benefit from collective bargaining to share in its costs, the existence of closed shops which compel union membership suggest union leaders have not fully taken to heart the notion that not all workers need be unionized. The Supreme Court just ruled on the practice of using money collected from non-union workers for political purposes. SEIU argued that so long as workers were notified and given the chance to opt out, justice was served; the Court thought otherwise, insisting that non-union workers give their explicit permission before their non-voluntary contributions are used in this way. Even if one disagrees with the Court's ruling on the legality of the matter, it hardly seems like best practice, and suggests to me that SEIU is not properly "capable of self-regulation." The Church's teaching on the political role of unions is very finely balanced: organized labor has a duty to be active in the political sphere, but should not strive for political power nor become too closely linked with political parties, which are apt to use them for political ends. The opposition - even hatred - of many in the Republican party toward organized labor makes it unsurprising that unions are associated nigh exclusively with the Democrats. Still, one must wonder whether the cause of unions (or any other cause: the pro-life movement, environmental campaigns, etc...) is best served by exclusive association with a single party. I fear that when a party can count on the support of a given group, it tends to abandon the cause and milk the group for cash and votes.

Finally, there is the question of public sector unions, which sparked the Wisconsin recall election. The Church teaches that unions "must... be able to evaluate the consequences that their decisions will have on the common good." I would argue that this supports an idea I have considered for some time: public sector unions are a substantially different matter from those in the private sector. In the private sector, workers have an interest in ensuring their personal wages and well-being, but also the well-being of their corporation; if it loses profitability and goes bankrupt, they are likely to lose their jobs. This reality encourages prudence and discourages the temptation on the part of workers to make unreasonable demands. In the public sector, if workers demand too much and state agencies go bankrupt, such agencies either close - costing workers their jobs, but also the public their services - or turn to the taxpayers for additional money. Thus, public sector workers have far less reason to worry about demanding too much or otherwise "misus[ing] the tools of contention."

Thoughts from Afar

Arizona's new immigration legislation had drawn national and even international press. The bill has garnered widespread criticism, including from the Catholic bishops of Arizona. Though I no longer live there, my home state has a particular interest to me. And it seems to me that while the bill has a number problematic elements, some of which are talked about more than others, many of the criticisms which have been leveled do not hold water or are less important than is usually suggested.

Dubious Criticisms

First, let us consider the claim that the bill, which gives local law enforcement the power to stop suspected illegal immigrants and demand identification, will not be effective. Of all the charges against the bill, this seems least plausible. While some illegal immigrants will doubtless say, many will judge that the real possibility of fines or jail time is too much of a risk to bear. Reports are already circulating of such immigrants leaving for Mexico or other states.

Some have argued that the bill will open the door to rampant discrimination against the state's considerable Hispanic community, both legal and illegal. While this is quite possible, it strikes me as a bit of a red herring. I once heard a police officer explain that the average driver could be pulled over at any given time for three different violations. Racist law enforcement personnel already have opportunities to make life difficult for non-whites by hitting them with petty crimes and misdemeanors that usually go unenforced. But, by and large, such racist and unequal enforcement is not currently a problem: our law enforcement personnel are trained to high standards of professionalism, the courts are sensitive to charges of racism and the media quickly reports on such matters. Would the new law create new opportunities for racist misconduct? Yes. But we should not discount all the countervailing forces which currently exist and will continue to.

Another criticism raised is that the new law would take energy and resources away from law enforcement's more legitimate work elsewhere. There are two answers to this. First, the bill's supporters, including its sponsor, Russell Pearce, argue that the new law will actually free up law enforcement personnel by reducing illegal traffic at the border, leaving more officers free to operate elsewhere. Even if this does not pan out, I question the claim that this new law will draw law enforcement away from more serious crimes. Every police force has to prioritize its resources. Have you ever seen someone speeding in your neighborhood? Of course. Why? Because the police have decided that, given their limited budget, having an officer sit on your corner with a radar gun 24-7 is not the best use of their resources. There are other neighborhoods and more important crimes that occupy most of their attention. This law would add one more concern to law enforcement's list, but it would not have to be their top priority. Indeed, I doubt it would significantly alter the hierarchy of considerations.

Some people have argued that the bill will have a negative effect on Arizona's economy. This comes in two forms. First is the contention that illegal immigrants provide useful labor, stimulate the consumer economy and - even if they do not pay income tax - contribute to the tax base through sales taxes. There is some validity to these claims, but at stake here is a deeper question, namely, whether immigration limitations are beneficial or if we should simply have open borders. That is a very important question, but not the question on the table. With regard to the proposed bill, we are asking how current immigration laws should be enforced (particularly in the light of the federal government's limited success in doing so). Leaving aside the deeper question, there are some qualifying comments which can be made about this first economic argument. While illegal immigrants buy a variety of consumer products in the States, stimulating the local economy, they also send a considerable portion of their income back home. Thus, the stimulus value of one illegal immigrant is less than the corresponding value of a domestic worker who keeps the entirety of his income in the States. Moreover, while illegal immigrants do pay sales taxes, the kind of goods which they purchase - most notably food - have the lowest tax rates, so the addition to the tax base is somewhat reduced.

A second variation on the economic argument is that businesses will leave Arizona or will choose not to come in the first place. One perfectly valid reason is that they do not want their (completely legal) Hispanic employees being harassed by law enforcement. But I wonder if some companies are not also worried about the loss of cheap illegal labor. Even companies which do not employ such workers could feel the knock-on effects: Those involved in real estate may contract with construction companies which make use of illegal labor. Even high-tech companies make use of cleaning services which sometimes hire illegal immigrants. And even if a company is not contracting with someone who utilizes illegal labor, the very presence of illegals in the market increases the labor supply and depresses labor costs. Companies may be worried, and some for legitimate reasons, but I wonder if some are not also worried for selfish reasons.

Legitimate Concerns

One of the most troubling aspects of this bill is the requirement that people be able to produce identification at all times. This might seem like a minor item. Indeed, there was a time in my life when I thought it a perfectly reasonable policy. But I have since come to see that this is but one aspect of a troubling callousness toward our own liberties. In reading Brian Jenkins' The Fenian Problem: Insurgency and Terrorism in a Liberal State, 1858-1874, as I prepared to write a review (forthcoming in the Canadian Journal of History), I was struck by the keen sense of personal liberty present in the 19th century. Though battling terrorists, the British government could not countenance the notion of restricting gun ownership; this was, after all, a free country. The assumption was that individuals were free to live their lives as they pleased, and the state could only interfere in that for very compelling reasons. Today, even those who profess an attachment to liberty frequent assume the state will intervene in our everyday lives.

A few other aspects are worth consideration. One is the question of families: what if one parent is an illegal immigrant, the other a legal worker or citizen, and the children citizens? Should we imprison parents of young (and legal) children? Or does this cause undue harm? It seems to me that the simplest answer here would be to deport the offending parent, with the remaining parent and children having the option of staying in the States or also leaving. This is, admittedly, a difficult choice, but, I think, a fair one. The problem here is that states do not have the power to deport. So the new law would punish illegal immigrants with fines or jail time. This could pose a particular burden on children who are citizens but both of whose parents are illegal immigrants. A certain degree of leniency should be built into the law, giving judges leeway in determining sentences, and allowing them to take family circumstances into consideration. Still, the underlying problem is that the federal government, the one with the most relevant powers - those of deportation and of passing comprehensive immigration reform - has provided an inadequate response. Arizona can hardly be blamed for doing what it can.

One other concern raised has been that illegal immigrants may now increasingly become the victims of crimes because they are unwilling to call authorities for fear of being arrested themselves. This is a real problem. Faced with language barriers and short of money, illegal immigrants are already the victims of a considerable amount of crime, not least horrible abuse by "coyotes," guides who take them across the border, often forcing them to carry drugs as part of the deal. Being in the US illegally is a violation of the law and should be treated as such, but should be dealt with in a fair and legal manner; their illegal status should not make us wholly blind to the plight of illegal immigrants. That having been said, I wonder just how many fewer illegal immigrants would call authorities under then new law than currently do; many already fear law enforcement personnel. However, as with the issue of family, I would favor the inclusion of language in the new bill which might mitigate (or, at a judge's discretion, waive) punishment for illegal immigrants whose status was only discovered because they reported a crime. This is not an absurd notion, since the same concept can be found in so-called Good Samaritan laws.

The bishops complained that the bill is "mean-spirited," a charge I find particularly interesting. On the one hand, law enforcement is never going to be a very friendly or pleasant matter: it is, ultimately, the use of coercive force to uphold the law. On the other hand, I have been reading lately about Camp Hearne, in a work titled Lone Star Stalag. The camp held German POWs during World War II, and did so in a friendly and generous manner that is, frankly, shocking to the modern mindset. Reading about the humane and pleasant treatment of the prisoners, and their positive response to it, is truly uplifting. I cannot help but think that we are a lesser society for having lost that sense of generosity, even toward our enemies. But it strikes me that the present bill in question is more of a manifestation of society's mean-spiritedness, than it is a contributor to it. This spirit of vindictiveness is indeed worrisome, but we should focus on destroying it at its roots, not just its branches.

Let me be clear: I favor immigration reform. I think it should be easier, not harder, to legally come to this country, either as a permanent immigrant or as a temporary worker. What the present bill demonstrates is that the federal government has failed to provide such reform. We should not be surprised that a state like Arizona, with 460,000 illegal immigrants within its borders, would pass a bill like this. Indeed, similar measures in other states would not surprise me. Let us hope that all this furor has put a fire under Congress to take action.


H/T to my brother, Matt, with whom I disagree on some of these issues, but who keeps me informed and honest.

Social Encyclical?

In my own humble opinion, the blogging world has waited like vultures (instead of an eager flock) for the release of Pope Benedict's Caritas in Veritate. Some, George Weigel notably among them, decry this encyclical as leftist leaning and unclear. Weigel writes, "The net result is, with respect, an encyclical that resembles a duck-billed platypus." Disrespect for the Pope aside, it seems that many have focused on seeking to criticize and reading quickly according to their own agendas, instead of appreciating the words of Pope Benedict.

Admittedly, I have not finished the encyclical. But I would like to offer the following quote, which seems to point at a purpose for the encyclical that transcends the blogging disputes. Our Holy Father writes,

The Church does not have technical solutions to offer and does not claim "to interfere in any way in the politics of States." She does, however, have a mission of truth to accomplish, in every time and circumstance, for a society that is attuned to man, to his dignity, to his vocation.

Far from being mere "sentimentality," as some claim, this thesis speaks to the very purpose of man on earth. The Church speaks of the dignity of man in every situation, because She is the best organ to do so. Perhaps instead of reading this lengthy and in-depth encyclical in under 24 hours and spinning off a quick heated argument, we all would do better to read and pray over this work that the Vicar of Christ has labored over for all to read.

Your thoughts?