The Catholic Thing
HOME        ARCHIVES        IN THE NEWS        COMMENTARY        NOTABLE        DONATE
Trickle Down and Bottom Up Print E-mail
By Stephen P. White   
Monday, 05 September 2011

The Catholic Church has been a great supporter of labor and trade unions almost since they first emerged in the nineteenth century. Partly thanks to the American bishops’ input, Leo XIII described the roles of labor unions in his 1891 encyclical Rerum Novarum. Founded upon the natural right of free association, unions, at their best, embody the kind of social cooperation that fosters solidarity and builds lasting communities.

At their best, labor unions are models of the principle of subsidiarity: creating and maintaining an inhabitable space between the individual and the necessarily coercive action of the state. At their best, unions remind us that markets, however necessary and useful, must serve man, never the other way round. At their best, unions remind us that labor is not just another commodity but a vocation; through his work, man participates in God’s work of creation.

Unions remind us that individual gain and private interest are radically insufficient to build strong and meaningful communities. Unions provide stability for families by helping to ensure sufficient income and meaningful benefits for breadwinners. Unions, at their best, serve, promote, and uphold the common good.

But what happens when unions are not at their best? When they cross the line between acting as a check on capricious labor markets and become parasitic upon the very companies that provide their workers’ livelihoods? Or when unions ally with government, trading workers’ dues for political patronage and running roughshod over the principle of subsidiarity; become factious and partisan, trading solidarity in the community for lock-step conformity among the union rank and file; stop serving the interests of workers so much as the interests of union bosses and the politicians in their pockets; violate the rights of free association in favor of intimidation and even violence in pursuit of their ends?

What happens when unions become corrosive to the common good?

Everything good and bad just mentioned about unions could be said or asked of many other institutions as well, including businesses.

Justice applies to both sides of every transaction. Take the example of a just wage. The fact that a wage is agreed upon by both employer and employee does not make it just. A worker who takes a job doing hard labor for a dollar a day with no bathroom breaks may be agreeing to the terms of that employment, but that doesn’t make the compensation just. Likewise, a company may agree to a collective bargaining agreement that jeopardizes the firm’s long term viability in the face of union demands, but that doesn’t make the agreement just. Unions are no more immune from injustice than are the companies and corporations that employ union workers.


    Labor (and management): Do not violate subsidiarity.

The occasion for injustice is greatly expanded, for both businesses and unions, when government patronage is added to the equation. Everyone knows that big business funnels millions of dollars into the campaign coffers of politicians of both parties. What is less often talked about is that labor unions spend more – far more, in fact – on political contributions than any big business or industrial lobby. (See these charts.)

While it is not hard to imagine why these groups spend so much money – labor unions alone spent more than $144 million on campaign contributions and lobbying in 2010 according to the Center for Responsive Politics – it is hard to imagine how this is good for our democracy. Unions, like businesses, are very aware of the return they get on their investments. The way unions and businesses spend their money suggests that they find lobbying the politicians they help get elected to be more cost effective than collective bargaining with a determined opponent.

All of which brings us back to the principles of Catholic social teaching.

When legislation and government regulation become the primary means of “arbitration” between business and labor interests, government has overstepped its bounds to the detriment of subsidiarity. When this state of affairs comes about at the behest of businesses and unions themselves – a sort of labor law arms race – both business lobbies and unions share culpability.

Subsidiarity is not about exercising power at the lowest possible level so much as it is about locating responsibility in its proper place. In other words, subsidiarity can be violated from the “bottom up” as well as from the “top down.” If citizens – or businesses or labor unions – fail in their social obligations, then some other institution must pick up the slack. Usually, this means the state. But this always carries with it the real danger that, as the state takes on more and more of society’s unmet obligations, society will atrophy and grow dependent, making an already difficult situation even worse.

As Pope Benedict XVI wrote in Caritas in Veritate: “The principle of subsidiarity must remain closely linked to the principle of solidarity and vice versa, since the former without the latter gives way to social privatism, while the latter without the former gives way to paternalist social assistance that is demeaning to those in need.” (Original emphasis.)

Those conservatives who worry that “paternalist social assistance” on the part of the state is a clear and present danger to this country should also be concerned that labor unions – as well as businesses – are failing in their obligations to social solidarity, without which “top down” subsidiarity is impossible. Progressives who worry about a rise in “social privatism” might do well to spend less time pushing programs for trickle-down solidarity and pay more attention to the businesses – as well as unions – that willingly violate subsidiarity from the bottom up.

A complex lesson, but one much needed this Labor Day.
   

Stephen P. White is a fellow in the Catholic Studies Program at the Ethics and Public Policy Center in Washington, D.C. and the coordinator of the Tertio Millennio Seminar on the Free Society. The views expressed here are strictly his own.

© 2011 The Catholic Thing. All rights reserved. For reprint rights, write to: This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it

The Catholic Thing is a forum for intelligent Catholic commentary. Opinions expressed by writers are solely their own.

Rules for Commenting

The Catholic Thing welcomes comments, which should reflect a sense of brevity and a spirit of Christian civility, and which, as discretion indicates, we reserve the right to publish or not. And, please, do not include links to other websites; we simply haven't time to check them all.

Comments (3)Add Comment
0
...
written by Robert, September 06, 2011
The union's of today are not the unions of the past. I was in a union for many years and was glad to get away from that atmosphere; they're just greedy and self centered. Listen to Hoffa's speech from yesterday, that's your union of today. The auto bailout was a money laundering scheme, much of it now going back to Obama's campaign through the unions.
0
...
written by Michael Paterson-Seymour, September 07, 2011
It was the French Dominican, Lacordaire, who said "Between the weak and the strong, between the rich and the poor, between the master and the servant, it is freedom which oppresses and the law which sets free."
0
...
written by Stephen, September 15, 2011
While I appreciate and agree with the general thrust of White's position and his explanation of Catholic teaching on unions is very clear and accurate, there is a problem with how he uses the data from the Duquesne study on political expenditures of various interest groups. It is true that "labor unions" spend more than any other constituency category, but "Labor" is spread across many economic sectors. If you take just the next five categories in the chart not displayed in the article but referred to, those five economic industries also spend about $500M. Even if one includes "teacher unions" in with labor unions, which the Duquesne researcher does not for some mysterious reason, just adding the next couple of econmic sector spending amounts still leads you to the conclusion that overall labor spending on politics is not that much different than the spending of a lot of groups in the economy across several sectors, added together the way differnt labor unions in different sectos of the economy seem to be. So White's statement about labor union spending way surpassing spending of other sectors is misleading. He does say labor spending is is bigger than any other single lobby, taken alone, but what is included in "union" spending is including spending from several sectors.

Write comment
smaller | bigger

security code
Write the displayed characters


busy
 

Other Articles By This Author

CONTACT US FOR ADVERTISERS ABOUT US
Banner
Banner
Banner
Banner
Banner
Banner
Banner
Banner