As the presidential election campaign heats up, the Republican platform appears to have the Affordable Care Act squarely in its sights. The question for Organized Labor is at once interesting and troubling.
From the perspective of social justice, universal health care would seem to be a fundamental benefit to society, if not an intrinsic human right. That is, our society will be a better place if there is some basic level of health care that is affordable and available to every one of our citizens. There will always be those individuals who will seek only to take unfair advantage of this benefit, but there are also vast numbers of people who desperately need this benefit and could not provide it on their own.
Labor organizations have always been involved in social justice issues. Labor has played a key role in civil rights reforms, employment rights for all employees (the Family Medical Leave Act comes to mind), and more recently the political push for universal health care. If the Unions view the Republicans’ effort to repeal the ACA from the perspective of universal social justice, it would seem that the Unions should stand in opposition to the Republicans. If, however, the Unions view the issue more selfishly, from the perspective of self-preservation, the analysis would come out differently. In this perspective, without the ACA to guarantee affordable health care for working families, the Unions would be in a position to offer that benefit in connection with representing employees under the terms of a collective bargaining agreement. Historically, Union-negotiated benefits such as health insurance are typically more beneficial (and less expensive) for their members than non-represented employees’ benefits. The Unions would have the basic argument they have made for decades when seeking to represent employees – we can get you something you don’t currently have and can’t get on your own.
The paradox for Unions is that as the level of universal benefits continues to rise we must work harder to provide value and benefit to our members. This paradox forces us to take an introspective look at ourselves and our movement – are we in a position to offer benefits of Union membership that stand above and apart from the unorganized workers? How does that question shape our views on topics like universal healthcare?
Mark Wirick
Bob:
Your musings highlight what I have always believed was a fundemental conundrum for unions in the US. Briefly put, if unions were successful in having society adopt all of their social justice agenda, there would be little reason for them to exist. Some, particularly the trades, have in my view gone too far in adopting the “selfish” approach and focused almost entirely on what they can provide that society and non-union employers do not. Others spend a lot of time and resources promoting social justice issues, often to their detriment, as the public believes that these rights and benefits should be supplied by society (or in some cases erroneously believes that they already are). Ultimately, the model for unions in the US must mirror the US; meaning that the successul will be strong where the law and social/economic norms are weak, while at the same time projecting the principle that they are fighting for what should be theirs as a matter of right, but is not and never will be in this country. A delicate balancing act, to be sure, and one that unions often fail to pull off.
Instead, they often seem to fight a defensive battle to keep what they have from being taken away, by pushing for things that reduce the difference between what union and non union employees enjoy, while at the same time projecting an image of selfishness, even toward younger workers in the same workplaces.