Cycles of Labor History

American Workers, American Unions, the latest in a series on American life from the Johns Hopkins University Press, attempts to cover the past 65 years of the American labor movement in fewer than 200 pages, presumably for readers interested in a fast survey of recent events.

For such a project to succeed, it must not only cover the major events and personalities, but also convey a sense of how today's labor movement emerged from the struggles of the past. And, remarkably, American Workers, American Unions, does succeed, earning a jacket-cover accolade from retired United Auto Workers President Douglas Fraser.

It's all here - as much as could reasonably be expected in so few pages: the stagnant and conservative labor movement of the 1920s; the upsurge in industrial unionism during the 1930s and 1940s; the institutionalization and bureaucratization of the unions during ensuing decades; the growth of public employee unionism in the 1960s and 1970s; and the decline of the labor movement during the 1980s.

Even more remarkably, Robert H. Zieger offers brief but lively and balanced discussions of the major debates within and about the labor movement during the past six decades: between the conservative craft unionists of the AFL and the innovative industrial unionists of the CIO during the 1930s; between Communists and anti-Communists during the 1940s; and between the opposing views of labor's mission represented by George Meany and Walter Reuther during the 1950s and 1960s; as well as the recent debates over such issues as racial discrimination within the unions and the AFL-CIO's foreign policy - controversies that divided unionists not only against each other but against traditional allies in the black and liberal communities.

To cover so much subject matter in so little space, selectivity is important - as is conveying a sense of recurring cycles in labor history and, indeed, the history of our entire society. When it comes to selecting which events to include, Zieger shows outstanding judgment; it is only when it comes to providing a sense of what the past means for the present that his terse narrative falls just a little too short.

As the radicals of the 1930s used to say, it may be "no accident" that Professor Zieger chooses to begin, and end his study at remarkably similar moments: the Roaring Twenties and the Reagan Eighties.

Then - as now - there were: conservative Republican administrations; a superficial prosperity where surging stock prices masked growing gaps among the rich, middle class, and the poor; and a national ethos fixated on the bottom line, worshipping business success, and scorning the less well-to-do. Then - as now - unions were losing membership strength, economic power, political influence, and public esteem. Then - as now - respected analysts were describing the labor movement as an institution with an interesting past and a diminishing future.

Early in the book, Zieger quotes a statement that could have been written yesterday, but was published in 1932: unions, wrote Professor George Barnett - a leading labor authority of the day - were exercising "lessening importance ... in American economic organization," and there was "no reason to believe that American trade unionism will so revolutionize itself ... as to become in the next decade a more potent social influence than it has been in the past decade." Barnett wrote during the last year of Herbert Hoover's administration and on the eve of social changes that would prove him spectacularly wrong: the election of Franklin D. Roosevelt and the enactment of his New Deal; the passage of the National Labor Relations Act, giving official sanction to union organizing and collective bargaining; and the dramatic growth of unionism in basic industries.

In his discussion of what the 1930s mean for our time, Zieger fails to convey an understanding which he nonetheless seems to share. Two things happened after 1932 to revive the labor movement: a change in national leadership and the entire tone of public policy; and the emergence of new structures within the labor movement. One story is known by most well informed Americans; I suspect the other isn't.

First, the better known story: the New Deal gave American workers something new - a president they perceived as on their side. Under FDR's leadership, Congress passed the National Labor Relations Act, which required businesses to recognize and bargain in good faith with unions chosen by their employees. Just as significantly, the New Deal social legislation was met with howls of protest from businessmen who roasted Roosevelt as "a traitor to his class" in an outcry that probably contributed to the public perception that for once the federal government actually supported unionism. Thus when labor organizers hit the nation's plant gates, their leaflets often had the headline: "The President wants you to join the union!"

And now, the lesser-known story: for the labor movement to grow in the 1930s and 1940s, revolutionary change was necessary not only in public policy but also within the unions themselves. The American Federation of Labor entered the 1930s with a base limited almost entirely to the building trades and an outmoded structure of separate unions representing plumbers, carpenters, painters, and other "crafts," each anxious to maintain its jurisdiction and scornful of "unskilled" laborers in the nation's factories, foundries, and shops. For the unions to organize workers in auto, steel, and other basic industries, it was necessary to develop a new model of unionism along industrial rather than craft lines, and even for a new labor center, the Congress of Industrial Organizations, to secede from the AFL.

Following a vivid account of the dramatic events of the 1930s and 1940s, Zieger offers a competent account of the major events of the last four decades. Much of what has happened in the ensuing years is less dramatic and understandably so: the routinization of collective bargaining in most major industries, and the evolution of the larger unions and the AFL-CIO itself into professionalized organizations staffed by technicians ranging from economists to lobbyists and publicists. Meanwhile - and Zieger is too sophisticated to say "consequently" - the unions find themselves with a declining membership, diminishing political clout, and the lowest public opinion ratings in decades.

What Zieger fails to make entirely clear to the uninitiated reader is that labor history reflects recurring cycles of decline and renewal, as the unions develop new structures and approaches to organize new segments of the work force they had previously ignored or even scomed.

Half a century ago, in a story Zieger tells at great length, the AFL's craft unionists looked down on workers in mass production. However, a new breed of organizers created a new form of unionism, signed up millions of industrial workers, and brought the nation's largest corporations to their knees - and to the bargaining table.

During the 1960s, in a story Zieger tells briefly, the next wave of organization swept through a work force which old-line unionists considered unorganizable: government employees. Here too - and this story Zieger doesn't tell - new forms of organization were essential. The two most successful public employee unions - the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME) and the National Education Association (NEA) - grew out of public employee associations, which specialized in lobbying public officials and stressed quality-of-worklife issues such as limiting class and caseload sizes.

Although they seek traditional union goals such as bargaining rights and pay raises, and hit the picket lines when necessary, AFSCME and NEA, as well as other public-sector unions such as the American Federation of Teachers ~AFT-) and the Service Employees International Union (SEIU), speak a new language for unionists: not bashing-the-boss but winning workers a voice in policies and improving services for the public. And, as Zieger fails to underscore, without the growth of unions such as AFSCME, AFT, and SEIU, today's AFL-CIO would be smaller than the labor federation George Meany led three decades ago.

Today, just as a half-century ago, the labor movement is concentrated in declining industries. Just as with industrial workers in the 1930s and public employees in the 1960s, unions face the challenge of organizing a longoverlooked but fast-growing work force: employees in the service sector of the economy, from clerical workers in the insurance industry to computer programmers and engineers in the hightechnology industries.

As in previous waves of union building, new forms of organization are necessary, but, as in past eras, the successful innovations of the recent past offer clues for what will work in the future. In his history, Zieger offers an important insight: the CIO unionists who organized industrial workers during the 1930s learned from the earlier AFL unions which, despite the official rhetoric of "craft unionism," organized mine workers and garment workers on an industry-wide basis.

Similarly, today's organizers in the service sector are learning from recent - I successful experiences - in the public sector. Just as hundreds of thousands of clerical employees in state and local government responded to organizing appeals that stressed their dignity as women workers and the importance of humanizing working conditions in word processing centers and improving opportunities for career advancement, so will their sisters in private industry. And professionals in private industry may share the concerns emphasized by teachers' unions for self-management in the workplace and a voice in setting professional standards and employer policies. All this favors unions such as SEIU and the Communications Workers, which operate in both the public and private sectors, and even suggests that unions such as AFSCME and even AFT may begin organizing in private ! industry.

Almost as an afterthought, Zieger concludes with a description of recent efforts by the AFL-CIO to do just what the industrial unionists of the 1930s and public employee unionists of the 1960s did: develop new structures and new appeals for new audiences. From such simple beginnings a half-century ago, a far weaker movement did what must be done today: turn the worst of times into the best of times.

- David Kusnet

David Kusnet directed publicity in organizing campaigns for the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME). He was a speechwriter for the late AFSCME President Jerry Wurf and for Walter Mondale during the final two months of the 1984 presidential campaign.