_^3Y
V
'C’A !

ADT 3=?9<S
137 Q_

1971

LABOR DAY SMjf
Division for Urbon'lfte

1

Department of Social De^dfyjrQgjQj^

United States Catholic Cdfffatanoee

Rev. Msgr. George G. Higgins

Director

Introduction

Pope Paul VI, in his recent Apostolic Letter

commemorating the eightieth anniversary of Pope

Leo XIII’s historic social encyclical, Rerum Novarum

(On the Condition of Labor), pointed out that

two aspirations persistently make themselves felt in

today’s world: "the aspiration to equality and the

aspiration to participation.” This new emphasis on

equality and shared responsibility is not limited to

particular countries or particular areas of the world

community but, in varying degrees, is characteristic

of mankind as a whole. Yet it would probably be

fair to say that in certain respects it is a peculiarly

American phenomenon. At the very least, it can be

said that in no other nation in the world has there

been, within recent years, a more widespread and

more insistent demand on the part of so many

different groups for a greater degree of equality

and a fuller measure of participation in the affairs

of our society.

What started in our country, less than two decades

ago, as a belated demand for elementary forms of

justice in the somewhat limited or restricted area of

civil rights has rapidly escalated into a much more

sweeping demand for genuine equality (as opposed,

for example, to so-called lunch-counter or drinking-

fountain equality) and for a greater measure of

shared responsibility at every level of our society.

This demand came, in the first instance, from the

largest of our minority groups, the Black community,

which historically has suffered beyond measure from

an almost total lack of equality in many areas of our

national life and from a systematic denial of an

adequate sharing in responsibility. More recently,

the same demand has come from the Spanish-speak-

ing and also from aggrieved women, alienated uni-

versity students, and other disaffected groups in our



society. These groups charge that they, too, have

yet to be accorded the kind of treatment which

they feel they have a right to expect in a nation

founded on the principle that all men (and women)

are created equal.

Our inability or unwillingness as a nation to cope

successfully with this constantly accelerating and

completely understandable insistence on a greater

measure of equality and for the fullest possible

degree of participatory democracy has led us into a

dangerous impasse. We no longer seem to know
exactly where we want to go as a nation and, to

make matters worse, one of our better-known his-

torians has recently notified us all in writing that

there really isn’t any point in our worrying about it,

for the play is over, he reports, and the curtain is

about to fall. "The United States,” he contends, "is

now about to join other nations of the world which

were once prepossessing and are now little more

than plots of bounded terrain. Like them, the United

States will continue to be inhabited by human life;

however, Americans will no longer possess that spirit

which transforms a people into a citizenry and turns

territory into a nation.”

This is a dismal thing to prophesy about a nation

which, as nations go, is still very young and, in fact,

will not be celebrating its bicentennial for another

five years. In any event, while most Americans will

probably be repelled by this kind of sickly pes-

simism and despair and will, almost by instinct,

tend to reject it, at the same time we will want to

examine very carefully the reasons which prompted

its author to give expression to it in the first place.

His argument is that we have passed the point

"where self-interest can subordinate itself to citizen-

ship” or, putting it in reverse, that we have reached

the point where "a preoccupation with private con-

cerns deflects (our) population from public

obligations.”

This, too, may be an exaggeration or an exercise

in rhetorical license, but, to the extent that it repre-

sents an accurate reading of our present situation in

the United States, it raises a number of serious

questions which are worth thinking about on the

occasion of Labor Day.

The Drive For Equality

Labor Day, with its traditional emphasis on the

theme of social justice and the rights of working

people, lends itself more readily than any of our



other national holidays to sober reflection on the

two major aspirations which Pope Paul has singled

out as characteristic of today’s society: the aspiration

to equality and the aspiration to participation or

shared responsibility. We propose, in this annual
Labor Day Statement, to raise a few points for dis-

cussion with reference to the first of these two

aspirations—the aspirations to equality—but only as
it relates to the labor movement itself, and not to

the rest of American society. There will be other

occasions in the future on which to consider the

growing and, on the whole, very encouraging em-

phasis in today’s world on the importance of shared

responsibility.

The labor movement, like every other major insti-

tution in the United States, is presently on the

defensive with regard to its record in promoting

genuine color-blind equality. It is being severely

criticized in many quarters as a racist institution on

the grounds that its stated commitment to racial

equality is allegedly being honored more in the

breach than in the practice. Much of the criticism

directed at organized labor on this particular score

is stated very sweepingly and in the most simplistic

terms. Within recent weeks, for example, a promi-

nent public official blandly charged, on the public

record, that "while some unions have been leaders

in equality of opportunity . . ., the majority of

unions . . . are still trying to escape with only

token compliance with the law of the land.’’

This is clearly an exaggeration—the kind of sen-
sational exaggeration which makes for catchy head-

lines but, to our way of thinking, is hardly calcu-

lated to advance the cause of racial equality.

It would be closer to the truth to say—as the
well known civil rights leader, Bayard Rustin, has

recently stated—that the labor movement, for all of
its faults and limitations in the area of racial equality,

is "the most integrated major institution in Ameri-

can society, certainly more integrated than the cor-

porations, the churches, or the universities.”

This is an unpopular thing to say at a time when

such a large segment of the so-called liberal com-

munity in this country—the group that tends to
mold public opinion on matters of this kind—has
become completely disenchanted with the labor move-

ment and has written it off almost cynically as an

ultra-conservative, not to say reactionary force in

American society. Yet it needed to be said, not in



defense of the labor movement itself, which will

have to answer for its own mistakes, but in the

interest of the truth and in the larger interest of

promoting the very cause of racial equality which

labor’s critics claim to be espousing.

There is no doubt about the fact that some unions,

to their shame and discredit and in complete de-

fiance of the principles of justice and equality which

they boastfully claim to be guided by, are still

practicing racial discrimination or, at best, are still

trying "to escape with only token compliance with

the law of the land.’’ These unions deserve to be

condemned for their hypocrisy and must expect to

be held up to public scorn. But to say that "some”

unions are guilty of racial discrimination or, at best,

are deliberately dragging their feet in the area of

racial equality is a far cry from saying that the

"majority” of unions fall into this category. To make

the latter charge is to play partisan games with

the facts and to raise the suspicion that the one

making the charge has some purpose in mind other

than his stated purpose of promoting equal employ-

ment opportunity.

Labor and the Black Community

The trouble with this kind of oversimplified and

highly doctrinaire approach to the problem of racial

discrimination in the ranks of organized labor

—

aside from the fact that it happens to be contrary to

the evidence—is that it runs the risk of turning the
Black community in general and Black workers in

particular against the entire American labor move-

ment, and this at the very time when unions are

more important to Black workers than ever before.

The injustice done to a Black worker who is dis-

criminated against by a particular union is a crime

that cries out to heaven for vengeance. Racial in-

justice of this type is a serious blot on the reputation

of the American labor movement. The fact is, how-

ever, that the overriding problem for a large percent-

age of Black workers is not that this or that particular

union is discriminating against them or excluding

them from membership, but, to the contrary, that

they are not eligible to belong to any union for the

simple reason that such a large sector of the mar-

ginal labor market in which they are forced to com-

pete for employment is unorganized. Mass unemploy-

ment or underemployment is obviously an even more

serious problem for these disadvantaged workers.

It is fashionable today in certain intellectual circles



and in the so-called "radical chic” community to al-

lege that organized labor is unable or unwilling to face

up effectively to these two crucially important prob-

lems. Labor is said to have lost the sense of mili-

tancy which characterized the movement in the thirties

and to have fallen down on the job—or, if you will,
given up on the job—of organizing the unorganized.
It is also said to be unconcerned about or totally

ineffective in fighting for full employment and for

a number of related social and economic reforms

which are urgently needed if the great mass of

Black workers are ever to achieve genuine equality

in our society.

As the authors of a major study of the labor

movement—Professors Derek C. Bok and John T.
Dunlop of Harvard University—have recently
pointed out, one must be cautious in evaluating these

indiscriminate charges. "In retrospect,” they point

out, ". . . comparisons with the thirties seem se-

riously distorted. ... If anything, (the labor move-

ment) was less concerned then than it is now over

social and economic issues outside the range of its

own immediate interests. Today, more manpower is

being used to lobby for these causes, more space is

devoted to them in union periodicals, and more

money is being spent to support candidates who

favor social reforms than ever was true during the

thirties.”

Bayard Rustin—who, of all the more prominent
civil rights leaders in the United States is by far the

most knowledgeable about the labor movement and

about labor-management relations—not only agrees
with this opinion but takes it a step further. "How

ironic,” he says, "that in this period when the trade-

union movement is thought to be conservative, its

social and economic policies are far and away more

progressive than those of any other American

institution.”

This, too, is an unpopular thing to say at the

present time, but, again, it needed saying as an

antidote to the cynicism of those who—in effect, if
not in so many words—are telling Black workers
that the labor movement is their enemy and not

their friend.

Mr. Rustin thinks—and so does the writer of
this Statement—that this kind of advice is a great
disservice to the Black working class community.

There is reason to think that the majority of Black



workers understand this very well. In any event,

Black workers, as Mr. Rustin has pointed out, "have

a choice. They can fight to strengthen the trade-

union movement by wiping out the vestiges of segre-

gation that remain in it, or they can, knowingly or

unknowingly, offer themselves as pawns in the

conservatives’ games of bust-the-unions.” Mr. Rustin’

s

point, however unpopular it may prove to be in

many circles, is, in our judgment, very well taken

indeed.

But if Black workers have a choice, so does the

labor movement. It can either practice what it

preaches in the area of racial justice and racial

equality—not merely in some of its affiliates, but in
all of them, including the most restricted and re-

strictive crafts—or, by failing to do so, it can
bring down upon itself not only the enmity but

also, at some point, the hatred of the Black

community.

It may be correct to say, as Professors Bok and

Dunlop contend, that "greater progress has been

made in securing equal opportunity in employment

than in any other field of American life. Yet em-

ployment is so vital that Negro leaders are under-

standably impatient. Whether unions can surmount

this challenge is a question of profound importance,

but the answer remains obscure. With the aid of full

employment and more adequate government training

programs, the problem may eventually be overcome

without great turmoil. On the other hand, rejection

of Negro claims may lead to attempts to form Black

unions in the ghettos and complete alienation from

the labor movement. In this respect, the unions are

but a microcosm of the larger problems confronting

all of American society.’’

A Challenge to Organized Labor

This is undoubtedly one of the most serious chal-

lenges confronting the labor movement at the pres-

ent time. The fact that two such objective observers

as Bok and Dunlop felt compelled to say that the

answer to the question as to whether or not orga-

nized labor will be able and willing to surmount the

challenge "remains obscure” is a sobering thought on

labor’s national holiday for the leaders of the move-

ment and also for the rank-and-file. They can take

no comfort whatsoever from the thought that, in the

field of race relations, "unions are but a microcosm

of the larger problems confronting all of American

society.” That may or may not be true, but, in any

event, it is clearly irrelevant. The fact is that, in the



particular case of racial justice, as in many other

areas, the public in general and the disadvantaged

minorities in particular have a perfect right to expect

and demand a higher standard of performance from

organized labor than from any other institution in

American society, with the exception, if you will,

of organized religion. The reason for this is obvious.

By definition, and by stated purpose, the labor move-

ment claims to be committed—indeed, it prides itself
on being committed—more explicitly and more
single-mindedly than other organizations in our so-

ciety to the cause of justice and equality for working

people of every race and color. The labor movement

is also committed, or should be committed, more

compassionately than other organizations—again,
with the exception of organized religion—to the
service of the poor. If the Church, as Pope Paul

has pointed out in his recent Apostolic Letter,

should be characterized by a disinterested will to

serve and by "preferential respect" for the poorest

of the poor, no less can be expected of the labor

movement.

In the American context, preferential respect for

the poorest of the poor, a large percentage of whom

are Blacks, means, at the very least, an all-out effort

on the part of every union in the United States not

only to comply with the spirit as well as the letter

of the law, but to make up for lost time and make

amends for past injustices by going well beyond the

technical and even the moral requirements of the

law. "Legislation is necessary," Pope Paul has pointed

out in this connection, "but it is not sufficient for

setting up true relationships of justice and equality.

... If beyond legal rules there is really no deeper

feeling of respect for and service to others, than

even equality before the law can serve as an alibi

for flagrant discrimination, continued exploitation

and actual contempt.”

In varying degrees, flagrant discrimination, con-

tinued exploitation, and actual contempt for Black

'workers still exist in some but not, as the public

official referred to above would have us believe, in

the majority of American unions.

It goes without saying, however, that even one

such union, large or small, is one too many.

There is still another minority-group of workers

in our society who are looking to the labor move-

ment for the fullest possible measure of support in



their belated and very difficult struggle for genuine

equality, namely, the Spanish-speaking. Many Span-

ish-speaking workers, who commonly refer to them-

selves these days as Chicanos, feel that they have

been discriminated against even more than their

fellow-workers in the Black community. While com-

parisons of this type are to be expected, they tend

to be rather odious and can easily result in a fruit-

less form of rivalry. The fact remains, nevertheless,

that the social, economic, and political plight of

Spanish-surnamed workers in the United States is,

in every major respect, just about as bad, and in

some areas possibly even worse, than that of their

counterparts in the Black community. Reliable sta-

tistical evidence, as collated in a recent scholarly

study, indicates that "their share of available jobs

descends steeply once the line separating white-collar

from blue-collar jobs is crossed. There is evidence

of a job caste that walls off white-collar jobs from

minority workers, and this wall is stouter against

Spanish-surnames in areas where their numbers in

the population are proportionately greater, as it is

for Negroes in those areas where they are a more

prominent part of the population.”

In the case of the Spanish-speaking, as in the case

of Black workers, there are those who, for reasons

which are not entirely clear, persist in trying to drive

a wedge between the Chicanos and the labor move-

ment. They argue or insinuate that trade unions, al-

most by definition and of their very nature, generally

serve only their present membership and almost al-

ways adopt restrictive practices against so-called "out-

siders.” Again, this is clearly an exaggeration. Some

unions admittedly practice discrimination against

Chicanos, but, on the basis of all the available evi-

dence, the study referred to above concludes that the

pattern of minority employment is better among

employers who have arrangements with labor unions

that affect to some extent whom they may hire than

it is among those who do not have such arrangements.

Here, again, Spanish-speaking workers, like their

fellow-workers in the Black community, have a

choice to make. In Bayard Rustin’s words, as applied

in the first instance to Black workers, the Chicanos

can either fight to strengthen the trade-union move-

ment by wiping out the vestiges of segregation that

remain in it, or they can, knowingly or unknow-

ingly, offer themselves as pawns in the game of

bust-the-unions.



Needless to add, the labor movement also has a

choice to make—the same choice it is being called
upon to make in the case of Black workers. It can

either grant complete equality to Spanish-speaking

workers or it can expect to bring down upon itself

their undying enmity and hatred.

One group of Spanish-speaking workers number-

ing in the tens of thousands—namely, the farm
workers—have already made their choice. They have
opted dramatically to work out their economic des-

tiny in and through the labor movement.

Time after time during the past half century farm

workers—Chicanos in the main, but Filipinos and
Blacks as well—have tried to organize, but their
efforts have always been blocked. At long last, how-

ever, the tide is beginning to turn in their favor.

Within the past few years they have succeeded in

organizing what would appear to be a viable union.

A number of churchmen of all faiths have strongly

supported the patient and remarkably peaceful ef-

forts of these determined farm workers to make up

for generations of lost time and, through an orga-

nization of their own choosing, to begin to secure

their basic human rights. They have a long way to

go and many hurdles to surmount, but this time they

will not, they cannot, be stopped.

Organized labor is sometimes accused of having

done less than it might have done or might have

been expected to do in years gone by on behalf of

these exploited farm workers. Be that as it may, the

labor movement is now beginning to make up for

lost time. Its support of the current farm workers’

organizational drive, in terms of experienced per-

sonnel and financial assistance, is commendable.

Our great farm organizations would also do well

to lend their support to this organizational drive,

not simply as a matter of justice and fair play, but

also a matter of enlightened self-interest. In the

long run, the growers have everything to gain and

nothing to lose by moving, however belatedly, to-

wards a stable system of labor relations in agricul-

ture based on the kind of labor-management cooper-

ation which has long since become the rule rather

than the exception in all of the other major indus-

tries in this country.

Conclusion

To conclude these Labor Day reflections on the

subject of equality, we note, in the words of Pope

Paul VI, that while "progress has already been made



in introducing, in the area of human relationships,

greater justice and greater sharing of responsibilities

. . ., much remains to be done. Further reflection,

research and experimentation must be actively pur-

sued, unless one is to be late in meeting the legiti-

mate aspirations of the workers—aspirations which
are being increasingly asserted according as their

education, and consciousness of their dignity and the

strength of their organizations increase.”

This is a responsibility which belongs to all of

us in whatever occupation or profession we may

happen to find ourselves. It is our prayerful hope,

however, and our confident expectation that the

labor movement will take the lead and show us the

way to adapt our institutions to the rapidly changing

needs of the times. For the sake of the cause which

labor is privileged to represent, it cannot afford

to be late, nor can the rest of us afford to let it

be late, in meeting the legitimate aspirations of

workers in general and of the poor in particular

for complete equality and for the fullest possible

measure of shared responsibility and self-determina-

tion—the hallmarks of free men in a free society.



PRICES ARE AS FOLLOW: Single copy—$.15; 100-999

at $4.00 per hundred; 1,000-4,999 at $30.00 per thousand;

5,000-10,000 at $26.00 per thousand.



DIVISION FOR URBAN LIFE

SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT

UNITED STATES CATHOLIC CONFERENCE

1312 MASSACHUSETTS AVENUE, NORTHWEST

WASHINGTON, D. C. 20005

31