Working In These Times
Unions Must Attract the Young and Hip—or Become Obsolete
More to the point, they might actually hurt efforts at union growth. When forced to conjure up an image of workers, the average American thinks of burly, middle-aged blue-collar workers: auto, mine or longshore workers circa 1950.
But today's typical union member is more educated, more female and less white than at any time in American history. This diversity is a strength we should celebrate and make known.
As David Moberg detailed in a post here last week, a recent study by the Center for Labor and Policy Research reported that today white men make up only 38% of union members. The report went on to say that
Union workers, like the rest of the workforce, are now almost half women, older, more educated, and more racially and ethnically diverse....In the next decade, the rise of women to majority status in the labor movement and the likely continued influx of racial and ethnic minorities into unions are likely to be among the most important developments for organized labor.
The crucial question is, how will organized labor deal with these demographic changes?
One change that is important and missing from current discussions about the fate of organized labor movement is age. The union movement in America is aging fast, and not bringing new, younger members into the fold in sufficient numbers to rejuvenate itself.
Are we only a few years away from a union movemen that looks like an AARP meeting?
More importantly, support for unions has been declining in the public. Many young people do not see the value of unions, thinking of them as quaint but ineffective relics of the liberal past. Unions need to find ways to reach out to young Americans and connect with them if the movement is going to have a real chance at surviving into the 21st century.
There are many critical issues labor needs to deal with, but getting support from the youth of America must not be ignored. In recent years, business has learned the value of culture, hiring consultants to use social media and develop a cultural brand.
President Obama's election shows the power of mobilize twenty-somethings around an idea or brand. Imagine if organized labor could tap into youth culture, making unions hip the same way Obama’s handlers made him hip! Well, a man can dream.
SAVE 53% OFF
Comments
So, we should market unions to college educated hipsters?
Last time I checked, most of them are trust fund babies from rich families, who hate unions because their parents are corporate executives.
How about rebuilding unions the old fashioned way - by organizing poor Blacks and immigrants?
Those communities were the backbone of labor in the past, and, if American labor is to have a future, it is them.
So, let’s unionize Latino carpenters and Black warehouse workers - Polish janitors and Chinese restaurant cooks - and leave the hipsters to their own devises (they can live quite well on mommy and daddy’s money!)
Unions don’t need to be “hip” - they just need to militantly fight for the rights of the poorest and most downtrodden workers!
Greg;
you are way off base in comparing college educated to trust fund babies, you had better take another look.
and while militant fighting is just and appropriate, how has it been working for the last three decades?
Rich;
I respectfully disagree on pushing a political culture, we have been pushing that for years to no avail. it’s time we as union members stand up on our own two feet and quit riding on the coat tails of politicians.
Attaching ourselves to a social movement is quite a different story however.
As a full time organizer I can certainly say that most people don’t want to be in a union, That is the question we should be addressing.
Brother Greg,
from my perspective (son of immigrant working class family), young people and immigrant /black workers are not in competition, hell we are all broke - parents and children alike.
I would warn against any mentality that says we leave “them” out of it (whether the them be “hipsters”, immigrants, white people, or some other “them” that we have grudges against, even if those grudges have some real life experience attached to them) because one of the most important thing we can do to create working class consciousness and some oxygen for labor is to create a tent that believes that an injury to one is an injury to all.
Also, in my experience, hipsters are into unions, you just need to ask them the right way (i.e. not an old organizing dude who could be their uncle…unless he’s cool of course)
An example of this to me would be retail workers in NYC who are employees of H&M or other hip outlets… they’re just as fed up with the boss as the rest of us.
I would disagree, segments of labor absolutely need to be hip. In fact, there should be a clear propaganda and PR effort within organized labor, because its the coolest thing out there and its been around forever, but we never talk about solidarity and throwing down with your homies in labor, we just talk about boring a** s*** like bargaining and elections…. you know what I mean? I’m not saying we dont continue to use that, I’m saying be intentional with message and audience.
We need to change the face of the labor movement to reflect who it projects will be its organized base. While I applaud some of the changes in demographics the new leadership entails, it certainly isnt enough. It needs to be reflected at all levels of their/our instit utions.
in terms of a political culture, my take is that no clear ideology has existed for a while now, to the detriment of us all. In its absence, what Chris raises is true in the sense that labor has followed a political force in the Democratic party… and wow has that failed…..and will continue to sadly.
ultimately I think folks are right, unless labor shifts its overall strategy from relying on the crumbs that masters of industry and politicians drop them once in a while, and goes the social movement route (which exists, albeit young but growing - USSF anyone?), it will continue to go down.
which leads me to ask, have you all started planning for the social forum? =)
“So, we should market unions to college educated hipsters?”
Ah, the left. You mention young people and they start talking about college kids every time—nevermind that most of us still don’t/didn’t go to college, nor that degreed professionals hardly seem to be labor’s natural constituency.
More on point: I was at discussion last week where someone asked what unions could do to attract younger members; there was, as here, a lot of talk of hipness and Twitter and all the buzzwords. Conspicuously absent was any mention of the two-tier agreements to which unions continue to accede. If there’s any clearer way for older union members to tell younger ones that their place is to shut up and pay for pensions they’ll never receive, I don’t know what it is.
to be clear, I didnt mean labor needs to be “hip” as in trendy. I also hear folks talk about the need for labor to be “cool” and always want to ask, “homies - what you all know about cool?”
you don’t do something and be cool, we always called those folks posers…. and I dont think that’s what labor ought to do.
you practice what you think/preach, and be yourself and original while being consistent in what you project as values/important. Nothing cooler than the swagger folks who are truly into something project, I love being around ppl like that.
Agreed with you on the need to think more carefully about “young people”. Certainly students are a part of that (although we need to be careful not to make a “box” for students, not everyone is a traditional student and young), and many students find themselves screwed and in temp jobs or if they’re lucky screwed with a crappy federal work study job. But what about developing young workers already in unions (scarce, but we’re there), and as you point out non-student/non-labor young workers.
I get worried that labor and leaders will fall for the trap of putting mad money into new fads and online work. None of that stuff is useful without a base to move it. I would argue that labor needs to move away from building lists for e-advocacy and shift to building freaken leaders to go through their neighborhoods…. but that’s just me…..
Rich,
One of the biggest problems with the labor movement - both in the ‘30’s and today - is the large number of folks from non working class backgrounds in leadership. Other than labor leadership positions that specifically require a law school or accounting background (staff attorneys, actuaries for welfare funds ect) ALL union officials should be folks who came up from the ranks, and actually worked in the jurisdiction for a considerable period of time.
We’ve had quite enough of condescending saviours who come to rule us from a judgment hall - and they’ve done quite a bit of damage to the labor movement.
As for students in transitional jobs, generally speaking, they think of themselves as students first and workers a distant second. They see their jobs as a distasteful stepping stone to the “real jobs” they will have in their field once they finish school.
Nobody in the American labor movement has ever succeeded in organizing them, and it’s only an accident of history that transitional workers in the supermarket industry and UPS are organized (basically, those jobs were unionized long before those industries began to rely on temporary student labor).
#################################
Chris,
The problem is, we have NOT been fighting for the last three decades - the American labor leadership have been retreating and surrendering at every turn for the last four decades. This also explains why so few workers are enthusiastic about unions - because they can be defeated by the bosses on their own, without having to pay union dues for the privilege of being beaten by the boss!
##############################
Carlosinhp,
Apparently, in your view “young workers” is a term that only applies to American born White college students - and “Blacks and immigrants” are all middle aged and old.
That’s a truly odd view of the world.
There are young African Americans and young immigrants too, you know!
The immigrant workforce in particular tends to skew young, especially in physically taxing jobs like residential construction, demolition and meatpacking.
Those folks are “young workers” too - even though they didn’t go to college and they aren’t “hip”.
I already touched on the difficulties of organizing young transitional workers of all races - those difficulties are even more difficult to surmount when you are dealing with youth of privilege for whom their transitional job really is a brief period of privation before a lifetime of wealth and affluence that they will achieve when they graduate and get a “real job” in the field they are studying for.
#################################
Eli,
For the record, I dropped out of a public college after only two semesters, and spent much of my youth working in machine shops and for temp agencies, before I became an apprentice carpenter in my mid 20’s - so I know very well that most young workers are not on the college track, cause I lived it.
But you are right on the money about two tier - unions have been selling out younger workers for the past 40 years (in the municipal workers unions in New York City, they call these concessions at the expense of future workers “killing the unborn”) and yes, those sellout deals are one of the reasons that unions aren’t that appealing to younger workers.
Just look at UPS, where the older full time drivers make $ 27/hr and work 70 hour weeks, while the young part time loaders have had the same low starting wage ($ 8.50/hr) since 1988 and work an average of 15 hours a week.
That works out to $ 11,000 a year for the part time teamsters of UPS - and as much as $ 100,000 a year for the full timers!
No wonder unions don’t resonate with so many younger workers!
Brother Rich;
I’m confused, I cannot think of one labor leader who has not come up through the ranks. I’m not nitpicking but i am serious.
I think we can all agree on one thing, we have a serious leadership problem.
Did you know that after the great depression ended in ‘32
Unions grew at the astonishing rate of 160% between ‘33 and ‘38?
I’m terribly afraid we are going to miss a golden opportunity to prove the value of our unions to the rest of the workers.
my last comment was to brother Greg, not Rich, sorry
I just found this on huff post a minute ago,
“Newspapers Raided: Police Raid New York Newspaper Offices For Union Corruption Probe”
we might want to work on our image problem too.
Chris,
Actually, a LOT of union leaders never worked a day in their lives in their union’s jurisdiction.
Jim Hoffa of the Teamsters is a good example - he’s an attorney, who never worked one day in his life in any Teamsters Union-represented craft.
Bruce Raynor - formerly of UNITE HERE, now of “Workers United” - never worked one day in his life in the garment industry in any capacity.
That’s an old garment union tradition, by the way - not one ILGWU president in the entire history of that union ever worked in the garment district, nor did any of the Amalgamated Clothing Workers or the Textile Workers Unions presidents ever work in the trades.
Also, those unions, in heavily female industries, always had male presidents.
UNITE HERE’s current president, John Wilhelm, never worked one day in his life in a hotel, and his only restaurant work experience was a brief summer job working in the Yale University cafeteria while he was a student there. He’s following in a long tradition of Hotel and Restaurant union officers who never actually worked in a hotel or a restaurant.
John Casey, the head of UNITE HERE local 2 in San Francisco, is another hotel and restaurant union officer with an elite academic background who never ever worked in a hotel or restaurant (and, he’s a White man running a union largely composed of Latina and Asian women)
The SEIU is infamous for importing upscale college folks and professional union hacks to run unions in industries they never worked in - for example, here in New York, Mike Fishman, the head of local 32bj, has never ever worked a day as a janitor one day in his natural life, and Denis Hickey Rivera, the head of local 1199, only briefly worked as an x ray technician before he became the head of the union (also, he’s a half White half Puerto Rican man running a union that’s overwhelmingly people of color and majority women).
Sadly, American labor has a long shameful tradition of what can only be called “carpetbagger unionism” where upper middle class folks are parachuted into unions in industries they never worked in, and immediately catapulted into leadership positions.
I think the rule should be simple - unless you actually worked in that industry for at least 5 years, you have no business being a union officer in that industry - period.
The last two AFL-CIO presidents before the current incumbent are also good examples of this phenomenon of non workers running labor unions.
John Sweeney was catapulted into a business agent position in SEIU local 32bj right out of college, despite that he never worked even one day as a janitor - he then advanced to local president, and then international president, and then AFL-CIO president, without ever having actually been a janitor even one day.
His predecessor, Lane Kirkland, became an officer of the Masters, Mates and Pilots (the union that represents the captains and officers on US flag ocean liners and cargo ships) despite the fact that he was not a sea captain or even a merchant sailor! He ended up running that union that he was never ever a member of, and then running the federation, despite the fact that he was never a worker in that industry, or in any industry.
There’s a whole parasitic stratum of career union staff who control this country’s unions even though they have never actually been workers - they are an albatross around American labor’s neck, especially because they tend to be very attracted to “labor management partnership” and other company unionist schemes.
It will be a great day for American labor when all of these labor fakers are chased out of the labor movement, and replaced with leaders who are ACTUAL WORKERS who actually are indigenous to the industries they represent.
New York City also has a long tradition of gangsters who never worked an honest day in their lives becoming union officers - Bernard Adelstein, William “Wild Bill” Cutolo, Matthew “Matty the Horse” Ianello, John “Johnny Dio” Dioguardi ect ect ect.
This was common in other areas as well - Philadelphia, Chicago, Boston and Cleveland for example. The latter city produced Jackie Presser, the Teamsters general president from 1984 to 1988.
Presser, the highest paid union official in world history (at one point, he was paid $ 784,000 a year from 8 different Teamsters Union offices that he held simultaneously) was a businessman and career criminal, who got his union posts from his father, Cleveland businessman and gangster William Presser.
So you see, Chris, there is a LONG tradition in American labor of folks from the middle class usurping union leadership from actual workers!
Thanks for the education, Greg. I seriously did not realize how many parasites there were in our past and current history, coming form the construction trades in Ohio it would be unheard-of for a non construction guy to actually lead a construction union. In fact I doubt they would be able to leave the parking lot. you have expanded my views, thank you.
I still beg the question though,
WHERE ARE OUR LEADERS??
Chris,
I’m a building trades guy too (Carpenters local 608, New York, NY) and yes, our leaders are all actual carpenters.
Unfortunately, outside of the building trades (where you pretty much have to have an actual craft background to be a union officer) it’s all too common to have non workers running unions.
BTW, I’ve written a book on the crisis of the labor movement - specifically the crisis in the unions in our industry.
It’s called “DISUNITED BROTHERHOODS.. race, racketeering and the fall of the New York construction unions” and if you go over to Amazon.com you can get it.
And you asked the $ 64,000 dollar question, brother - where ARE our leaders?
I agree completely with the central argument of this article—that labor should regard its growing diversity as an advantage and that it should work to build support among younger workers. However, I disagree with Mr. Greenwald’s assertion that “support for unions has been declining in the public”. In fact, annual Gallup polls demonstrate that support for unions is consistently high (around 60% of Americans favor them). A recent survey also demonstrated that 53% of Americans favor EFCA, while only 39% opposed it. Finally, a 2007 EPI study found that more Americans than ever want to join a union: in 1984, about 30% of non-union workers said they’d vote to join a union (65% said they’d vote against unionization). By 2005, that figure had shot up to 53%, with only 35% opposed.
Basically, most Americans are union-supporters, despite the never ending onslaught of anti-union propaganda in the corporate press. The ground is fertile for new organizing.