Labor Day Confessions of a "Union Boss"

I’ve previously written about the debt that most Americans, with the possible exception of those few whose families have always enjoyed prosperity, owe to labor unions. The growth of the middle class in the United States clearly parallels the growth of labor unions. The shrinking number of middle class households of the last couple decades follows that same trend of declining union households. While I understand the dangers of equating causation with correlation, I find the trend disturbing. I also find the charges of class warfare disingenuous, at best. I find it ironic that those concerns were nowhere to be found as the middle class shrank and income disparity grew, as unions were assaulted and vilified while CEOs saw their pay and prestige grow explosively.

I think our founding fathers were on the right track when they incorporated a system of checks and balances into our governance, trying to establish a system whereby no one person, group or branch was able to accumulate too much power. I further believe that checks and balances must also apply to our economic system, and that unions are a key check to the unbridled power of corporations (people though they may be). Government also has a role, both as a defender of the checkers (both unions and businesses) and as an enforcer/check itself.

I am clearly a defender of unions, at least conceptually, and in general. I’m proud of the role I played in growing the strength of my own union. However, I must also admit that as unions became bigger and more powerful, they created their own bloated bureaucracies and calcified power structures that often at least appeared more concerned with their own welfare than that of their members. Unions have, at least in theory, built-in checks and balances of their own; unfortunately, however, the rank and file are too often unwilling to take responsibility for their own role, preferring to abdicate their power as long as their leadership keeps “winning.”

I know this from personal experience. I was, in an albeit tiny pond, something of a “union boss,” to the point where the state union president referred to me as “Bob Hancock.” Local president (limited to two consecutive terms), lead negotiator (no limits there), regional chairman, member of the state board of directors, I held all of those positions and others, sometimes simultaneously. I appreciated and respected the trust that accompanied those jobs, but it was too much power for one person.

Fortunately, I’m weird and was something of a true believer: I was never interested in accumulating personal power, but only power for my teachers, collectively. I believe to this day we made the district better for teachers and kids. We were also lucky to eventually hammer out an ongoing relationship with administrators who recognized that we were working for the same goal, if approaching it via different paths. I like to think that compromise was a key component as we grew to respect each other.

Working in a small local (about 100 members) also kept me accountable. There were always members who were willing to raise objections if they thought I was getting too far out ahead of the people I was leading, or if they were uncomfortable with my occasionally acerbic leadership style. Most of them became trusted and respected friends. 

Eventually I ran out of time and energy and passed off actual leadership responsibilities, although I continued as a force behind the scenes. When even my shadow diminished to a faint gray, the power of the organization declined; today it is only a nominal player, to the detriment of employees and kids, IMO. It makes me sad, but the 15-20 years I spent as a power player was as much as I could give. Too many members were willing to pay their dues but too few were willing to get involved. In hindsight I should have tried harder to recruit successors, but my efforts were sporadic and probably half-hearted. It was easier to do it (whatever it was at the time) myself; it was also easier for those who could have followed to just let me.

Obviously, this represents only an isolated example, and one on a very small scale at that. As businesses and corporations grow, their focus inevitably devolves from workers as individuals to faceless resources whose value is only their present productivity. Large unions face the same problem, as their members also devolve from “brothers” or “sisters” to faceless dues-paying minions. In theory, locals are designed to counteract that, but too many of the “brethren” have opted out of the process, saying, in effect, “Here’s your dues, get me more and leave me alone.”

I don’t have answers, only questions (see blog header). I do, however, have concerns as even the concept of unions has become a target of those who somehow have forgotten the lessons of the past, who for some reason want to return to a time when workers were disposable commodities to be used up and then discarded. Unions, at their best, worked to protect workers from that. Who is going to protect workers from those who see nothing beyond today's profit, if not unions? It doesn’t take much or deep analysis to see that going forward, if, in fact, we are to go forward, we still need someone or something to fill that role today.