Wednesday, September 14, 2011
Lew Daly on "The Church of Labor"
I really appreciated Lew Daly's God's Economy, and so I'm not surprised that I very much enjoyed, learned from, and was provoked by this essay of his, "The Church of Labor." I'm not able to agree with Lew entirely -- I think he, and other Catholic advocates for the labor movement, need to distinguish more than they do between (a) the dignity of workers and their right to associate in order to advance their common interests and the common good, on the one hand, and (b) the practices and demands of today's labor movment, especially of public-employee unions. But, for now, I want to put that aside. Lew's essay nicely reminds readers of the (secular) journal, Democracy, that most of what today's "progressives" value (or say they value) about the labor movement is not easily separable from Catholic, communitarian thinking about associations, mediating institutions, and the common good. A bit:
I believe that widespread indifference and even hostility toward religion among progressives and Democrats in recent years has helped to reinforce certain trends in our political and legal culture that are equally hostile to the goals of organized labor and, indeed, to the very idea of organized labor. This is the little-told part of the story of labor’s decline—how the very same liberalism that has separated church and state and strengthened individual rights on social issues such as gay marriage has helped to undermine collective rights in the economy.
https://mirrorofjustice.blogs.com/mirrorofjustice/2011/09/lew-daly-on-the-church-of-labor.html
Comments
You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the
comment feed
for this post.
Here's a quick entrance to hitting the distinction between your questions a and b, to distinguish between today's public employee unions and the general concept of unions, or to distinguish today's issues from the Church's support for working-class unions a century ago:
What about unions of millionaire ballplayers? Does anyone claim that Church social teaching favors rich ballplayers over rich owners, just because the former are a "union"? Of course not.
Now, I'm not claiming that public employee unions are the same as the ballplayers. But it shows that the title "union" does not end the matter. If, in some cases, the actual people involved are making above the median for a community -- even if not millions -- that seems relevant. That is especially so if the taxpayers paying those salaries are on the lower end of the scale, i.e., those in a middle or lower income community paying local taxes.
Seems to me to call for a context-specific analysis, and not a trump card of "Catholics support unions, period."