St. Joseph the Worker, communism, and labor unions [updated]

I'm a day late, so I missed the chance to re-post this (at least, to re-post it on time).  It links to, and then quotes in full, a nice piece that Susan Stabile wrote, in 2009, for her wonderful Creo en Dios blog.  Here is Susan's text:

Today, the Catholic Church celebrates the memorial of St. Joseph the Worker, one of two days in the church calendar on which we honor St. Joseph.  The memorial was instituted by Pope Pius XII, some say in response to Communist-sponsored May day celebrations for workers.  It is a day dedicated to the dignity of labor and to honoring workers.

Work is central to who we are as human persons.  As our friend Randy Lee once put it, "man does not work because he does not have the wealth stored up to be constantly at rest; man works because his dignity is in creating."  Gaudium et spes speaks of work as the means by which humans develop themselves and in <em>Centesimus Annus</em>, Pope John Paul II observed that humans express and fulfill themselves by working.

This view of work stems from our creation in the image of God; created in the image of God, human are called to co-create the world with God.  We participate in the act of creation, we share in God's creative activity, through our work. 

On this day on which we remember St. Joseph the Worker, we pray in a special way for all workers and we pray that we may develop and use the gifts God has given us to do the work to which He has called us.

[UPDATE:  In the original version of this post, I failed to copy the text from my 2013 post which indicated that I was quoting Susan Stabile's 2009 post.  (That's quite a sentence.)  Regular readers probably noticed the much-improved prose in the quoted material ("Today, the Catholic Church celebrates . . .") but, in any event, I apologize for my mistake and for causing any confusion.] 

I note that my friend and neighbor, Patrick Deneen, posted a May Day essay at The American Conservative, called "How Red (State) is Marx?", in which he (among other things) identified "the kind of Marxism we need today. People who really want to work, make things, build families and communities and dig deep roots—Unite!"  I get the point, but, for me, what some (with justification) call Victims of Communism Day is not the best day for those who believe in human dignity to talk about what "Marx got . . . admirably right."  Even if it is true -- and I think that Patrick overstates the point -- that "capitalism is unforgiving to 'conservatives,' those who care about neighborhood, Church, family, loyalty, tradition" (what "Marx got . . . right"), I regard it (cue the "neo-con!" and "Randian!" charges, I guess) as beyond reasonable dispute that the triumph of democratic capitalism (in the substantially regulated form it takes today) over Marxism (etc.) in the economic order is a good thing . . . . and something that makes it possible for more people to actually, [UPDATE:  in Susan Stabile's words,] "use the gifts God has given us to do the work to which He has called us."

My friend Michael Sean Winters also remembered to celebrate St. Joseph the Worker on the correct day, and he posted a piece about the "long, profound relationship between Catholicism and workers and specifically organized labor" that, in his view, needs to be "central again."  I won't bore readers (or Michael Sean) with my often-expressed view that it is not "libertarian" (or Randian, or neo-conservative, or right-wing) to insist that respect for work and workers, and for the rights of workers to associate and advocate for their interests, does not require (indeed, today, it cannot require) support for all of the political and policy goals of organized labor -- especially the hostility of teachers unions to school choice -- in America today.  (I do not think, by the way, that it is accurate to say, as Michael Sean does, that "organized labor is the only part of the left-liberal political coalition that has never signed on to Roe v. Wade."  Different unions and organizations that are part of "organized labor" have taken different positions, and some -- not all, true -- have supported the right to abortion and opposed regulations of abortion.) 

I also think that it is both appropriate and important to distinguish, for purposes of thinking about the implications of the Church's teachings regarding the dignity of work and workers, between public-employee unions and private-sector unions.  (The point, obviously, is not that public-sector work and workers are less worthy of respect but that the dynamic between employer and employee is meaningfully different and different in ways that are relevant to evaluating the positions, and the power, of public-employee unions.)   As I wrote a few years ago:

To be clear:  Civil society matters; the human person is relational and situated; work is a participation in the creative activity of God; all human persons, because they are persons, possess a dignity; workers have a right to associate, organize, and advocate (consistent with public order and the common good) for their interests; and profit-maximization is not a moral-trump.  Labor unions helped bring about many good things; opponents of labor unions have often done bad things.  It would be wrong for a political community to prohibit or unreasonably burden the freedom of association that workers (like the rest of us) enjoy.  In other words, much of what left-leaning Catholics like Michael Sean Winters andMorning's Minion and Lew Daly have been saying about labor-related matters is true.

But . . . just as "subsidiarity" is more than a slogan about "small government", the writing and thought of Leo XIII on the social question and the social order is not reducible to "unionism, as presently defended and advocated for in early 21st century America, is to be supported by faithful, thoughtful Catholics."  It's not that unions were once necessary, but now they are not.  It's that unionism is to be supported by faithful, thoughtful Catholics when it is consistent with, and actually carrying out, Catholic Social Doctrine, and not (or, at least, not necessarily) when it is not.  To resist overreach and bad-acting by unions is, well, to resist overreach and bad-acting; it's not to stomp on Rerum novarum.

In my view, it is vital to keep in mind, as we try to think with Christ and the Church -- and not with either the Chamber of Commerce or the Democratic Party -- about union-related policy, to take into account (to the extent we can) the costs and benefits of proposals and practices, and to look at what unions are, and are not, actually doing with the power they have, and not merely to wield a "the Church teaches that unions are good" stamp.  In fact, unions and unionism are sometimes bad (just as religious freedom -- which is good -- is sometimes abused). 

For example:  In the United States, teachers unions are, on balance, definitely not good.  They have, historically, been a powerful force for anti-Catholicism and the obstruction of reforms, including reforms that the Church clearly teaches are morally required.  It is a grave injustice to require parents who want their children to be educated in (reasonably regulated and reasonably well performing) Catholic schools to pay twice (that is, to deny public funding to those parents).  Legislatures should not extend special powers to teachers unions, and they should oppose them to the extent it is necessary to re-orient education-related spending and policy in the best interests of children (and in a way that advances religious freedom and pluralism) and not of public employees who work in government-run schools.  Another point:  It is notgood for unions to use workers’ contributions to support political causes –say, abortion rights – that are not relevant to the association’s purpose and mission.

In any event, here in St. Joseph County, by the St. Joseph River, this member of St. Joseph Parish, whose kids attend St. Joseph Grade School, says . . . St. Joseph the Worker . . . pray for us!