Table Of ContentUNIONS IN AMERICAN NATIONAL POLITICS
By the same author
SPECIAL INTERESTS AND POLICYMAKING
UNIONS IN AMERICAN
NATIONAL POLITICS
Graham K. Wilson
Lecturer in Government
University of Essex
© Graham K. Wilson 1979
Softcover reprint of the hardcover 1st edition 1979
All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be
reproduced or transmitted, in any form or by any means,
without permission
First published 1979 by
THE MACMILLAN PRESS LTD
London and Basingstoke
Associated companies in Delhi
Dublin Hong Kong Johannesburg Lagos
Melbourne New York Singapore Tokyo
British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data
Wilson, Graham K.
Unions in American national politics
I. Trade unions- United States-Political
activity 2. United States-Politics and
government - 1945-
1. Title
322'.3 HD8076
ISBN 978-1-349-03875-6 ISBN 978-1-349-03873-2 (eBook)
DOI 10.1007/978-1-349-03873-2
This book is sold subject
to the standard conditions
of the Net Book Agreement
For my father, brother and family,
and Philip Williams
Contents
Preface IX
Some Common Abbreviations xii
I. AMERICAN LABOUR TODAY
2. UNIONS AND ELECTIONS 17
3. LABOUR AND THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY 36
4. LABOUR'S LOBBYISTS 57
5. POLITICS AND THE UNION MEMBER 87
6. THE GOVERNING OF LABOUR 96
7. LABOUR AND FOREIGN POLICY 127
8. CONCLUSIONS: THE RESTRICTED SUCCESS OF
AMERICAN UNIONS 135
Notes 150
Bibliography 160
Index 165
vii
Preface
Trades unions are not a subject conducive to dispassionate study. For
obvious reasons unions have become a bete noire for conservatives in
both Britain and the United States. The existence and strength of unions
rest on collective action rather than individual rights; umons (which still
represent predominantly the working class) always seem on the verge of
changing the distribution of income; and the reluctance of unions to
submit to unfavourable legislation (be it an injunction to return to work
under the Taft-Hartley Act in the USA or the Industrial Relations Act
in Britain) can be construed as a challenge to the rule of Jaw.
The attitude of the Left to unions is more complicated. Even
European socialists with both intellectual and institutional ties to
organised labour feel somewhat ambivalent about unions which, they
think, are all too often vehicles of narrow self interest rather than
idealism or, as in the famous cartoon image of the British TUC as a cart
horse, embody the unthinking, conservative aspects of the working
class. Marxists tend to be even more disparaging about unions. Support
for trades unions is but a paltry step for the workers in the formation of
class consciousness; as Lenin noted the working class on its own is
capable of mere trades union consciousness (emphasis added). Unions
are often accused from the Left of class collaboration, of betraying the
long term interests of their members by short term compromises.
American radicals, Jess influenced than the European Left by the
Marxist tradition of seeing the working class as the means for
transforming society, are even more sceptical about unions. Indeed,
unions are often seen not as a potential source of aid to disadvantaged
groups but as a barrier to their progress through their alleged complicity
in discriminatory labour practices.
In some ways, unions encourage the application of unusually high
standards to themselves. Ringing phrases that the labour movement is a
crusade or it is nothing are heard frequently in Britain where even union
constitutions contain commitments to seeking the socialist society.
Similar paper commitments to a long term ideal (even if not always
ix
Preface
X
socialism) can be found amongst European and American unions, too.
In writing this study I have avoided any preconceptions about what the
role of unions in society ought to be. This is partly because I do not find
class theories a useful approach to the study of unions or labour
movements, which seem to me to display an enormous diversity. As
Walter Kendall has demonstrated in his study The Labour Movement in
Europe, history, politics, economics and social forces combine to create
a different union movement from country to country, even within
Western Europe. Too many discussions of American unions and politics
seem to me to start with a model of what the authors take to be a model
of normal union development and then proceed to explain the
American departure from it. The model of union development used is
usually one in which unions, eager to promote the development of
socialism, form a class-conscious political party to further their ideals.
Such a model seems to me to fit remarkably few countries, even in
Europe, and little is to be gained, therefore, by starting with the
assumption that American unions should fit that model.
Another reason why I have tried to avoid any preconceptions about
the form that the political involvement of unions should take is that I
have long suspected that much ignorance and confusion surrounds a
much simpler question; namely, what the nature of the relationship
between unions and politics is, particularly in the USA. Why this
question has been so little researched is something of a mystery to me.
Perhaps it is the case that because so many people have strong views on
what they think the relationship between unions and politics ought to
be, they assume that they know already what that relationship is in
practice. I suspect, and indeed hope, that many people do not know
what the relationship between unions and politics is in the USA, and will
be somewhat surprised by the conclusions which I reach. I suspect, too,
that my findings will be interpreted in different ways by radicals and
conservatives. Radicals will be struck by the unadventurous goals which
American labour has sought, while conservatives will stress that unions
have been playing politics instead of advancing their members'
interests. I hope that I shall at least provide some fresh evidence for both
sides.
I wish to express my thanks to the many senators, congressmen, and
officials of the Department of Labor, American Federation of Labor
Congress of Industrial Organizations, (AFL-CIO), Teamsters, United
Auto Workers and other unions who gave me their time and patience. A
very special word of thanks is due to Evelyn Dubrow of the In
ternational Ladies Garment Workers' Union who did much to help me
Preface xi
arrange interviews. I should add that none of the people interviewed
or who helped in any way can be held responsible for any of the errors of
fact or opinion which may exist in this book. The Brookings Institution
provided me with an ideal base from which to work; Mrs Joanne
Kirchner typed the manuscript with great care and skill; Mr Harry
Goldstein, Mr David Robertson and Mr Philip Williams provided
useful comments, again without being responsible for any surviving
mistakes. Finally, none of the research on which this study is based
would have been possible had it not been for the generosity of the
Nuffield Foundation in funding my research. I hope it will not seem a
major departure from objectivity if I say that one of the joys of working
on this project has been meeting so many pleasant people.
University of Essex Graham K. Wilson
August 1978
