Labor's Many Colors

I realize this is par for the course when it comes to the Wall Street Journal, but yesterday, this column appeared from Paul Moreno, a professor of history at Hillsdale College.

Moreno makes a persuasive argument that unions in this country practiced racist policies in recruitment, training and membership representation, citing incidents where African Americans were used as strikebreakers (particularly during the 1894 Pullman railway strike) but were not granted union representation (though Moreno does not acknowledge the formation of the Colored National Labor Union, organized to achieve a type of racial unity with the National Labor Union that did not take place). Moreno also spins advances in labor such as the passage of the Wagner Act in 1935 that created the National Labor Relations Board to protect the right of unions to organize as affronts to racial equality also.

In short, Moreno blames unions for the rise of affirmative action, saying in so many words that the "goals and timetables" of the "Philadelphia Plan" passed under the Lyndon Johnson administration, for example, were enacted in an attempt to correct racist membership policies.

Am I going to argue that unions, throughout their history, have always been tolerant of all races and ethnicities, religions and gender preferences? Of course not (though I wish I could). Unions, then as now, reflect to a degree both the political, cultural and economic commanlities and disparaties of our country. This country has always been a "melting pot," though the composition of the ingredients in the "pot" has changed over time and will continue to do so (not making excuses, just acknowledging the reality).

And I think it's disingenuous in the least for Moreno to claim that unions have not always acted in as enlightened a manner as they should have, but in the meantime, say nothing about how the policies that affected our unions also have affected our government representation, educational institutions, and the composition of our corporate boardrooms.

This provides more information on how minorities of all types are now represented in unions, and this tells you how African Americans and Latinos joined together to try and unionize the workers at Smithfield Packing in Tar Heel, North Carolina. And this takes you to an article describing how the AFL-CIO and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce (now there's a combination!) are trying to postpone a planned crackdown on illegal immigration by the Department of Homeland Security and the Social Security Administration.

(And yes, fighting the crackdown is the right thing to do absent a law that allows a path to citizenship for these people if they work hard, which many do, and also live their lives as citizens the way they should, and many do that as well, the frothing of the Malkinite crazies notwithstanding.)

Though labor’s history is black and white to some degree (literally and figuratively), it is also as rich and layered as the shadings of its representation. We can either choose to marginalize the movement based on past injustice or embrace it based on its gains and potential for future success (though the Employee Free Choice Act is out of the picture for now thanks primarily to Mr. Elaine Chao in the Senate, we will bring it back).

And I, for one, choose the latter.

And by the way, here's a video about a friend of labor in action.



Update 9/6: This is good information also.