There are few economic issues on which the Church’s teaching is more clear than the importance of organized labor within a market economy. Here, for example, is John Paul II in Laborem Exercens:
All these rights, together with the need for the workers themselves to
secure them, give rise to yet another right: the right of association, that
is to form associations for the purpose of defending the vital interests of
those employed in the various professions. These associations are called labour
or trade unions. The vital interests of the workers are to a certain extent
common for all of them; at the same time however each type of work, each
profession, has its own specific character which should find a particular
reflection in these organizations.
. . . . [M]odern unions grew up from the struggle of the
workers-workers in general but especially the industrial workers-to protect
their just rights vis-a-vis the entrepreneurs and the owners of the
means of production. Their task is to defend the existential interests of
workers in all sectors in which their rights are concerned. The experience of
history teaches that organizations of this type are an indispensable element
of social life, especially in modern industrialized societies. . . . It is always to be hoped that,
thanks to the work of their unions, workers will not only have more, but
above all be more: in other words, that they will realize their humanity
more fully in every respect.
Building on John Paul’s discussion, the US Bishops said the following in Economic Justice for All:
104. The Church fully supports the right of workers
to form unions or other associations to secure their rights to fair
wages and working conditions. This is a specific application of the
more general right to associate. In the words of Pope John Paul II,
“The experience of history teaches that organizations of this type are
an indispensable element of social life, especially in modern
industrial societies” [58]. Unions may also legitimately resort to
strikes where this is the only available means to the justice owed to
workers [59]. No one may deny the right to organize without attacking
human dignity itself. Therefore, we firmly oppose organized efforts,
such as those regrettably now seen in this country, to break existing
unions and prevent workers from organizing. Migrant agricultural
workers today are particularly in need of the protection, including the
right to organize and bargain collectively. U.S. labor law reform is
needed to meet these problems as well as to provide more timely and
effective remedies for unfair labor practices.
In fact, in many cases in which the magisterium talks about leaving questions of economic justice to be resolved in the private sphere, according to the principle of subsidiarity, it has in mind not an unregulated market, but rather the resolution of those issues through negotiations between employee unions and employers. For example, in Centesimus Annus, John Paul said:
[S]ociety and the State must ensure wage levels adequate for the
maintenance of the worker and his family, including a certain amount for
savings. This requires a continuous effort to improve workers’ training and
capability so that their work will be more skilled and productive, as well as
careful controls and adequate legislative measures to block shameful forms of
exploitation, especially to the disadvantage of the most vulnerable workers, of
immigrants and of those on the margins of society. The role of trade unions in
negotiating minimum salaries and working conditions is decisive in this
area.
In other words, unions are a key part of the Church’s conception of the sorts of mediating institutions that take some of the pressure off the state to attempt to fully implement economic justice through legal interventions in the market. And so it is worth more than a passing notice that the Democrats are trying to do something that will (hopefully) help reverse the decades-long decline in private sector unionization:
The legislation, also called the card check bill, would certify a
union as soon as a majority of workers at a plant signed cards
authorizing it. Currently, employers can require elections, overseen by
the National Labor Relations Board, on whether a union should be recognized.
The
labor rights group American Rights at Work said that, in the run-up to
such elections, 80 percent of employers hire union-busting consultants
and 90 percent force employees to attend one-on-one anti-union meetings
with their supervisors.
The legislation would toughen penalties
against employers who violate worker rights during organizing drives
and set up a binding arbitration process to prevent companies from
thwarting a new union by bargaining in bad faith on an initial contract.
Perhaps unsuprisingly, the White House has threatened to veto. In opposition to the bill, Republicans are raising arguments about protecting workers’ rights not to unionize and relying on a rhetoric that demonizes labor unions (”union bosses,” etc.) in a way that is fundamentally at odds with the Catholic attitude towards these organizations:
The celebrations may be short-lived. Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., has pledged to block the bill and the White House says President Bush will veto the measure if it reaches his desk.
The House vote was short of the two-thirds majority that would be needed to overturn a veto. Thirteen Republicans voted for the measure; two Democrats voted against it.
…Boehner said the bill really was about ”taking care of union bosses. …
This is an effort to help them get more members, to make it easier for them to
sign them up and to intimidate them to sign cards.”
The case for the charge that card elections open the door to union intimidiation is less than robust. First, there is data that suggests that employers are far more likely to attempt to coerce workers during a protracted election campaign than unions are during card-check elections. Via American Prospect (HT Kevin Drum):
A poll commissioned by American Rights at Work (a pro-union org),
Rutgers University, and Jesuit Wheeling University surveyed 430
randomly-selected workers from worksites where employees had sought
unions either through the NLRB election process or card-check. The
survey included workers who voted both for and against the union, and
included campaigns in which the unions both won and lost. The Eagleton
Research Center and Rutgers conducted the calls over a couple of weeks
in 2005.
The results were telling: 22% of workers surveyed said management
“coerced them a great deal.’ 6% said the same for unions. During the
NLRB election, 46% of workers complained of management pressure. During
card check elections, 14% complained of union pressure. Workers in NLRB
elections were twice as likely as workers in card check elections to
report that management coerced them to oppose (it’s worth noting that
in card-check elections, 23% of workers complained of management
coercion — more than complained of union coercion). Workers in NLRB
elections were more than 53% as likely to report that management
threatened to eliminate their jobs.
In addition, the leverage that an unestablished union has over potential members is not nearly as great as that exercised by employers, who can, after all, fire their employees, depriving them of their livelihood.
UPDATE: I’ve updated the original post to add some more references to the documents of Catholic Social Teaching re. unions. and the data regarding coercion.