Having grown up in
one auto town, attended university in
another one, and being the son of two public school teachers, the NYC transit strike resonates on a variety of levels for me. I remember when my father had to go one strike...as a teacher, he was also a public employee. I remember how the decision to do so was not taken lightly by the union, either. I whole-heartedly support the rights of workers to organize, collectively bargain, and if all else fails, to strike.
Saying that, though, does not mean I necessarily support the current transit strike. Do I believe the workers have legitimate reasons to strike? Absolutely. But that doesn't mean that Local 100, in this particular case, did everything absolutely right. Public employees and their unions, unlike employees at private companies, have a unique responsibility not only to themselves and their workers, but to the public. They are losing a PR battle here, one that could have easily been averted. They could have gotten their parent union on board before striking, thus giving them a backstop of support. Ultimately, this could end up hurting organized labor more than helping it, and that troubles me.
It got me thinking about the 1936-1937 Flint Sit-Down Strike. Growing up in Michigan, the strike is practically ingrained in you, particularly if you are from the area. Ironically, some of the circumstances and rhetoric I've seen are similar to the current NYC transit strike. And I thought I'd share some of the history of one of the seminal moments in our modern labor history with you.
On December 30, 1936, Fisher Body 1 in Flint, Michigan, after several other strikes at GM plants around the country, initiated a sit down strike. They had the support, ironically, of Michigan's governor and President Roosevelt. (Imagine support for labor on that level from elected officials today!). However, public support was not all that forthcoming, as a Gallup poll showed 53% polled sided with management.
Many of the very working issues GM workers struck about sound awfully familiar:
Before the Depression there were 470,000 auto workers. The number fell by half, as did the wages, which had been reduced from $40 per week to about $20. Because these harsh times still haunted the workers, job security was an important issue. Another bone of contention was the hated "spies" informing on union members. The workers could be fired by any foreman anytime. The work itself -- dangerous, difficult, and boring -- caused many injuries, often for simple reasons such as lack of gloves. Exertion caused the families extreme exhaustion, which distressed the workers' families, who shared the fear of possible job loss. Could the worker endure? They needed the money. The rock and the hard place squeezed them all.
On the other side, Alfred P. Sloan, president of GM
considered the workers to be greedy:
The company, dubbed "Generous Motors" by many who wished for jobs with the prosperous firm, was caught off guard by the strike, because it considered its workers to be among the most "pampered" in the industry. GM had just given workers a Christmas bonus of $47 from its "GM Appreciation Fund." The union seemed to have ignored the "GM Layoff Benefit Plan" and the "Income Security Plan" offered by the company in 1936. Both plans emerged much later as the SUB pay union plan.
The workers continued their strike, however, and their numbers grew. GM used the courts to try and got injunctions against the workers...to no avail:
On Jan. 29, GM went to court to request an injunction ordering the strikers out. The judge, Edward Black of Genesee County, owned $150,000 of GM stock and his order was derided by laughter. It only caused more union reinforcements to pour into Flint.
Riots occurred, tensions rose, and President Roosevelt called on GM to meet with the union once more in February. The modern UAW was born, and with excellent results:
General Motors signed an agreement with the UAW, giving the union bargaining rights in 17 GM plants shut by sit-downs.
Employees at the 17 plants involved got 5 percent pay hikes and were allowed to speak in the lunchroom. The company agreed not to discriminate against union members and agreed to begin negotiations on other matters.
A synopsis of the issues included in the union demands:
Recognition of UAW as sole bargaining agency.
Abolition of piece work in favor of straight hourly rates.
A 30 hour week and 6 hour day, with time and a half for overtime.
A "minimum rate of pay commensurate with an American standard of living."
Seniority rights based on length of service.
Reinstatement of all employees "unjustly discharged."
Mutual agreement on "speed of production."
The dramatic military style battles depict the times and the desperation of those involved. The outcome much later in time proved that both the union and the company could coexist and indeed prosper beyond anyone's expectations. Those who made the cars could finally afford to buy them, pouring profits back to the stockholders. Spreading the wealth caused more to be created. The pension and wages won by the workers raised the standard of living for the whole country.
I suppose it's that final sentence that should be the ultimate lesson for all of us. Raising the standard living for all of us. That's what the unions did. It's not to say that the union is always right, but for those who deride the unions on this site (particularly those of my generation of 35 years old and under), it's important to remember the role of the sit-down strikers and what they gave us: a little something called the middle class.
Should the transit workers strike in NYC if they feel their rights are under attack? Absolutely.
Could they have done a better job from the PR end of it, considering that their strike affects working class folks like themselves the most of all? Probably.
Should they be derided because they have a "good job" with a "good salary" and can "retire at 55" and it's "something I'll never have"?
NO. NO. NO.
That's what was said about the strikers at "Generous Motors". And their actions in 1936 helped all of us.
Solidarity doesn't mean we have to agree with unions on every move they make. But as Democrats, we should never practice some sort of reverse schadenfraude because some members of the working class are better off then us.
If we do, we will be permanently divided, permanently entrenched as a ruled class, and permanently a minority party.