On September 4, 1959, the Social Action Department of the National Catholic Welfare Conference (NCWC) issued its annual Labor Day Statement.(52) It began by reference to two addresses by Pope John XXIII on the subject of labor. Two paragraphs of the second address, given on May 1 in Rome to a large gathering of workers, were quoted. There followed some commentary on U.S. labor-management relations.
The pope's cheerful words to European workers were cited as the kind of "Christian optimism" sadly lacking and badly needed in U.S. labor-management relations. Without such optimism, one can become very cynical about the future of labor-management relations in the U.S.
That is to say, there has recently been so much bickering and controversy...and we have become so preoccupied with the seamy side of labor-management relations that we are beginning to question or doubt "the power proper to truth" and to sneer at the many evidences of solid goodness and integrity which are all around us.
Labor and management became unduly suspicious and distrustful of one another's motives. Too often economic force, political pressure, public relations stratagems and propaganda gimmicks had been substituted for good-faith bargaining and labor-management cooperation. The expected result could be compulsion, "under any political administration," to discipline labor and management and to assume more responsibility than previously and to become detrimental to the national economy. A calamity, indeed, since
...economic welfare and political freedom so largely depend on the successful functioning of our industrial relations system in an atmosphere of voluntary labor-management cooperation.
While the danger of cynicism and pessimism was more real than imaginary, it was not to be exaggerated. Many responsible labor and management leaders did operate on a higher moral plane and viewed their efforts as serving pubic interest more effectively. The annual Labor Day Statement had only one purpose--to encourage labor and management...in spite of many provocations to the contrary. They were reminded of the words of Pope John XXIII to the European workers about their "vocation to help one another and to serve one another in charity, with patience...following the example of our Saviour."
While the field of industrial relations was seen as facing a minor crisis, purely technical solutions were deemed inadequate. Necessary were a sense of moral responsibility, a spirit of mutual respect for one another's rights, a joint sense of responsibility for the public interest, a profound renewal of moral and spiritual values and a spirit of humble prayer.
On September 1, 1961, the same Social Action Department of the NCWC issued its Labor Day Statement.(53) It began with reminders of proper and deep concern about national and world security, in light of the Cold War. The different assessments about the outcome and timetable were mentioned. Yet, whatever the outcome, it was seen as largely dependent on the decisions of individuals and voluntary groups in "almost every field of human endeavour but, more specifically, in the field of labor-management relations."
Any doubts dismissed about the future of world freedom greatly depended upon the health of the U.S. economy. This, in turn, depended largely upon the willingness of labor and management to subordinate their particular interests to the demands of social justice and to think in terms of the national and international common good. Such a contention in no way diminished the important role of government. Indeed, that role was thought to increase more than many would admit. If labor and management were to neglect their important role, it was thought necessary for government to intervene, perhaps with compulsory arbitration.
Such a step was deemed likely to signalize "the beginning of the end of industrial self-government through free collective bargaining." A bad example for uncommitted nations seeking to the U.S. "for practical evidence that economic as well as political democracy is a realistic alternative to Communist tyranny." Unfortunately delegates to the National Labor-Management Conference of 1945 failed to heed such a warning from President Harry Truman. As in 1959, that organization did not even "seriously discuss," much less resolve, the critical problems confronting U.S. industrial relations. A third meeting was held in 1961 under presidential auspices. Insisting that the stakes were even higher than in the days of the 1945 and 1959 meetings failures, several questions and challenges were issued by the NCWC statement.
How to promote economics growth and economic progress at an annual rate sufficiently to offset the loss of jobs by automation and, in addition, to provide gainful employment for our rapidly expanding labor force.
How to bring prices, wages, and profits into proper balance so as to insure full employment and promote the national economic welfare.
How to bring bout a more equitable balance between the incomes of various categories of workers...and between the incomes of workers in general and those of other groups in general and those of other groups in our economy.
How to meet the growing problems of foreign competition in manufactured goods without resorting to restrictive tariffs or other forms of economic nationalism.
How to prevent or at least to reduce the number of costly strikes and lockouts.
How to rehabilitate the economically depressed areas of the nation and...to retrain or relocate the workers...left behind in these areas with no means of supporting themselves and their families. How to eliminate discrimination in industry and promote equal employment opportunity for all workers regardless of race, creed or color.
All the questions and challenges were said to belong on the agenda of the 1961 meeting and would require cooperation from the government and private sectors. Yet, labor and management would have to create a hopeful atmosphere, give a broader direction to collective bargaining and agree on guidelines of an effective national economic policy. Especially important had to be labor-management cooperation at every local level and in every major company and industry. If so, they would be fulfilling Pius XII's definition of their existence as insurers of harmony between labor and management, employers organizations and trade unions as bridges, "not as weapons designed for offensive or defensive war, which must provoke reprisals, not as rivers in flood, which divide and destroy." As bridges, both conform to papal encyclicals of Leo XIII, Pius XI and John XXIII, for they will be built around,
...the supreme principle according to which every relation is governed; that is, not unbridled free competition, nor overbearing economic power, both blind forces, but the eternal and holy requirements of justice and charity.
In late 1961, Monsignor George Higgins, Director of the Social Action Department of the NCWC, testified at hearings of a presidential task force on employee-management relations in the federal government.(54) Reaffirming the natural right of everyone to organize a union for purposes of collective bargaining, Higgins called upon the federal government and its agencies to fulfill their obligations to respect that right and "to serve as an example for private industry in the field of labor relations."
He urged the federal government "to make up for lost time," by encouraging employees to exercise that right and to insist federal administrators take the initiative in developing a labor relations system, in which federal employees would be encouraged to speak for and represent their constituents more effectively. Furthermore, if government employees freely adopt a no-strike pledge, it is the government's duty government to provide an adequate alternative or substitute for the strike weapon. Thus, methods should provide effective appeal procedures for economic grievances of employees without having to resort to strikes.
In early 1962, Reverend John F. Cronin, S.S., Assistant Director of the NCWC Social Action Department, testified before a special subcommittee of the U.S. House Committee on Education and Labor.(55) The subcommittee was interested in drafting equal employment opportunity legislation. Seeing the roots of chronic unemployment in job discrimination. Cronin said,
When job opportunity is lacking, there is little incentive to seek proper education...Failure to utilize available manpower is a social waste at anytime. Under present world tensions, it creates a loss of output and skill that we cannot tolerate.
Cronin referred to successful fair employment legislation in several states and cities, as well as through the use of federal prestige, as preventives of discrimination in hiring practices. He concluded by saying, "While it is difficult to state which areas of racial justice should have highest priority, anyone familiar with the field would place job opportunity close to the top."
Early in 1964, the NCWC Social Action Department issued a statement, "The Problem of Poverty."(56) It began with a brief description of U.S. poverty and church teaching on poverty. Then, a call for individual religious commitment to helping the poor and a delineation of the social challenge of poverty were issued. In the social challenge there were some items about labor-management relations.
"If we are to help the poor to help themselves, we must above all be concerned about work." Besides avoiding job discrimination, society should make sure work and job training are available. Government was urged to assist and supplement the efforts of local institutions (schools, welfare agencies, etc.). "We should seriously consider the worth of youth camps or special training projects directed to the need of young adults."
Of concern also, were different economic needs of farmers. In addition to training in agriculture and finances, some would need part-time employment in rural area industries or urban industries. In many cases, vocational advice and job training might be necessary.
On September 7, 1964, Monsignor George G. Higgins, Director of the Social Action Department of the NCWC, delivered the sermon at the annual Labor Day Mass at Sacred Heart Shrine in Washington, D.C.(57) He began words of Pope Paul VI on May 1 to a delegation of European workers assembled in Rome. Unlike the church in Europe, Higgins was confident that the church in the U.S. did not have to go out of its way "to demonstrate her understanding of the labor world and to emphasize her desire to help the members of organized labor to fulfill their every worthy aspiration."
One example is the Feast of St. Joseph the Worker. In other lands, it is celebrated on May 1, to counter Marxist rallies. In the United States, the feast is celebrated on Labor Day, in order to symbolize the U.S. labor movement's philosophy of labor-management cooperation and to encourage labor's constituents to co-operate with religious bodies. Despite a few Catholic writers and publicists who are severely critical of the labor movement, the attitude of the Catholic social movement in the U.S. with regard to the labor movement is largely very positive.
Yet, Higgins admitted that some Labor Day statements and sermons would be more critical of labor than in the 1930's and 1940's, when labor's rights, privileges and accomplishments were celebrated. In the 1950's and 1960's Higgins thought that labor had reached adulthood and had to be judged, even by its friends, on the basis of its duties, responsibilities, mistakes, failings and imperfections. However, such criticism should be as constructive as possible, strengthening rather than weakening the cause of labor.
Indeed, employers, editors, and others should be reminded unions are not only legitimate "but necessary and indeed absolutely indispensable in our type of industrial society." For Higgins, "many, if not most" of the more influential U.S. employers were willing to admit "unions are here to stay." Yet, too few Americans were willing to accept the unconditional and unqualified position that secure and stable unions are "an essential and indispensable prerequisite of a sound social order."
Until this principle is more or less universally taken for granted as a self-evident truth, labor and management will spend too much time and energy sparring...[instead] of carrying out the demands social justice makes on both... Social justice demands...that the two groups forget their petty differences and jointly try to figure out how they can best serve the welfare, not only of their own members and their own stockholders, but of all their fellow citizens.
Higgins thought that both parties needed encouragement and prayers. Both were quite aware their past performance "leaves something to be desired" and honestly looked for new ways of serving the public interest more effectively.
Higgins stated that some, especially academics and journalists of the "Liberal Establishment," have spoken of a "crisis" within the labor movement. He outlined the substance of many such articles, books and monographs. The common theme was that the labor movement was facing a serious internal crisis, due largely to "a sense of complacency and a lack of missionary zeal on the part of labor's top leadership." Higgins accused many of not "doing their homework" and "not reading the big print of labor's current policy statements."
An example was given of reporters and delegates at a recent national union convention disappointed there was none of "the noise and excitement...rough-and-tumble intra-union tumble intra-union politics of the late `30's and `40's." Higgins thought that most of "the old-timers" knew it was time to put aside the "easy-going carelessness of adolescence and get down to the serious business" for which unions were founded. The business of unions raised questions as to whether or not the U.S. labor movement has a consistent philosophy or is it content merely to muddle through, is it conservative or progressive by comparison with unions in Europe and other places in the world.
Higgins response was that the U.S. labor movement does a good job and is a credit to the nation, despite many faults.
[While] the American labor movement has no sensationally stirring plans or exciting programs, its activities compare favorably with those carried on by the labor movements of other countries or in other periods of its own history and that the demands for wage guarantees and union pressure for a variety of fringe benefits in American industry show more novelty and imagination than the plans and programs of labor organizations anywhere else in the world.
Two of the labor movement's faults and imperfections were mentioned in passing--failure to insist upon and to guarantee a full days work for a full day's wage; failure to practice what it preaches in the field of race relations and civil rights. He thought leaders should have enough confidence that members were ready to accept advice about increased efficiency and respect for the rights of employers and consumers. He admitted that, like other organizations, the labor movement was "on the spot" in race relations and civil rights. The labor movement should expect to be judged "almost exclusively on its performance in the field of civil rights."
Indeed, Higgins admitted that labor's record in civil rights "has been far from perfect." While some would allege that labor was "spoiled by success" and was "trying to be a little too respectable" and thus placed race "on the back burner," Higgins admitted that such would be "out of character" for labor. Yet, such allegations by some Negro leaders fail to appreciate the complications truly dedicated union leaders face when confronting obstacles to complete racial equality in unions. Nevertheless, Higgins admitted that some labor leaders "have yet to grasp the depth and passion of the present racial crisis." Instead of the usual self-congratulations on Labor Day, Higgins cautioned,
This is the most serious problem with which the labor movement is presently confronted...It can ill afford to get the reputation of being even partially out of sympathy with the Negro's legitimate and very belated demand for complete equality of opportunity.
Higgins asserted that, on balance, the record of U.S. management and industry "may not be quite as good" as the record of organized labor in the field of peace relations and civil rights. Yet, there was no time to be wasted in comparisons. Both were in the same boat, said Higgins, "and unless we make up our minds to bring about complete racial equality now--and not ten years from now--we may be heading for a national catastrophe." There were words of caution for the Negro community to reject "once and for all, the weapons of violence and hatred."
By way of conclusion, Higgins noted that the call to labor and management about race and civil rights simply underlined opening remarks that Labor Day in the United States belonged to both management and labor and center on "the common sense of purpose which ought to animate all segments of our economic society." While other problems could have been mentioned by Higgins as requiring common action of labor and management, he preferred to reduce them to one--"widespread unemployment and degrading poverty in the midst of bounteous plenty." He reminded his audience with words from the sixteenth chapter of Ezechiel that the city of Sodom lacked the will and generosity to solve the same kind of problem in its day. A call was issued from Pope John XXIII and Paul's Letter to the Colossians, about mutual respect and cooperation--from labor and management.
The NCWC 1965 Labor Day Statement was a commentary on "poverty in the U.S."(58) It began with the reminder that Christ came to perfect and fulfill the Law of the Old Covenant and specifically Moses' command to his followers, on the threshold of the Promised Land, "be openhanded towards thy...fellow-countryman, when he is poor and in want...Do not steel thy heart and shut thy purse against him; be generous to his poverty." The admonition was to people and a time when poverty was the perennial and almost irremedial lot of all but a favored few. The glaring contrast to the situation in the U.S. in the 1960's was highlighted. "Never before have so many people enjoyed such a high standard of living." Nevertheless, the obligation to help the poor in the U.S. was more important than ever before, since there was less excuse for its continuation.
Although for so long so many failed to notice the poverty in the U.S., many in the 1960's realized "literally millions of their fellow-citizens have fallen on evil days through no fault of their own and are living in the most degrading kind of poverty." In fact, legislative and other steps were taken to remedy the sad plight of the poor. That at least 25 million were living in poverty, several able-bodied workers were unemployed, and the unemployment rate among Negroes was almost twice that of whites was described by one government official as warranting "an indignant intolerance of any explanation for it in terms of any kind of economic analysis." Economic resources and technical facilities were available, but the "complacency of those enjoying the benefits of our unprecedented prosperity," could not remedy the plight of the poor.
While not presuming to tell the government or labor and management what steps to take, the NCWC wished to stress "that time is of the essence and that all of us must be prepared to make whatever sacrifices may be required." Labor and management had done much, through collective bargaining, to lift living standards for millions of Americans. However, times required improvement in that process, extension of its coverage, and support for imaginative socio-economic reform programs. Any sweeping generalizations about American workers forgetting the less fortunate was deemed unfair to the majority of the workers and their unions. Nevertheless, the charge could serve to remind workers and those with significantly higher living standards of the obligation "to concern themselves personally with the problems of the poor and to help them to improve their lot."
Thus, more than support for needed economic reforms, socio-economic legislation, and organized financial appeals were deemed necessary. Necessary were the performance of the corporal and spiritual works of mercy on a person-to-person basis. Such must be done with profound respect for the poor's sensibilities.
Such was called for with respect to Negroes and other disadvantaged minority groups, especially since some thought that the history-making 1964 Civil Rights Act addresses minority issues once and for all. However, that act could become a curse rather than a blessing, if its hopes and expectations became frustrated, not so much by the uncompromising opposition of those against to its enactments as by the careless apathy and indifference of those who favored its adoption. Many Americans had accepted the challenge, especially those in volunteer programs without any fanfare or publicity. Also called for were sincere and continuous prayers for the minorities, unemployed and poor, as well as those in government, management, labor and all sorts of volunteers.