The 1966 NCWC "Labor Day Statement" underlined organizing by unions, especially of farm workers.(59) It began by focusing on the fifth of seven "simple but fundamental" axiom, which Paul VI highlighted on the 75th anniversary of Leo XIII's Rerum Novarum. An axiom which was condemned its day as quite revolutionary is worth quoting in full.
The Church has recognized the right to form trade unions, it had defended and protected this right...it took cognizance not only of the strength of numbers which the fact of unionization was bound to exert upon a society oriented toward democracy, but also the fruitfulness of the new order which could spring from workers' unions--an awareness on the part of the worker of his dignity and his position in the social framework, a sense of discipline and solidarity, a spur to professional and cultural advancement, a capacity to participate in the productive cycle no longer as a mere instrument, but to some extent, at least, a sharer in responsibility and an interested participant.
This basic axiom had been repeated so forcefully by successors of Leo XIII that some observers were surprised that Vatican II felt is necessary to reaffirm the axiom in Vaticn II's pastoral constitution, The Church in the Modern World. Yet, the NCWC was not surprised, since in the U.S. there was still much controversy over what many assumed was "universally recognized as a self-evident principle of social ethics." Although "many, if not most," of the more influential employers would be willing to admit that unions serve a useful purpose, few influential Americans were prepared "to go the whole way and to take the unqualified position that secure and stable unions are essential, not to say indispensable, prerequisite of a sound social order." Indeed, efforts of many workers "to organize into bona fide unions of their own choosing" were still thwarted "with impunity." Such was true of migratory farm workers. In 1966, for the first time, a group of these "underpaid and terribly disadvantaged agricultural workers succeeded in organizing a viable union.
Although interfaith groups vigorously supported the peaceful efforts, such workers still had "a long way to go and many hurdles to surmount." One of these handicaps was exclusion of farmworkers from federal and state minimum wage legislation. It was hope that religious and other interested parties would not rest until farm workers were "brought into the mainstream of American economic life and are provided with all the benefits that Federal and, a to a lesser extent State legislation, now provide for workers in other industries and occupations."
Furthermore, organized labor, over the years, had "done less that it might have been expected to do on behalf of farm workers." More recent support of farmworkers' organizing with experienced personnel and financial assistance was commendable. U.S. management was also exhorted to lend support to such organizing, not simply as a matter of justice and fair play, but also as a matter of self-interest. The big giants of the U.S. economy (Big Agriculture, Big Business, Big Labor) had differences and conflict but enjoyed a preferred status in U.S. "pluralistic society." So, just as Big Business and Big Labor cooperation, interfaith and ethnic tolerance had been furthered because of "mutual understanding and respect, there had to be an extension of the same between and on behalf of migrant workers, white-collar workers and small business people. For, pluralism is not a philosophy of "privilege or injustice" but of "equality and justice." Such was deemed true also of Negroes and the urban poor. This is a cure for group selfishness, other than "Big Government" as the one and only hope.
At the same time, the Negro community was reminded of the immeasurable contributions it could make to the cause of interracial justice. Such was contingent upon legitimate goals and objectives "within the law" and with the rejection of violence and hatred.
Even though both labor and management were reminded that they share a joint role in solving the migratory worker and race relations problems, within the area of their own competence and jurisdiction, they were also reminded that Labor Day in the U.S. had become in all-American holiday. Thus, in the spirit of Paul VI, all were reminded of the "universal good that overrides the interest of groups...and to bring individuals, social classes and professional communities into collaboration with the public powers for the common prosperity." The several particular interests of labor and management, in cooperation with government, were reduced to one--"the problem of hardcore unemployment and degrading poverty in the midst of bounteous plenty." The sixteenth chapter of the Book of Ezechiel explained why the city of Sodom was reduced to smoldering ashes, "fullness of pride and abundance and the idleness of her sons and daughters and they did not put forth their hand to the needy and the poor."
The Labor Day Statement concluded with congratulations for the accomplishments of the past. Best wishes for future success, especially in efforts to adapt their own particular interests to the needs of the general economic welfare and the poorest of the poor, were couched in words of John XXIII that "there may...reign in social life through charity...mutual respect, the will to collaborate, a familiar and fraternal climate."
There was a September 1969 meeting in Denver of directors of Diocesan Family Life offices.(60) After affirming the family as "a specific social unit in the formulation of sound social policy," the statement addressed problems of welfare, housing, food and employment.
Employment was discussed in terms of jobs and wages. Meaningful employment, education, training, counseling and other services were called for, in order to "maximize the opportunities in the private sector for the hard-core unemployed." Full employment should be achieved, whenever possible, through the private sector and appropriate incentives should be provided. Otherwise, public jobs and job training programs should be provided by state and local governments. The federal government should be the employer of last resort.
Also recommended was a move a equitable income tax, which would respect the educational responsibilities of many middle-income families. There should also be broader pension plans and more equitable social security benefits. Also called for were adequate assistance payments to broken families, due to the absence of a male head of the family or the presence of sick or disadvantaged members. There was a recommendation for repeal of the 1967 Social Security amendment requiring female AFDC recipients to take employment or job training while placing the child in a day-care center or in the care of older children or relative.s Also from that same amendment there was a call for the repeal of "the man in the house" rule.
On August 18, 1969, Rev. John E. McCarthy, Director of the USCC Poverty Division, submitted a statement on Mexican workers to a special subcommittee of the U.S. House of Representative's Committee on Education and Labor.(61) In collaboration with the USCC Division for Migration and Refugee Service, McCarthy expressed support for HR 12667, as an amendment of the National Labor Relations Act. Such would make it an unfair labor practice to employ certain aliens in circumstances that destroy the rights of workers to organize and bargain collectively.
The intent of HR 12667 was to tighten regulations on "green card" commuting workers from Mexico. In addition to a lowering of working conditions and wages in the border areas by availability of "green card" workers, "illegal workers" have been victimized by farm owners. In addition to wages and working conditions along the U.S. side of the border being considerably below the U.S. average, unemployment there has been considerably higher.
HR 12667 would also restore a balance between organized labor and management in the Southwest. The availability of unorganized workers from across the Mexican border had time and again defeated the efforts of workers to bargain for better wages or working conditions. Such an injustice was recognized by a June 1967 Immigration Service regulation which prohibited the entry of "green carders" who intended to take employment in situations where a certified strike was in effect.
HR 12667 would extend to the National Labor Relations Board and to the employers themselves the responsibility for excluding aliens as strikebreakers. The burden for compliance and the penalty for violation would be placed squarely on the shoulders of the unscrupulous employers who engage in strikebreaking tactics. The protection would be afforded rightly to the employees, seeking to improve their working conditions by collective bargaining. Protection would be afforded also to responsible employers, seeking to live by the spirit of the law and finding themselves forced into unfair competition with employers who seek to skirt the boundaries of established national policy and law.
In the controversy it was apparent that there were two opposing camps. The first consisted of growers, employers, merchants, and Chambers of Commerce. Such business and financial interest groups feared change in the status quo would increase labor costs. The second consisted of unions, religious groups and Mexican-American organizations. Such people-oriented groups sought reasonable restrictions on exploitation. The divergent points of view should be evident from the history of both interest groups.
While business groups have accomplished much technically and professionally, their social awareness and responsibility has lagged behind their positive contributions. Their over-all record of opposition to needed social legislation included efforts to preserve Public Law 78, to omit agricultural workers from minimum wage coverage, and to exclude farm workers from the National Labor Relations Act. More recently, some national business leaders have espoused enlightened labor policies and poverty legislation. However, they are the exception rather than the rule. The hope is that business interests along the Southwest border will adopt such an example. In the long run poverty profits no one, its social costs are invaluable and an economy attempting to make poverty a necessary factor in production will continue to end in failure. While a tightening of the regulations for "green card" will not bring wealth or success to the Southwest border area, it will be a step in the right direction.
On January 30, 1970 John E. Cosgrove, Director of the USCC Department of Social Development, submitted to the U.S. Senate Committee on Agriculture a statement on farm labor rights.(62) It consisted of observations on S. 2203, the Consumer Agricultural Food Protection Act of 1969.
Deplored was the exclusion of agricultural workers from most labor and social legislation. The persistent refusal of some growers to bargain with farm workers near Delano, California, had prompted citizens from all walks of life to demand just and workable farm labor legislation, S. 2203 was rejected as being neither just nor workable. Major objections to S. 2203 were discussed.
First, the patent purpose of S 2203 was to restrict severely the activities of farm laborers. The use of consumers' interests as an excuse to override the rights of agricultural workers was inappropriate and reprehensible.
Second, the creation of a separate Farm Labor Relation Board (Section 201) would be unwise. The National Labor Relations Board experience and precedence, since 1935, was evidence enough..
Ethnic communities and neighborhoods should be considered as social assets, since they provide security and stability for their members. Nevertheless, in the face of rapid social change, confrontations can be produced with socially destructive consequences. The church has a responsibility and opportunity to play a constructive role, since so many of these groups are Catholic and still cluster around Catholic institutions. In the midst of intergroup tensions, public and private agencies devoted to the restoration of urban America have largely ignored this working class in programs aimed at eliminating poverty, substandard housing, racial discord, declining schools and physical decay. Such neglect is difficult to rationalize given their numbers and strategic location in urban areas.
Large numbers of these people are the backbone of the labor force in most industrial, mining and manufacturing areas in the country. Residing in older urban neighborhoods or relocating in blue-collar suburbs, the needs, frustrations and problems of these people are varied and urgent.
There was a widespread accusation that these people were the primary exponents of racism in American society. Such an accusation was rejected. As business and institutional leadership, as well as the upper middle class abandoned the city for the suburbs, race relations were defined in terms of blacks and/or browns on the one hand and white ethnic working class on the other hand. If racial tensions were to be resolved, a critical role had to be played by white ethnic working class communities. Thus, the statement continued,
We believe that white society at large should spend less time looking for a scapegoat for this racial crisis and more time considering how to assist the people in those communities which are situated on the racial frontier.
Since the end of World War II, scholars and journalists assumed the offspring of European immigrants had lost their identity in the "melting pot" and were well entrenched in the middle class, while the plight of the new urban immigrants - the non-white minorities - deserved priority attention. Recent studies indicated many elderly white ethnics live in abject poverty, working class families do not earn "middle class" incomes, and white blue-collar youth must grapple with many of the same problems that produce widespread alienation among affluent college youth. Even more recently, academia, mass media, and foundations "rediscovered the white ethnics" - numbers, composition, (age, occupation, income, education), and importance of cultural heritage in understanding behavior.
Such renewed interest was prompted by the realization that continued ignoring of the valid needs of "white ethnics" jeopardized any efforts to restore urban America and reduce social discord, so rooted in economic insecurity and racial misunderstanding. Long standing neglect on the part of the mainstream institutions produced a deep-seated feeling of alienation among a growing number of this largely Roman Catholic population.
Labor unions recognized the anguish and increasing concern of this working class. This group's lack of adequate housing was also a great concern of the white ethnics. In light of these needs, as well as the ever-widening gap between them and the nonwhite minorities, the church must play a pivotal role. Indeed, the church should initiate new efforts of cooperation and structures in the communities where both new and old immigrants dwell and too often conflict. So should government, foundations and universities! Several detailed priorities and norms were outlined for all sectors of society.
On August 31, 1970, John E. Cosgrove, Director of Social Development, USCC, testified before the U.S. Senate Finance Committee, on behalf of the USCC, the National Council of Churches, and the Synagogue Council of America.(63) Cosgrove did recommend several improvements to Nixon's controversial Family Assistance Plan. However, this welfare reform program was described as "a new and realistic attempt to provide basic income for poor families [which]...merits and endorsement and support."
Among the features pertaining to labor-management relations were incentives for job training and employment. Such provisions were seen as means to secure steady income and sense of self-worth and achievement. Reference was made to a 1968 demand of Teamsters Local 327 in New York for a $5.00 weekly allowance for each child in the member's family as part of the contract for employees of the City Housing Authority. There was a call for setting a minimum federal floor under income, as well as the addition of the working poor to eligibility for federal assistance.
Much attention was given to job training and employment. Since most poor in America are members of families whose head is employed, opportunity for work and training can be overstressed in relation to reality. Employment is a relevant answer to poverty as long as one is not too young or old, or unskilled or too remote from the jobs, or too ill or too incapacitated or physically or psychologically handicapped. Absolutely essential is the ability to find a job with truly adequate pay.
Thus, employment is important as a positive factor, if joined to practical training, enlarged opportunities (more jobs), and an upgrading of earned income. Employment will be a negative factor, if it is a club to harass the poor, a penalty to threaten the workers, or a tool to disqualify on grounds of dubious validity from state to state.
The poor need no more watchmen or "guardians" to police their activities. They need a respect for their privacy, a protection of their God-given dignity.
The chief reason people are unemployed is that they have not found a job. Very pertinent questions are: For what jobs are welfare recipients to be trained? Are there safeguards one would not be referred to jobs paying less than the minimum wage? Will disqualifications follow refusal to work only when the job offered is genuinely suitable or the training clearly relevant?
Given the history of analogous programs, where there is no minimum wage coverage or an exemption for a particular job, such jobs should be required to pay the federal minimum wage. For example, since 1955 the Employment Security Program's unemployment insurance provisions typically require an applicant to accept a job, unless the person quits "for good cause" or for "good cause attributable to the employer" or quits to accept "suitable employment." This "good cause" norm appears in Section 448 of H.R. 16311. While registration and job referral will be through the local public employment office of the state, failure to register "without good cause" will be determined by the Department of Health, Education and Welfare. The history of administrative findings and judicial determination show the varying and, in too many cases, unjust decisions which have resulted from these words and phrases when used in previous legislation. Essential are strong and vigorously-enforced federal standards on referrals to insure even-handed interpretation (preferably liberal) and equitable application of these requirements. In accord with the Administration's recommendation,
A workman has good cause to refuse employment...if...the offer is below the federal minimum wage or the prevailing wage, whichever is higher, if it is an unusually hazardous job, if the commuting distance is unreasonable, or if experience shows the prospective employer consistently discriminates in hiring or upgrading on the basis or race, creed or color.
With regard to related issues, insisted upon was registration, training or search for employment as optional for mothers who are heads of families and have school-age children and not as a pre-condition to benefits. The value of maternal presence in the home, for school-age children was deemed "important morally and socially." Inflation must be met by an increased supply of goods and services - not by increased unemployment. Coverage of unemployment insurance should be expanded to include many others - especially farm workers. Raising the minimum wage was viewed as a tried and proven method to lessen poverty. No welfare program would be sufficient, unless accompanied by a job-creating program, the end of racial discrimination in employment and housing, a fully-funded low-income housing program, and renewed attention to urban problems.
Finally, in addressing the question of a federally financed and administered program (with national standards), the joint Catholic, Jewish and Protestant statement said,
The provision enabling, indeed encouraging them [states], to turn over administration of the state part of the Family Assistance Program to the Secretary of HEW is most desirable. With a highly mobile population and a truly interdependent national economy, some fifty-four separate programs scarcely make sense... The patchwork system is too costly in human terms. If the present proposals do not result in substantial progress toward ending human want, we will surely come to consider a wholly federal program in the very near future.
In early September 1971, the Director of the USCC's Urban Life Division, Monsignor George G. Higgins, issued the "1971 Labor Day Statement."(64) The statement opened with a reference to Pope Paul VI's Apostolic Letter which commemorated the eightieth anniversary of Pope Leo XIII's encyclical. "On the Condition of Labor" (Rerum Novarum). Paul VI indicated two aspirations persistently felt in the modern world, "the aspiration to equality and the aspiration to participation," in varying degrees characteristic of humanity as a whole. In certain respects, especially in recent years, such is a peculiarly American phenomenon. Higgins proceeded to elaborate recent American expressions of such aspirations; Black and Spanish-Speaking communities, aggrieved woman and alienated students, as well as other groups. While admitting the nation had reached a dangerous impasse on these issues, Higgins refused to be pessimistic or to despair over the ability or willingness of Americans to subordinate self-interest to citizenship or to allow a preoccupation with private concerns to deflect the population from public obligations.
Labor Day, with its traditional emphasis on social justice and workers' rights, lends itself more readily than other national holidays to sober reflection on the aspirations to equality and participation or shared responsibility. Higgins then discussed some points relating to the aspiration to equality, but only with reference to the labor movement. Like other major U.S. institutions, the labor movement was defensive about its record of promoting genuine color-blind equality. Commitment to racial equality was allegedly honored more in the breach than in practice. Yet, much of the criticism was very sweeping and simplistic.
Higgins thought it more accurate to quote the civil rights activist, Bayard Rustin, about the labor movement as "the most integrated major institution in American society, certainly more integrated than the corporations, churches, or universities." Such an estimation of the labor movement was unpopular with the so-called liberal community, the molders of popular opinion in the U.S., who dismiss the labor movement as disenchanting, ultra-conservative and reactionary.
Those unions which still practice racial discrimination or give only token compliance to civil rights laws deserve to be condemned for their hypocrisy and held up to public scorn. However, to say the majority are so guilty is to play partisan games with the facts and to raise questions about the motives of the accusers. Additionally, such allegations run the risk of alienating Blacks in general and Black workers in particular, at a time when unions are more important to Blacks than ever in the past. The overriding problem for a large portion of Black workers is that they are not eligible to belong to any union. Simply, large parts of the marginal labor market in which Blacks are forced to compete for employment is unorganized. For Blacks, mass unemployment or underemployment is an even more serious problem than for other workers.
In response to critics in "intellectual or radical chic circles," who alleged that the labor movement had lost the militancy said to be possessed in the 1930's and was unconcerned about or ineffective in fighting for full employment and related social and economic reforms, Higgins quoted some distinguished experts in the field. Harvard professors Derek C. Bok and John T. Dunlop said,
In retrospect...comparisons with the thirties seem seriously distorted... If anything, [the labor movement] was less concerned then than it is now over social and economic issues outside the range of its own immediate interests. Today, more manpower is being used to lobby for these causes, more space is devoted to them in union periodicals, and more money is being spent to support candidates who favor social reforms than ever was true during the thirties.
The civil rights activist, Bayard Rustin, said,
How ironic that in this period when the trade-union movement is thought to be conservative, its social and economic policies are far and away more progressive than those of any other American institution...black workers have choice. They can fight to strengthen the trade-union movement by wiping out the vestiges of segregation that remain in it, or they can, knowingly or unknowingly, offer themselves as pawns in the conservatives' games of bust-the-unions.
If Black workers had a choice, so did the labor movement. It could bring down upon itself the enmity and hatred of the Black community or it could root out the racial injustice and inequality in all its affiliates, especially the most restricted and restrictive crafts. Bok and Dunlop spelt out the challenge.
[Greater] progress has been made in securing equal opportunity in employment than in any other field of American life. Yet employment is so vital that Negro leaders are understandably impatient. Whether unions can surmount this challenge is a question of profound important, but the answer remains obscure. With the aid of full employment and more adequate government training programs, the problem may eventually be overcome without great turmoil. On the other hand, rejection of Negro claims may lead to attempts to form Black unions in the ghetto and complete alienation from the labor movement. In this respect, the unions are but a microcosm of the larger problems confronting all of American society.
Despite labor's record, Higgins insisted that the public and disadvantaged minorities in particular have the right "to expect and demand a higher standard of performance from organized labor than from any other institution...with the exception...of organized religion". To Higgins the reason was obvious. The definition, stated purpose, and pride of the labor movement was commitment to the cause of justice and equality for working people of every race and color and the service of the poor.
If the Church, Pope Paul has pointed out in his Apostolic Letter, should be characterized by a disinterested will to serve and by "preferential respect" for the poorest of the poor, no less can be expected of the labor movement.
In the American context, such a commitment and preference demanded and all-out effort on the part of every union to fulfill the spirit as well as the letter of the civil rights laws. Again Pope Paul VI was quoted,
If beyond legal rules these is really no deeper feeling of respect for and service to others, than even equality can serve as an alibi for flagrant discrimination, continued exploitation and actual contempt.
The Labor Day Statement then shifted its attention to another minority group also seeking the fullest measure of support from the labor movement - the Spanish-Speaking. Classifying comparisons between minority groups as expected but "tend to be rather odious and can easily result in a fruitless form of rivalry", Higgins did relate some facts about the Spanish-Speaking population.
[Their] share of available jobs descends steeply once the line separating white-collar from blue-collars jobs is crossed. There is evidence of a job caste that walls off white-collar jobs from minority workers and this wall is stouter against Spanish-surnamed workers where their numbers in the population are proportionately greater, as it is from Negroes in those areas where they are a more prominent part of the population.
The same arguments and insinuations about trade unions discriminating against Spanish-Speaking surface. However, data indicates that the pattern of minority employment is better among employers who have arrangements with labor unions that affect to some extent whom they hire than it is among those who do not have such arrangements. Thus, Bayard Rustin's choice is equally applicable to Spanish-Speaking as it is to Blacks. So is the Bok and Dunlop challenge to the labor movement.
Indeed, ten of thousands of Spanish-Speaking farm workers had already made the choice, with the encouragement of religious leaders and experienced personnel and financial assistance of the labor movement. Indeed, farm owners and organizations would do well to climb aboard. In the long run, they have everything to gain and nothing to lose by moving, however belatedly,
...towards a stable system of labor-management relations in agriculture based on the kind of labor-management cooperation which has long since been the rule rather than the exception in all of the other major industries in this country.
Higgins ended as he began, with an appeal to the general public and labor unions. He quoted Pope Paul VI's Apostolic Letter one final time.
Further reflection and experimentation must be actively pursued, unless one is to be late in meeting the aspirations of workers...which are being increasingly asserted according as their education, consciousness of their dignity and the strength of their organizations increase.
On August 25, 1972 Monsignor George Higgins released the 1972 USCC Labor Day statement, whose theme was the dignity of manual labor.(65) The statement began with reference to Pope Paul VI's address on May 1 to an audience of several thousand working people gathered in the Vatican. Reminding them on the Feast of St. Joseph the Worker that Jesus did manual labor and was known as the foster son of a carpenter, Pope Paul VI reiterated the church's great sympathy for the working people.
[Precisely] it sees in him and proclaims for him the dignity of man, the brother who is equal to every other man, the inviolable person upon whose face is impressed a divine likeness.
Such oft-quoted concern of the church for workers, Higgins insisted, takes on new meaning and new implications. Therefore, it must be applied in different ways in each succeeding generation, including the present. Indeed, evidence accumulates that technological progress, even in the wealthiest nation, the U.S., has created almost as many problems for a large segment of the labor force as it has thus far managed to solve. The most critical seems to be the sheer boredom and meaninglessness of so many of dead-end occupations and the low esteem in which society seems to hold such occupations. Workers currently speak of such conditions, as well as their feeling that they have been trapped in a kind of vicious circle.
They are often referred to as "forgotten people," the subject of a spate of television documentaries, books and articles in the media. Hurting and angry, they demand a fairer distribution of the national income. More importantly, they seek a sense of meaning and respect as people worthy of dignity and respect. Their plaintive comments - "I think I've worked harder than Picasso and what can I point to?" "Most of us, like the assembly line workers, have jobs that are too small for our spirit." While wages may continue to rise, the opportunities to advance (not just up or out but even over) are almost totally absent. Defenders of the political-economic system feel hopeless, frustrated, stagnant, socially degraded, and taken for granted. Most discontented and disenchanted are the under-30 semiskilled workers, willing to do almost anything to give vent to their sense of being trapped.
However much this feeling is due to "the generation gap" or any other causes, management and organized labor are presented with one of the major challenges of the 1970's. In the short run, management is affected more directly and immediately, due to high absenteeism, turnover, and worker indifference. Such factors mean higher costs, lower efficiency and poorer quality in the production process. However, in the long run, organized labor may be presented with the even greater challenge of "a cultural revolution." Waiting 20 to 30 years for a right to any part of one's pension and spending almost a lifetime at the command of a machine or supervisor, can be perceived as "indentured servitude" or "slavery". While the wages may be good, the life is not.
Indeed, the challenge is for everyone to take seriously. Workers are too often failed by the government and society, as well as by management and organized labor. The issue of humanizing work goes to the heart of social justice. Paul VI's May Day message put it is at the heart of the gospel concerning the dignity of manual labor. The Christian theology of work, derived from the gospel, starts with the premise that people should work not merely to earn a living, to develop their own personal growth or to serve the needs of others but also to cooperate with God in the work of bringing creation to perfection. A lengthy quote from the II Vatican Council's "Pastoral Constitution on the Church in the Modern World," emphasized what most people of faith vaguely sense as the only satisfying answer to the value and necessity of work.
Human labor which is expended in the production and exchange of goods or in the performance of economic services is superior to the other elements of economic life. For the latter have only the nature of tools.
Whether it is engaged in independently or paid for by someone else, this labor comes immediately from the person. In a sense, the person stamps the things of nature with his seal and subdues them with his will. It is ordinarily by his labor that a man supports himself and his family, is joined to his fellow man and serves them and is bringing God's creation to perfection. Indeed, we hold that by offering his labor to God a man becomes associated with the redemptive work itself of Jesus Christ, who conferred an eminent dignity on labor when at Nazareth He worked with His own hands.
Preaching this Vatican II theology to white-collar or blue-collar workers who feel hopelessly trapped in meaningless jobs, without helping to gain their freedom, would be foolhardy. Thus, the same council document stressed the responsibility of social justice.
Christians who take an active part in modern socio-economic development and defend justice and charity should be convinced that they can make a great contribution to the prosperity of mankind and the peace of the world. Whether they do so as individuals or in associations, let their example be a shining one.
Stated better than philosophers', theologians' or social scientists' expressions of workers' expectations from the economic system were the comments of a young steelworker,
Listen, you have to give more if you want more. I don't mean just wanting cash - I mean a better life. Surely, bread and butter's important - but maybe we spend too much time just thinking about money. The companies (if they know what's good for them) and the unions too - everybody should be thinking, and soon, about giving people better lives.
On July 10, 1972 the USCC Committee on Social Development issued a statement in support of the lettuce boycott organized on behalf of the United Farm Workers.(66) The boycott resulted from the refusal of lettuce growers in the Salinas Valley and Santa Maria area in California to initiate a recognition procedure for the United Farm Workers as the Bargaining unit for the workers. After eight months of controversy a committee of growers agreed to meet with the UFW. Although the boycott was suspended, eight months of fruitless discussion followed. Consequently, the UFW broke off negotiations, charging that the growers were not bargaining in good faith. Although several growers signed contracts, two years later the majority refused to do so. UFW had no alternative but to reinstate the lettuce boycott. The situation was further complicated by "severe and repressive anti-union legislation," sponsored in several states and already enacted in Arizona. Thus, the USCC Social Development Committee restated the November 13, 1968 statement of the U.S. Bishops on Farm Labor.
An endorsement of the lettuce boycott by the USCC Social Development Committee followwwed. It urged strongly that only "iceberg" lettuce clearly marked with the official United Farm Workers' label, the black Aztec eagle, be purchased. The purpose of the committee was "to bring about collective bargaining and a just settlement of the dispute." In defending its obligation to speak out on such controversial issues, the committee reiterated Vatican II's reaffirmation of the church's traditional teaching on the right of workers to organize and bargain collectively and, under certain conditions, to resort to the strike.