The 1973 Labor Day Statement, focused on the farm labor problem, was issued by Msgr. George G. Higgins, the USCC's Secretary for Research.(67) He repeated some of the factors mentioned in the December 12, 1972 statement of the USCC Committee on Social Development. The intervention, at the instigation of lettuce growers, by Teamsters followed. Contracts, secretly negotiated by the growers and Teamsters, were later branded by the California Supreme Court as "collusive." Two years were spent trying to resolve the controversy between the UFW and Teamsters. All to no avail! For, two jurisdictional pacts, which had been drafted in good faith, under the auspices of the US Bishops' Committee on Farm Labor and the national AFL-CIO, became unravelled. Three separate meetings of the U.S. Bishops' Committee on Farm Labor with Teamsters and UFW, in search of a formula of reconciliation, ended in failure.
Almost immediately, the Teamsters declared open war on UFW, invasion of their jurisdictions, and negotiations with all but two of the twenty or so table growers whose three-year contracts with UFW had expired. Stunned and embittered by the Teamsters disgraceful conduct, UFW called a strike in the Coachella Valley and resumed another nationwide grape boycott. The UFW received massive support from the national AFL-CIO, affiliated unions, religious groups of all denominations, a wide variety of civic organizations, the religious and secular press, and the general public. The Teamsters were pilloried on all sides by responsible persons and groups, as strike-breakers not adverse to the use of violent tactics.
Higgins personally was confident of a UFW victory and stated that it was the consensus of people who had studied the controversy that time was on their side. In view of "the good sense and good judgment of the American people." Without attribution, Higgins quoted a historian of the farm labor movement about the nature of such confidence.
Americans are sometimes tolerant of unfairness for long periods of time. They are capable of selfishness, prejudice and other human failings. But the value system of the United States stresses the very qualities called for by the farm labor movement: freedom of association, self-determination, fair play. It is always to the advantage of any social movement, if, rather that demanding a whole new set of social values, it asks society simply to live up to those which it already professes.
Reiterating words of Cesar Chavez that farm workers and growers were neither saints nor sinners, Higgins did not want his support of UFW to be viewed as an attack on Teamsters or growers as a group. Choosing sides between "good and bad guys" detracts from the basic issue in the agricultural labor crisis - the right to organize a union for purposes of collective bargaining. No other union and no growers can do it for the farm workers. Higgins appealed to the Teamsters growers and agricultural industry for their good name and overall good "to cease and desist." The UFW is the only union able to claim validly to represent workers who harvest the nation's crops. Indeed, compared to other mainstream industries in the U.S. economy, "it is rather late in the game for the agricultural industry to be facing up to its responsibilities and its opportunities in the field of labor - management relations."
Again in 1974, Monsignor George Higgins issued the "Labor Day Statement" of the USCC.(68) Its focus was on the conflicting reasons for severe criticism of the labor movement by self-appointed spokespersons for the left and the right. Some say it is "one of the most reactionary forces in America." Others say the performance of union leaders has been "despicable...during the past thirty years, and especially in the last two decades." The labor movement has been accused of having sold out to corporate management and having "sided with employers in trying to impose labor peace upon a rebellious membership." Still others would stress the sharp drop in the quality of union leadership. Unions "...are incapable of thinking through their own future role and developing new approaches to their own structure and function."
There were also criticisms from the ultra-right. One spokesperson claimed that unions had acquired too much power, yet had also made "workers as a whole poorer than they would otherwise have been." Another complaint was that unions gouged the public. Consequently, it should be made a violation of the anti-trust laws for a single union to represent more than the employees of a single employer, industry-wide collective bargaining should be outlawed, and government intervention of any kind in economic affairs should be prohibited.
Organized labor was reminded by Higgins that constructive criticism should be taken seriously, regardless of the source. Organized labor could not afford "to wrap itself protectively in the mantle of self-righteousness." Yet neither should organized labor become paralyzed, especially by critics more interested "in promoting their own pet theories than they are in promoting the best interests of organized labor." Like any organization with similar size and influence, organized labor should be very conscientious about its role, approaches, structures and functions in new times. Yet, it should never neglect its immediate task of organized, numbering in the millions.
Higgins then cited the successful work of organized labor, through collaborative efforts of the AFL-CIO, religious, civil rights and other groups, in the Farah-ACWA and California-UFW struggles. Criticism of the role of religious groups in these struggles is unwarranted. For, the purpose is to bring about amicable labor-management relations, not a vendetta against manufacturers, growers or even Teamsters. For religious groups to stand aside would be a violation of "their own principles of justice and equity." Catholics would have ignored the teaching of Vatican II's "Church in the Modern World" on the right of workers to found their own unions, to take part in such unions without fear of reprisals, and to strike if all other means to defend their rights and fulfill their just demands have been unsuccessful.
It was Higgins' hope that within a year these principles would be fully implemented in the continuing struggle between UFW, Teamsters and growers. With such a challenge, talk about the demise of the trade union movement was considered frivolous.
With all its limitations, [the trade union movement] still has an indispensable role to play in achieving social justice and, above all, in protecting the basic rights of the unorganized poor and of black and Spanish-speaking workers in particular.
On March 13, 1975 Msgr. George Higgins, USCC Secretary for Research, testified before the U.S. House of Representatives Subcommittee on Immigration, Citizenship and International Law.(69) After introducing other members of the USCC, Higgins indicated the Catholic church's interest in the so-called "illegal alien". In addition to wishing to know who the illegal aliens are and why they have come to the U.S., the church wishes to know what can be done for them and their families by the enactment of legislative reforms which will be equitable and human, as well as effective in preventing the recurrence of the problem.
Before proposing desired legislative reforms, Higgins outlined some of the existing arrangements that made treatment of the aliens less than "equitable and human." Some aliens are victims of discriminatory U.S. immigration laws and practices, which foster family separation should the alien come from the Western Hemisphere and define "refugee" narrowly and short-sightedly. Whatever the restrictions, all aliens share one thing in common. Very soon they become victims of discrimination and exploitation "in the very country where they have sought a normal life in an atmosphere of freedom."
While the sponsors of one legislative proposal had as a first priority the penalizing of employers of illegal aliens, Higgins' proposals envisioned a more comprehensive program, which would,
Higgins then spelt out the rationale for the legislative proposals. First, the U.S. government bears a heavy share of the responsibility for the existing chaotic situation. There have been serious deficiencies for many years in foreign aid and economic policies with regard to Mexico and other Latin American countries. Failure to enforce existing laws has encouraged the massive influx of illegal aliens. It is economically attractive for both the illegal alien and employer to "cooperate," given the non-enforcement of the laws.
Second, without a meaningful amnesty program, the members of this illegal alien society will be driven further underground. The consequent creation of a permanent subculture, even massive expenditures of time, money and effort by the Immigration Service would not be likely to provide adequate controls. Prevention would be more beneficial than apprehension and deportation.
Third, present an across-the-board type of amnesty, the extremely serious and troublesome proposal of a common identification card or "internal passport" would be useless. Indeed, social security cards, used according to Public Law 92-603, would become proof of the right to take up employment. Furthermore, expansion of Social Security benefits to occupational categories not presently covered would minimize unauthorized employment.
Finally, Higgins commented on specific aspects contained in H.R. 982. If sanctions against employers became necessary adjuncts to Higgins' own proposals, they should not be retroactive to the effective date of H.R. 982. Such prevent large numbers of employment dismissals, with consequent harm to families and communities, as well as the impossible task of movement of such persons by the Immigration Service. Every employer should be mandated to inquire of job applicants their legal right to employment. Such would be essential to avoid any discrimination in the screening and hiring process. Strong opposition was voiced to Section 274A, which would require any officer or employee of HEW to disclose the names and addresses of aliens known to be unlawfully in the U.S. and to be receiving certain welfare benefits.
Provisos were added to amendments proposed to Section 245, on status adjustment. Restrictions as to unauthorized employment and manner of entry in the U.S. were opposed. Preference was expressed for the Attorney General's discretion, already included in Section 245. Higgins suggested the bicentennial theme, "Liberty and Justice for All", be the motto of those working for a fair and humanitarian solution to the "illegal alien" problem.
On October 20, 1975, Bishop Joseph A. McNicholas of Springfield, Illinois and Chair of the USCC Committee of Social Development and World Peace, addressed the House-Senate Joint Economic Committee, which held hearings in preparation for the 30th anniversary of the 1946 Unemployment Act.(70) After commending the committee for its concern about unemployment and its enormous social and human costs, McNicholas indicated his comments were based on six studies recently commissioned by the USCC, as well as three-day hearings conducted in California by a national panel of bishops.
Admitting the bishops' concern, awareness of the complexity of the issues, and lack of technical competence to evaluate definitively any specific actions or proposals, McNicholas underlined the bishops' concern for the moral and social aspects of economic policy. His comments sprung from the Catholic tradition on economic justice and commitment to human rights and dignity, especially the basic rights to useful employment, just wages and decent working conditions. However, McNicholas insisted that the problems are not Catholic, Protestant or Jewish in nature, nor are they typically Democratic or Republican. "They are American problems and we all must find ways to solve them."
After presenting data on unemployment for September 1975, the failure of the Employment Act of 1946 to fulfill its broad economic and social purposes, and the costs of the tragic underutilization of the country's human resources, McNicholas devoted time to the social consequences of joblessness. Mentioned were the impact on family relationships, minority youth, crime rates, addiction, alcoholism, and social tensions. Highlighted was the fact that in the struggle to obtain or retain scarce job, there is a pitting of "white against black, young against old and men against women."
Also stressed was the personal impact of joblessness. The unemployed may lose a key measure of their place in society, source of personal fulfillment and sense of having a productive role. The unemployed persons' idleness, fear and embarrassment may undermine confidence, erode family relations, dull the spirit and destroy dreams and hopes. For, work is more than a way to earn a living. "It represents a deep human need, desired not only for its income but also for the sense of worth which it provides for the individual."
McNicholas then criticized some opinions that would excuse the unemployment under several pretexts. Concerned about inflation because it weakens the economic stability of a society and economic security of citizens, McNicholas noted that those most severely affected are the very poor and those living on fixed incomes. Yet, he judged questionable the theory that full employment causes inflation and high unemployment reduces inflation.
Many studies indicate inflation and unemployment can feed each other. High idleness of plants and workers and implicit social costs are themselves inflationary. In 1953 the U.S. had its lowest unemployment rate and the lowest inflation rate - less than one percent. In 1974 inflation was 12.2 percent and unemployment reached 7.2 percent by the year's end. McNicholas noted the major protection against inflation for many is a decent job at decent wages. McNicholas then briefly commented on the direction of public policy relative to unemployment and other economic issues.
First, an effective national commitment to full employment is needed to protect the basic human right to useful employment. Full employment is the foundation of a just economic policy and should not be sacrificed for other political and economic goals.
Second, such a policy will require a major mobilization to create jobs and increase productivity within the private sector, although support would be present for sound and creative programs of public employment to meet important social needs - education, health care, housing, recreation, transportation, etc.
Third, improvements in the unemployment compensation program and adequate assistance to victims of the recession would have the bishops' support. So would decent incomes for people unable to work due to sickness, age, disability, or other good reasons. Welfare reform and fairness in taxation should be undertaken.
Fourth, private and public sectors should cooperate to plan and provide for the nation's future. Indeed, the basic values of the people and bedrock strength of the nation's economy enjoyed the bishop's confidence So did the productive capacity, as well as the human and material resources. McNicholas added, "We must develop the will." To that end, McNicholas concluded with the judgment and call of the U.S. Catholic bishops in the autumn of 1930.
This unemployment returning again to plague us after so many repetitions during the century past is a sign of deep failure in our country. Unemployment is the great peacetime tragedy of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, and both in its cause and in the imprint it leaves upon those who inflict it, those who permit it, and those who are its victims, it is one of the great moral tragedies of our time.
Our country needs, now and permanently, such a change of heart as will, intelligently and with determination, so organize and distribute our work and wealth that no one need lack for any long time the security of being able to earn an adequate living for those dependent upon him.
"Labor Day Statement 1975" was issued on August 27th by Msgr. George Higgins, USCC Secretary for Research.(71) Higgins first noted the NCCB unanimous resolution, in November 1974, supporting legislation guaranteeing farm workers "the right to determine by secret ballot elections, which union, if any, they want to represent them." Then, he presented a short review of the developments in the farmworkers controversy with the growers and Teamsters, by way of discussing the legislation proposed by Edmund Brown, Jr., Governor of California.
The bill, with unprecedented unanimous support of a union-grower-church coalition, was deemed a fair and equitable compromise for all concerned. It might even serve as an excellent working model for agricultural labor-management legislation in other states and the federal government. Not touted as a "cure-all," the California legislation provided "a set of enforceable procedures through which they [parties to the dispute] can begin, at long last, to settle their differences in an orderly manner.
There was every reason to expect the law to foster the best interests of all parties, given good will, common sense, and maturity. The growers would have to deal with the union as an equal partner in the collective bargaining process and to make up for lost time by quickly adopting a more professional approach to labor-management relations in their troubled industry. The union and their supporters would have to settle down to the tedious and unromantic business of making collective bargaining work fairly and efficiently on a day-to-day basis, in good times and bad. The government would have to resist pressure to revive the Bracero Program under a bilateral contract or treaty between Mexico and the United States. The remainder of the "Labor Day Statement" dwelt on the threat of such a revival.
Higgins' alarm was traced to a recent public statement by an unnamed top government spokesperson.
[We] need to take a looks at what it is about our economic situation which makes it so desirable for us to have illegal aliens. Illegal entry isn't only desirable for the aliens. There are segments of American society which want these illegal aliens as labor. They are doing work which the American labor market somehow does not seem to be otherwise supplying.
Despite criticism of the U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service for inefficiency, bribery and other forms of corruption, Higgins asserted that "the problem of illegal entry would still be with us for some time to come." Given the extensive border, as well as the high rate of unemployment and poverty in Mexico, no easy answer or simple solution was anticipated. Along with other Catholic organizations, the USCC recommended an across-the-board grant of amnesty, as of a specified cut-off-date, for illegal presently in the U.S. The rationale for such a step was presented by Higgins in earlier Congressional testimony.
Hopeful that Congress would agree with an across-the-board amnesty program for illegal aliens, Higgins argued that any revival of the Bracero Program would only compound the illegal alien problem. His conviction was based on two earlier but similar efforts, in the 1940's and from 1954 to 1964. In the later program's peak, more than 500,000 contract workers were brought into the U.S. in one year alone. All were recruited by the Secretary of Labor at U.S. expense under pressure of the Mexican government and a number of influential U.S. organizations. Theoretically, workers were not to be recruited under the Bracero Program, unless DOL could certify three facts.
First, sufficient domestic workers who were able, willing and qualified were not available at the time and place needed to perform the work. Second, the employment of alien workers would not adversely affect the wages and working conditions of domestic agricultural workers. Third, reasonable efforts were made to attract domestic workers at wages and standard ours of work and working conditions comparable to those offered to foreign workers. Common experience and a 1959 government commission revealed that such conditions were fulfilled more in the breach than in the observance.
It was revealed that domestic workers were losing out to foreign labor. That is, in some areas almost all seasonal work in certain activities was performed by foreign workers. Elsewhere the domestic workers found the duration of their jobs was shortened by the availability of contract workers from Mexico, particularly at peak harvest times. It was also revealed that the wage differential between farm and non-farm workers was very large and getting larger, due to the availability of contract workers. Thus, bargaining by all workers was undermined. Users of Mexican labor often paid their domestic workers less than employers who did not use foreign workers. It was also revealed that, aside from meager or no recruitment efforts by growers, one of the main reasons for shortage of U.S. workers for farm labor was employment conditions less satisfactory than those offered to foreign workers.
Consequently, the 1959 government commission refused to recommend perpetuation of a Bracero Program. Any approval of a temporary renewal was conditioned on substantial amendments to prevent adverse effect, insure the fullest use of domestic workers and limit the use of Mexican labor to unskilled seasonal jobs. The program was terminated completely in 1964.
Despite dwelling on the economic position of farm workers, Higgins was not unaware of the tenuous financial status of the small farmer. He was convinced that the interests of the majority of family farmers would always be adversely affected if they had to compete with large commercial operators, who had Mexican labor at their disposal and did not have to bargain for labor in the market place. For, much of the income of the family farmer represented an adequate return for their labor. Thus, depressed farm wage levels were a major factor in their depressed farm income.
Higgins was conscious of legitimate concerns of consumers about the cost of living. In fact, increases in farm labor costs would have only a slight effect on the price of the market basket. Higgins then asked the rhetorical question, "But who among us want to enjoy food and fiber grown at the expense of exploited workers?"
Furthermore, when the Bracero Program was terminated in 1964, growers and other employers who benefitted from it predicted dire consequences. It would be impossible to recruit an adequate supply of U.S. workers and crops would rot on the ground throughout the entire Southwest. Higgins labelled such special pleading for continued recruitment, at taxpayers' rather than employers' expense, and dread of having to offer better wages and working conditions. Indeed, such pleaders were still trying in 1975 to revive the Bracero Program.
Whether or not it was the motive of those who benefitted from the Bracero Program, its reintroduction might well be the end of the UFW. Such an occurrence to Higgins would be unthinkable. Sympathy for growers seeking such was very difficult for Higgins to entertain. Yet, it was much easier to understand the Mexican government's pressure for the re-instatement of the Bracero Program, the "safety valve" for its very serious unemployment problem. Higgins hoped that the U.S. government would fulfill its obligation to assist Mexico with its domestic economic problems,
...with cutting the ground out from under the United Farm Workers Union and without undermining the wages and working conditions of American agricultural workers who, for 100 years or more, have been among the most exploited working the American economy.
On February 12, 1975 the USCC Administrative Board issued a statement, "Political Responsibility: Reflections on an Election Year."(72) After a discussion of public responsibility and the electoral process, the forty-eight bishops who make up the board discussed the church and the political order. The church's role was outlined thus,
The statement addressed briefly several issues - abortion, education, food policy, housing, human rights and U.S. foreign policy, mass media and military expenditures. Each issues was addressed, using earlier statements on a particular issue. Pertinent here is repetition of the 1975 statement, "The Economy: Human Dimensions."
Our national economic life must reflect broad values of social justice and human rights. Current levels of unemployment are unacceptable and their tremendous human costs are intolerable. We support an effective national commitment to genuine full employment. Our strong support of this human right to meaningful employment is based not only on the income it provides, but also on the sense of worth and creativity a useful job provides for the individual. We also call for a decent income policy for those who cannot work and adequate assistance to those in need. Efforts to eliminate or curtail needed services and help in these difficult times must be strongly opposed.
The 1976 "Labor Day Statement" of the USCC was issued by its Secretary for Research, Msgr. George Higgins, entitled "Liberty and Justice for All: Some Notes on the Bicentennial."(73) Higgins began with a quotation from scripture as Moses' followers were on the threshold of the Promised Land. Higgins contrasted their understandable temptation "to steel their hearts and shut their purses against their less fortunate neighbors" amid abject poverty with people in the U.S., the most prosperous people in the history of humanity. Despite gross inequities in the U.S. economic system, Higgins asserted that its standard of living in the time of Moses "would have been beyond the wildest dreams of all but a handful of kings and potentates".
Higgins noted more attention had been paid in recent years to poverty and unemployment. He added that, from the point of view economic resources and technical facilities, there was no inherent reason "why we cannot substantially reduce the level of unemployment and the incidence of abject poverty if we have the will to do so." He said that is was neither his purpose nor competence to spell out for government, labor or business the steps they ought to take to eradicate the root causes of mass unemployment and widespread poverty in the midst of such plenty.
Labor and management would admit that collective bargaining, while quite successful in raising the standards of millions of Americans, the traditional techniques were no longer sufficient of themselves to solve the nagging problem of mass unemployment. New and imaginative programs of social and economic reform, aimed specifically at the problems of the poorest of the poor, would need labor and management collaboration.
Paul VI's Otogesima Adveniens referred to two aspirations of humanity, equality and participation, as a two-pronged development and sure sign of hope for humanity in anxious and troubled times. Paul VI's Apostolic Letter, Justice in the World, said that, despite serious injustices, there was a new stirring of justice "moving the world to its depths...hope in a better world and a will to change whatever has become intolerable."
Higgins found that Americans, especially through blacks, Spanish-speaking, native Americans, Appalachians, and other disadvantaged groups were regaining a sense of justice and compassion. Such groups were challenging the nation to remove moral blinders and to look more honestly and realistically than ever at the darker side of American life - poverty, racial discrimination, ravages of war, awful wastefulness of suicidal arms race, destruction of natural environment, etc. Yet, such was not to be viewed as indictment of more affluent folks or people sincerely devoted to the cause of justice as a matter of conscience and inner religious conviction. Rather, minorities had awakened folks to dismiss despair, against which Paul VI had so warned.
While it does not have political authority, economic means, or technical competence, "the church must work for justice in ways and by means consonant with her own specific mission." Such would include: constant proclamation of the gospel, denunciation of violations of justice, encouragement of the faithful to take part in political action aimed at achieving justice and organization of projects to help the poor, weak, and oppressed at home and abroad. Such a role was deemed indispensable, so that the church must "without fear or favor" champion the poor in society and advocate the critical values of human rights and social justice.
Quoting Bernard Haring's Hope is the Remedy, Higgins stressed again that those struggling for justice, equality, participation and liberation are themselves "truly signs of hope for the world." Hence, the poor are looking to the church not for instruction on techniques of liberation but for the strength of love they need to liberate themselves. Quoting from the 1971 Synod of Bishops, Higgins called all Christians, on an inter-faith basis with the Jewish community, to "action of behalf of Justice and participation in the transformation of the world."
While characteristic of the need and challenge of all humanity, this emphasis on equality and shared responsibility was, for Higgins, in certain respects "a peculiarly American phenomenon." No nation in the world ever had such an insistent and widespread demand, as the U.S. in the 60's and 70's from blacks, Spanish-speaking, native Americans and other groups. Yet, working class whites in metropolitan areas also had many unmet needs. Although experiencing similar frustrations, feelings of alienation, and longstand-neglect these minorities and working class whites have precluded recognition and collaboration because of mutual suspicion and fear.
Since many of these working class whites are Roman Catholic, the church must play a pivotal roles in bridging this ever-widening gap, if there are to be effective coalitions for constructive social change in urban America. That task includes not only the church's help in assisting working class whites to build community structures but also reception of sympathetic attention and assistance from major social institutions by working class whites. For, the danger was real that "demagogues of hate" would prey on the anguish and suspicion of all the communities, instead of helping those who should be natural allies in reordering the social priorities in the interest of human needs.
Higgins dismissed predictions the U.S. had passed the point at which "self-interest can subordinate itself to citizenship" or "a preoccupation with private concerns deflects [its] population from public obligations." Rather, he shared the challenge and optimism of Paul VI's message on the occasion of the U.S. Bicentennial celebration.
We know your commitment to the social teaching of the Church in various fields. We thank your for...your concern with the many needs of your people: food and housing, health assistance, employment, education, farm labor, condition of migrants, dignity of immigrants, and promotion of peace through endeavors favoring development.
The 1977 "Labor Day Statement" of the USCC was issued on September 2, 1977 conjointly by Msgr. George Higgins, Secretary for Research, and John Carr, Coordinator for Urban Issues.(74) Capitalizing on a "National Full Employment Week" under the auspices of the National Full Employment Action Council, Higgins and Carr devoted their full attention to the economic policies "that permit and even require the idleness of millions of our fellow citizens."
After explaining the council's plans and its nature as a cross-section of religious, labor, civil rights, business and other leaders, the extent, distribution and costs of unemployment were presented. An outline of Catholic economic teaching was excerpted from the 1975 Catholic bishops' statement, "The Economy: Human Dimension." They found the current levels of unemployment unacceptable and intolerable as a costly, vast and tragic waste of human and material resources. This outline, drawing on the accumulated teaching of papal encyclicals, conciliar documents and synodal statements, criticized ideologies and social systems of the right and the left, in order to defend human rights and to fulfill the demands of social justice.
In light of such principles, the bishops called for an effective national commitment to full employment as the foundation of a just economic policy. Such a commitment demanded creative programs of public-service employment and decent income for those who could not work. Higgins and Carr judged "current approaches and conditions" a failure and a serious challenge to the conscience of all people concerned about social justice. They viewed joblessness, not simply as a cyclical problem with temporary consequences, but as a continuing failure of the nation, requiring a long-term and comprehensive response. Most affected were minorities, youth, women and blue-collar workers.
Higgins and Carr described the costs of unemployment from a series of detailed studies by Dr. Harvey Brenner of John Hopkins University. Quantitative terms are inadequate to the task of relating the economic distress of unemployment even to higher incidents of mental illness, suicide, crime, alcoholism, drug abuse and disease. Furthermore, the social fabric of some neighborhoods and communities are ripped apart, racial tensions rise and social scapegoating may prevail as a result of unemployment. One may also find inhibition of collective bargaining and union development, as well as depressed wages.
In addition to these economic, psychological and social effects of unemployment, Higgins and Carr cited significant moral questions, which have a bearing on the national purpose and identity. Rather than indifference and apathy, they should engender concern and action.
Obviously, says Higgins and Carr, the formulation and implementation of economic policy cannot be left solely to technicians, special-interest groups and market forces. For, the debate is not merely about economic theories or political policies, but about programs to meet the needs of persons. A recent prayer of Paul VI was utilized to synthesize the meaning of work, "Work should not be thought of only as a chore and a task...nor solely as a way to win economic and temporal prosperity...[but as] carrying out of an ennobling and redemptive design of God for human life." Indeed, unemployment, to Higgins and Carr was viewed a form of oppression, diminution of human life and stifling of the creative expression of God-given talents.
Given the moral challenge and devastating effects of unemployment, Higgins and Carr called for a comprehensive program to modify attitudes, policies and structures in society people. Quoting from the 1975 statement of the bishops on the economy and USCC testimony in support of the Full Employment and Balanced Growth Act of 1977, Higgins and Carr again called for a full employment program, which set in motion a process of coordinated national planning, institutional reforms, job creation in private industry, public job programs and anti-inflation measures to achieve full employment with price stability.
Even though the USCC testimony did not endorse every provision of that bill, they did describe it as "the most comprehensive and useful approach to full employment now before Congress...a major step toward more rational and just economic policy." Higgins and Carr concluded with some responses to those opposed to full employment. Quoting again from the 1975 bishops' statement on the economy, Higgins and Carr reiterated that the major protection against inflation was a decent job at decent wages. They also rejected as inadequate the theory of a trade-off between inflation and unemployment, on the basis of a four year experience with simultaneous high inflation and high unemployment.
We know there are multiple causes of our recent inflation, including supply shortages, lack of real competition and hugh increases in costs of energy. In fact, the lower production and high unemployment of the recent recession have probably contributed to inflation through lower productivity.
Higgins and Carr also maintained that any successful attempt to balance the federal budget would require action to eliminate the unemployment that was creating the federal deficits through increased welfare and unemployment compensation payments, as well as reduced federal revenues. Fiscal restraint policies should not be pursued at the expense of those who lack jobs and a decent income. Finally, while Higgins and Carr viewed as important the rights of workers to organize and to obtain decent wages - still not guaranteed in the U.S. - massive unemployment was deemed the most serious threat to human dignity and the most serious violation of social justice in the U.S. economic life.