On August 25, Msgr. George Higgins, Secretary for Research, issued the USCC 1978 "Labor Day Statement".(75) It focused on the church's continued support of healthy labor-management relations, especially in the U.S. since the 1930's. The purpose of such support was quite clear.
It [the church] was concerned first and foremost with defending the right of workers to organize into unions of their own choice and took the position that, as a general rule, there is a certain moral obligation to join a union whenever circumstances clearly require workers to organize in defense of their legitimate economic interests.
After World War II direct involvement of Catholic social actionists in labor-management relations tapered off. It was a normal development, given a greater urgency of other economic, political and social problems. Some people mistakenly interpreted the change in emphasis to mean that basic rights of workers to organize was no longer in dispute.
Theoretically, such rights were not directly or explicitly challenged. Actually, examples abounded of thousands of workers struggling to exercise such rights in face of very difficult odds. Hence, renewed interest of Catholic social action circles, organizations and leaders, especially on behalf of farmworkers in the southwest and textile workers in the southeast. Hence, also the support of USCC and other Catholic organizations, since early 1978, for the Labor Reform Bill.
The purpose of the bill is to amend the National Labor Relations Act, so that it will work more efficiently, quickly and equitably in processing cases involving workers' right to organize. To counter opposition the reform bill has encountered, Higgins reviewed the history of church support for workers' rights, a history traced to 19th and 20th century church documents, especially Vatican II's Gaudium et Spes. Quoted were the striking words of Msgr. John A. Ryan of NCWC predecessor organization to the USCC. In his autobiography, Ryan called the National Labor Relations Act "probably the most just, beneficent and far-reaching piece of labor legislation ever enacted in the United States."
Higgins summed up the long-standing procedural problems the Labor Law Reform Bill was designed to eliminate simply as "Justice delayed is justice denied". Comments were cited from President Jimmy Carter and Secretary of Labor Marshall, in order to underline the benefits to workers and management pertaining to the Labor Law Reform Bill , which was difficult to understand.
It could not be characterized as "pro-labor". For, Marshall pointed out, "Business also suffers from long delays while the N.L.R.B. decides its cases, and business as well as labor will benefit from the reforms that will lead to a more smoothly functioning N.L.R.B." Higgins hoped that opposition on such grounds did not mean "they have opted for class conflict in place of the kind of constructive labor-management cooperation the NLRB was designed to foster and encourage".
Neither could the Labor Law Reform Bill be characterized disastrously inflationary. There was little or no evidence for such a claim. Yet, Higgins emphasized both labor and management could jointly and separately do much to curb inflation, without government resorting to rigid wage-price controls strongly opposed by labor and management. Thus, Higgins urged labor and management to take seriously the warning of an earlier Secretary of Labor about a single dominant emphasis in any discussion of collective bargaining. Namely,
...the necessity of its taking...larger account of the "public interest", including the maintenance of economic stability and the avoidance of spiraling inflation...The continuance of private collective bargaining as the important force in the future it has been in the past demands on the decision of the bargainers to exercise responsibility for the concerns that affect the whole economy.
Finally, Higgins addressed the argument that church-related organizations should diminish their support of trade unionism and collective bargaining. Allegedly labor became conservative and reactionary "no longer able to represent an adequate approach to social and economic problems." Higgins rejected the claim as simplistic, even though labor was "far from perfect and should be constantly reviewing and adjusting its methods and goals." Furthermore, Higgins stated,
...there is no other movement in sight which would enable American workers to protect their legitimate economic interests and at the same time play an effective and responsible role, under a system of industrial democracy, in helping to promote the general economic welfare.
In support of his claim, Higgins quoted at length from an address of Pope Paul VI to Italian trade unionists.
We are delighted to...recognize the legitimacy and opportuneness of the social, moral and economic function of labor unions in modern industrial society, to witness once again the confidence and trust the church has in workers' organizations and to express the wish for the development of the double, but different, collaboration that they promote: of the members with one another for defense of their legitimate interests and of the social classes for a just and ongoing realization of the...common good in liberty, peace and justice.
The 1979 USCC Labor Day statement was issued on August 27th by Monsignor George G. Higgins.(76) It began with references to the 1971 Synod of Bishops. The first referred to the church's right and duty to proclaim justice at all levels of society and to denounce instances of injustice when fundamental rights of men and women are involved. The second referred to justice within the church.
[While] the church is bound to give witness to justice, she recognizes that anyone who ventures to speak to others about justice must first be just in their eyes. Hence, we must undertake an examination of action modes, possessions and life style found within the church her self...
No one should be deprived of ordinary rights because they are associated with the church in one way or another.
Higgins highlighted one fundamental "ordinary right" - to organize for purposes of collective bargaining. The reason there was much confusion about the U.S. Supreme Court decision that "there is no clear expression of an affirmative intention of Congress" that teachers in church-operated schools should be covered by the NLRA.
Statements of widely-quoted publicists were cited by Higgins. One accused the church of hypocrisy by continually preaching social justice to others but not practicing it. Another alleged church leaders in general were opposed to the unionization of the employees of Catholic institutions. Although "there was no way scientifically to test" the accuracy of these or similar assertions and although most tend to generalize too freely. Higgins insisted "they reflected a growing sense of uneasiness within the Catholic community about the commitment of church-related institutions to the basic rights of their employees." Such uneasiness, "bordering on cynicism" could be ignored only at the risk of undermining the credibility of the church as a witness to justice at all levels of society. Indeed, Higgins insisted,
Any direct or indirect attempt to circumvent or to interfere with the free exercise of the right of their employees to unionize will lead predictably to serious trouble - the kind of trouble that could divide the Catholic community for many years to come and neutralize the effectiveness of ongoing church-related programs for social justice both at home and abroad.
Higgins proceeded to remove some of the confusion. First, the U.S. Supreme Court implied that if the legislative history of the NLRA had granted the NLRB jurisdiction over teachers in church-operated schools, it might have ruled that in passing the NLRA Congress had acted in violation of the Constitution. Whatever the constitutional issues which the court did not decide, Higgins underlined that the court did not question or negate the right to organize. Indeed, Higgins was quite insistent that had the court done so, it "would have had no authority to do so". The right to organize is a fundamental human right "beyond the reach of civil law and therefore beyond the jurisdiction of the judicial branch of the Federal Government".
The USCC tried to clarify the issue. One spokesperson stated the USCC "was and remains committed to the right of employees of church-related institutions to organize and bargain collectively...[The Supreme Court's ruling] does nothing to change that." Indeed, the USCC Subcommittee on Teacher Organizations issued a report in 1977 affirming,
Catholic social teaching strongly supports the rights of employees to organize and to bargain collectively with their employees. The free exercise of these rights pertains to Catholic school teachers and other school employees in the same way it relates to the employees of other Catholic institutions and secular organizations.
We firmly believe that Catholic school teachers should not only study and understand these rights but should consider a responsibility toward their fellow teachers as they examine the possibility or even necessity of collective.
A corollary to the right of Catholic school teachers to organize is the right which they possess to determine for themselves the agency or organization which is to represent them in the bargaining process.
Granting that some Catholic school administrators long ago implemented such principles, others were currently doing so and the majority were prepared to do so, Higgins posed the immediate challenge to such administrators. That is, to establish a voluntary substitute for the NLRB, in cooperation with Catholic school teachers' unions and with the professional assistance of outside experts. Such an agency would be needed to handle, in an orderly fashion, such problems as conducting representation elections and processing unfair labor practice charges. Without such agencies or boards, said Higgins,
...teachers in Catholic schools, even if organized into a bona fide union, will have no means of defending themselves against arbitrary rulings in the day-to-day administration of their collective bargaining and hence will be deprived of one of the "ordinary rights" which, in the words of the synod document, the church is called upon to defend and honor.
Higgins conceded that "theoretically" there might be a basis that "teachers' union are not the only way to meet their [teachers'] legitimate economic needs." Practically, however, the argument would be irrelevant. Willy or nilly, administrators will face teachers' unions or associations. In keeping with the USCC subcommittee's, Higgins asserted,
In short, the decision as to whether or not teachers in Catholic schools should join this or that type of union or association belongs to the teachers involved. Any attempt on the part of administrators to second guess their teachers on this matter is doomed to failure.
Furthermore, on the one hand, teachers' unions or associations had to respect the doctrinal, financial and other factors that made church-related schools significantly different from public schools. On the other hand, such differences should not be exaggerated and used as arguments against organization of teachers' unions in church-related schools. Higgins cited an editorial in a leading Catholic magazine that school administrators should keep in mind.
...in the light of consistent church teaching, the development of strong teachers' unions in parochial schools cannot be regarded as a threat to the ultimate authority of the Pope and bishops over faith and morals.
Higgins then indicated that, because of media coverage on the Supreme Court decision and not because of its marked differences, the Catholic school system was given special attention in the Labor Day statement. Obviously, the principles enunciated again also apply to employees in Catholic hospitals and other church-related institutions. In one sense, they are all confronted by the same labor-management problems. Yet, in another sense, Catholic hospitals' situation is different than that of the schools.
Hospital workers are covered by the NLRA and subject to NLRB jurisdiction. Despite clearly established procedures, events in several parts of the nation revealed difficulties. Namely, in isolated cases, some hospital administrators resorted to "legalistic techniques fashioned by sophisticated anti-union consulting firms, to interfere with their workers' right to organize." For Higgins, such delaying tactics constituted a great injustice to the workers and a need for the kind of self-examination and reform called for by the 1971 Synod of Bishops' statement.
In conclusion, Higgins mentioned one of the great mistakes made by U.S. industry in the 1920's. That is, the management completely underestimated "the intelligence, the determination, the skill and the drive of the workers with which it was dealing." He urged Catholic institutions, for ethical as well as pragmatic reasons to avoid making the same mistake.
...now that their own workers are belatedly beginning to exercise their right to organize - right which the Second Vatican Council, reaffirming traditional Catholic social teaching, described as being among the basic rights of the human person.
On October 26, 1980 the Administrative Board of the USCC released "Statement on Political Responsibility."(77) After describing the increased non-involvement of U.S. citizens in the election process, the statement expanded on the responsibility to become involved in the political process and the consequences of failure to do so. Then, the statement laid out the church's rights and role in the political order. A third section of the statement dwelt on issues: abortion, arms control and disarmament, capital punishment, economy, education, family, food and agriculture, health care, human rights, mass media, and regional conflict in the world.
Of pertinence here are some comments in the statement on the economy and food and agricultural policy. The basic premise was that national economic life must reflect broad values of social justice and human rights. Attention was called to the intolerable and persistently challenging facts of millions who are poor, hungry, inadequately housed, burdened by vast disparities of income and wealth and jobless. Branded as "simply unacceptable" were economic policies attempting to reduce inflation by cutting back on human needs programs or by increasing unemployment. In view of the intolerable and unnecessary costs of unemployment, the statement supported genuine full employment "as the foundation of a just and responsible economic policy." Thus,
...all Americans who are willing and able to work have a right to useful and productive employment at fair wages. We also call for a decent income policy for those who cannot work and adequate assistance to those in need.
With regard to food and agricultural policy, the statement called for nutrition programs to help the needs of hungry and malnourished Americans, "especially children, the poor, the unemployed and the elderly".
Throughout June and July of 1980, the White House Conference on Families was to hold three sectional meetings throughout the U.S. and in preparation for them a regional meeting in Washington, D.C. heard testimony from Rev. Donald B. Conroy, the USCC's representative.(78) His testimony mentioned a national meeting of the NCCB in Kansas and a synod of bishops in Rome - all concerned with family life. Agreeing with many earlier witnesses and hoping for a national family policy, as suggested by Senator Patrick Moynihan (D.N.Y.), Conroy indicated that the most fundamental threats to the stability and vitality of family life were "the social and economic needs of our society today." He elaborated by saying "Families simply cannot fulfill their proper roles when their members lack jobs, income, food, housing, health care or education."
Specifically, Conroy pointed out the unwillingness as a nation to make the national policy on full employment meaningful for more than seven million Americans. "The effect that persistent high levels of joblessness have had on American Families is all too evident in the statistics of crime, drug addition and other social ills."
On May 8th, 1980 before the Republican National Platform Committee and on June 13, 1980 before the Democratic Platform Committee, Bishop Thomas C. Kelly, O.P., General Secretary of the NCCB/USCC, presented testimony.(79) He began by stating three moral principles "at the heart of Catholic teaching on social and economic justice, which I hope will also be reflected in your party platform."
Under the first principle, human dignity, as protected by a set of fundamental human rights, Kelly repeated some of the ones enumerated by Pope John Paul II - "rights to employment, food, housing, health care and education." Under the second principle, the primary responsibility of the state to serve the common good, Kelly indicated the state's responsibility to adopt economic policies that ensure essential needs are met. Kelly listed adequate income, employment, food, housing, health care and education. Under the third principle, standing with the poor, Kelly advocated efforts to confront and remedy the ills of poverty, unemployment, poor health, hunger, crime, discrimination and other threats to full human development.
Kelly then addressed domestic issues. He listed ten. Pertinent here were comments on employment, undocumented workers and criminal justice. With regard to employment, Kelly stressed unacceptable levels of unemployment and their massive human and economic costs. Such were said to take their severest toll on the weakest in society - youth, blacks, Hispanics, women and blue collar workers. Current policy was said to fall short of the goals of providing jobs for those who can work and decent income for those who cannot.
Called for was effective implementation of the Full Employment and Balanced Growth Act. Such would entail comprehensive economic planning, structural reforms and job-creation -including public service employment. Also needed would be comprehensive reform of the welfare system to replace the existing system of fragmented programs, which do not provide an adequate income base for all Americans.
Kelly then re-affirmed the USCC's support for the right of workers to join together to bargain collectively with their employers. He also asked that such protection "be extended to those whose rights are currently unprotected, especially farm laborers".
Likewise, Kelly restated the USCC's concern about avoiding "ruinous inflation," not however by means of high rates of unemployment or any cutting back on social programs which meet basic human needs. To offset any policies that would try to curb inflation at the expense of workers and the poor, Kelly added, "Federal spending is not the primary cause of inflation and cutting the Federal budget is not an adequate solution."
With regard to undocumented workers, Kelly admitted the effective enforcement of immigration laws was needed. Yet, he warned against employer sanctions that would, practically speaking, discourage the employment of U.S. citizens and aliens, especially Hispanics, who were in the country legally.
With regard to criminal justice, Kelly conceded the legitimate concern, supported strong and effective action to control handguns so that they might eventually be eliminated from society and opposed capital punishment. Nevertheless, USCC also advocated greater utilization of community-based correctional facilities, effective programs of education, rehabilitation, compensation of crime victims and job training for the offenders.
Under international issues, Kelly spoke of United Nations and United States responsibilities. The U.S. was reminded about developing nations, human rights, military issues and several other concerns. Pertinent here were some comments about U.S.-owned multinational corporations in developing nations. The USCC called for regulation of their overseas operations,
...with regard to such questions as ethical behavior, disclosure of information, restrictive consumer practices and labor standards.
Kelly complained that such enterprises were largely independent of national political power and not subject to control from the perspective of the common good.
The last "Labor Day Statement" of the USCC written by Monsignor George G. Higgins was prefaced by some biographical notes.(80) Priest of the Archdiocese of Chicago and a staff member of USCC and its predecessor, NCWC, from 1944 until 1980, Higgins was to begin a lectureship at Catholic University and consultancy at Georgetown University.
Higgins began his finale as author of the USCC "Labor Day Statement" by reference to recent visits of Pope John Paul II to Brazil and Mexico. Talks in both nations revealed his unmistakable re-affirmation of the right of workers to organize into free associations "for the purpose of making their voices heard, defending their interests and contribution in a responsible manner to the common good." Emphasizing the tradition since Leo XIII's 1891 encyclical, "On the Condition of Labor," John Paul II paraphrased Leo. Insisting on this basic human right, holding persons and their dignity at stake, he stressed the importance of granting "all actors in economic life...the practical possibility of taking part freely and actively in working out and administering decisions regarding themselves at all levels."
The same continuity of support for workers' rights to organize among U.S. bishops were traceable to Leo's time as well. More recently, they stressed, as John Paul II did in Brazil and Mexico, the right of farm workers to organize and to participate in the decisions affecting their lives. In an address to farmworkers in Brazil, John Paul II said,
It is not admissible that in the general development of society men and women who live in rural areas should be excluded from true progress worthy of man.
Farm workers, as all workers cannot be denied under any pretext the right of responsible participation...in the life of companies and organizations which define and safeguard their interests.
John Paul II in the same address cited access to land ownership as a key ingredient for improving the lives of farmworkers.
However, also in Brazil, John Paul II insisted that the task of building a humane society rests on the shoulders, not only of workers, but also of government officials, employers, scientists, technicians, communication specialists and of all, regardless of occupation, who make decisions which directly or indirectly affect the public welfare.
Building society means going beyond barriers, divisions, opposition, so as to work together... No lasting and truly human work is possible unless it be made for all, through collaboration by all vital forces in society, through interchange among all mean and women, without distinction of social position or economic situation.
This principle, said Higgins, as he traced the social justice program of the USCC and NCWC, was consistently followed, even though for historical reasons it was necessary to give special attention to the fundamental rights of workers. USCC and NCWC found it necessary to emphasize the necessary role of government in guaranteeing the right of workers to organize for the purpose of collective bargaining and effecting other needed social and economic reforms.
Indeed, even though collective bargaining in the U.S. context had commonly been thought to be restricted to job-area issues. It became flexible enough to address some of the needs of changing time. Thus, collective bargaining moved from wages, hours and working conditions to embrace, by mutual agreement of unions and management, pensions, supplementary unemployment benefits, etc.
However, Higgins called on labor and management to heed John Paul II's admonition about rank-and-file workers "taking part freely and actively in working out and administering decisions regarding themselves at all levels." That is, given the scope, depth and persistence of economic problems, the possibility should be examined of expanding collective bargaining to include: plant closing/relocation, investment policies, democratization of corporate governance, job enrichment and various forms of worker participation aimed at increasing productivity. Such would seem to be a logical extension and natural enrichment of the American democratic heritage.
Such developments had been advocated by leading exponents of Catholic social teaching, at home and abroad. The first director of the NCWC Social Action Department and "the most influential exponent of Catholic social teaching in the history of the United States, Msgr. John A. Ryan", was such an advocate in the early part of the 20th century. He authored the famous "Bishops' Program of Social Reconstruction" in 1919. One of the most forward-looking social documents of its time and the establisher of the U.S. Catholic Church as a leading proponent of a more just social order, this document contained many strong recommendations.
The bishops said workers having a proper share in industrial management would promote the welfare of the workers, vastly improve the relations between labor and management and increase efficiency and productivity. The program also called for minimum wage legislation, a system of social insurance, health insurance, a government full employment program, prevention of monopolistic control of commodities, progressive taxation of income and excess profits and inheritances and a wider ownership of property by workers.
Higgins thought this tradition of vigorous advocacy on behalf of human dignity needed "to be kept alive and creatively kept up to date in light of our current economic crisis." Instead of a temporary battle with inflation, he saw the crisis with roots in the assumptions governing the economy since the post-World War II approaches. Namely, a global economy, characterized by limited resources and increased domination of transnational corporate enterprises, would not allow any longer post-World War II approaches to economic growth, consumption, energy use and economic planning.
The result has been an intensely growing spirit of resentment against government, especially at the Federal level, as well as a tendency to turn inward, ignore the poor and disadvantaged, cut social programs severely, thwart labor's ability to organize, allow unemployment to rise to intolerable levels and leave the aged and poor to their own devices for survival.
This tendency to turn back the clock raises serious questions about the future of the nation. Are we in danger of becoming an increasingly atomized society in which private gain is placed above social and religious values? Will our national and global communities be torn apart by the struggle for limited resources? Will our economic problems be solved at the expense of the poor and the weak both at home and abroad?
Higgins thought the answers to his questions depended on the willingness to place the values of human dignity and equality at the heart of the debate about the nation's future. He thought the problems no greater than those of 1919, when the "Bishops' Program of Social Reconstruction" was written. Very timely now is their message then.
The deep unrest so emphatically and so widely voiced throughout the world is the most serious menace to the future peace of every nation and of the entire world. Great problems face us. They cannot be put aside: they must be met and solved with justice to all.