I received a highly thoughtful reply to my post on the withheld wages of workers from Fr. Gregory Jensen, who has his own blog, called Koinonia. And, though he was objecting to some points I made and asking probing questions about others, it was a pleasure to read him because he had gone to the trouble of doing some of his own research. I will not quote his entire post, so please do go back to the comments section of my post by following the link above, and read his first long response.
Fr. Jensen first comments: Just a point of clarification who, specifically, has proposed legislation to outlaw labor unions? Here in Wisconsin legislation has been passed to limit collective bargaining for some local and state employees–but I’m not aware of anyone suggesting that unions be outlawed.
On his first day in office as Governor of Indiana, Mitch Daniels decertified ALL public service unions. So far, he is the only governor who has directly made public service unions illegal. The rest of the governors have tried to fig leaf themselves by passing legislation which has the effect of decertification, as they take away essentially all union power, leaving only a shell which they present as proof that they have not done away with unions. That is, if the power of an employer is to withhold employment, that is to refuse to hire someone or to choose to fire someone, the power of an employee is to withhold his/her labor until and equitable settlement is reached. When you remove that, but keep the employer’s power untouched, you have legally undone unions, which is what has happened in Wisconsin. You need only Google to see the vast amount of quotes and articles present from both political and non-political figures, arguing either that public-employee unions be outlawed (and using that word) or arguing that ALL unions should be outlawed. One of those articles is on Sarah Palin’s website.
You asked a series of questions which are good, but will require more than one blog post to respond to them. Let me start out answering you on this blog post, but please realize that I cannot cover everything you commented on one simple post. So, if you do not see it in this blog post, just comment on this one and have patience that it will come up in a future one. GRIN.
So, let me start out with a simple set of statements and proceed from there. Here is one of my assumptions:
-
If owner or executive remuneration is increasing and worker wages are increasing in like proportion, there is no moral problem.
-
If owner or executive remuneration is decreasing and worker wages are decreasing in like proportion, there is no moral problem.
-
If owner or executive remuneration is increasing and worker wages are stagnant or decreasing, then there is a moral problem of the type brought up by Saint James in his epistle and by Popes Leo XIII and John Paul II in their apostolic letters.
-
Other than isolated instances, I do not know of any wide example of owner or executive remuneration decreasing while worker wages increased. The isolated instances have been rare cases in which an owner has voluntarily and mercifully cut his earnings in order that his workers might have more. Those cases are extremely rare.
Here is another of my observations:
-
Pope Leo XIII was writing at the beginning of the union movement, and at a time of uncontrolled capitalism. While he saw the evils of uncontrolled capitalism, he was also rightfully worried that the incipient union movement would turn out to be an evil movement which would encourage people to do evil. Thus his many warnings to working people about their duties, but also notice his many callings to employers about their responsibilities.
-
Pope John Paul II was writing after the flowering of the union movement. As a result of the union movement, the middle-class had been significantly expanded. The 40 hour work week had become the standard. Wages had risen. Sick workers now had some paid days off and some paid vacation. The 8 hour workday was standard. There are more things that I could list. Also, he came from Poland, where the union, Soladirsnoc, had been responsible for defending freedom from Marxist tyranny. John Paul had also lived through both fascist and marxist oppression and was now seeing the rise of a new uncontrolled capitalism, the open attacks on existing unions, and uncontrolled globalization with the concommitant cheapening of labor.
Thus, while Leo XIII was warning the worker movement to be cautious, John Paul II was warning the world that both capitalism and marxism are dangerous to the moral fiber of humanity. It is in that context that John Paul writes much more warmly about unions than Leo XIII. And, it is that modern context which drove John Paul II to write about Leo XIII’s apostolic letter so as to update it for the new realities. I would like to tweak you a little bit on this and point out that you happily quoted much from Leo XIII on workers while quoting little from John Paul II on capitalism.
These will be the contexts from which I will be working.
===MORE TO COME===
Leave a Reply