Keeping political issues out of my published opinions is a constant objective for me, and yet sometimes a subject emerges and the politics of it are just too glaring to overlook.
“The United Steelworkers, North America's largest private sector union, and Unite the Union, the largest labor organization in the United Kingdom and Ireland, today signed an agreement clearing the way for the creation of Workers Uniting, the world's first global union,”
announces the unions' release.
They are taking this step in order to challenge “the growing power of global capital,” states United Steelworkers president Leo W. Gerard. “Globalization has given financiers license to exploit workers in developing countries at the expense of our members in the developed world. Only global solidarity among workers can overcome this sort of global exploitation wherever it occurs."
This doesn’t surprise me at all. It might have been predicted when the USW entered into
a global agreement with the European Metalworkers’ Federation and the International Metalworkers Federation, as well as the world’s largest steelmaker, ArcelorMittal. They’re seeking to improve occupational safety standards across that company, which spans five continents.
Of course, big corporations are always willing to work with unions when there is no competition to take advantage of their agreement. Corporations don’t object to unions (as the dynamic is typically portrayed) as much as they object to competing corporations. And unions are always eager to partner with “global capital” when it confers power or legitimacy on their organization.
The emergence of a global union is clarifying because it underscores the truth that unions are autonomous organizations dedicated to their own growth, prosperity, and perpetuation. (That’s true of corporations, obviously, but they acknowledge it, or if they say otherwise they’re not believed.)
Why do I imply that there’s politics in any of this? Because, I hope this development will mark the end of the empty patriotism of unions and their members. Their opposition to competitive hiring and compensation standards have done more to limit domestic manufacturing competitiveness than any foreign trade policy. Still, unions never fail to resort to victim status when domestic manufacturers take the necessary steps to remain globally competitive.
Quite simply, unions are the principle obstacle to economic growth in the jurisdictions where they wield influence. Anyone seeking to persuade me otherwise will have to explain Michigan and
Ohio. Union activists and supporters in states like these once objected to jobs moving South. Now, they fret about “global capital.”
There is a lot of capital spreading global influence, and it carries a lot of different objectives. Labor’s new global initiative will differ in that its objective will be contradictory to all the others. Its purpose will be to obstruct progress, to slow economic growth, and to stunt enterprise, so that Labor's influence can’t be denied.