WHEN JOHN SWEENEY was elected president of the AFL-CIO in 1995, he promised a different kind of labor federation. Instead of antagonizing environmentalists, feminists, anti-war protestors, and others on the left, Sweeney pledged to build alliances and coalitions with groups that he considered ideological allies. He also made it clear that the strong and aggressive foreign policy championed by labor legends like Lane Kirkland, George Meany, and Tom Donahue would be a thing of the past.
By and large, Sweeney has fulfilled those promises. Labor unions are now more firmly on the left than ever before. Last year, even the Sierra Club and Steelworkers came together in a new coalition that blends environment and labor causes. Sweeney has also changed the course of the AFL-CIO’s foreign policy dramatically, with labor unions now for the most part opposing the Bush administration’s approach.
While some of these changes can be traced back to Sweeney’s principles, a major part of his reordering of labor’s priorities could be attributed to labor’s membership dearth. Unions have watched their membership numbers steadily drop since the 1950s. Sweeney thought that a closer alliance with the left would help stop the bleeding.
That plan has not worked out. Labor membership has continued to decline under Sweeney. In the latest figures released by the Bureau of Labor Statistics this past year, only 7 percent of the private sector workforce belonged to a union. The same figure stood at over 10 percent when Sweeney took over, not a dramatic decrease but significant given the relatively low numbers he started with.
Many theories have been posited to explain this decline. Conservatives and libertarians claim that the workforce has changed and that employees no longer see the need for unions like they did 50 years ago. Labor activists blame corporations, saying that employers now hire a cadre of labor lawyers and professional union-busters to stave off unionization.
One theory that has been largely ignored however is the possibility that organized labor’s lurch to the left on foreign policy might be driving away would-be members. Some political opinion polling offers strong evidence for this idea.
Approximately every five years, the Pew Research Center conducts a comprehensive survey and compiles the results into the “Pew Political Typology.” The respondents are classified into different ideological groups based upon their responses. While the survey isn’t perfect, it does give us a rough picture of the electorate.
In their last typology released in 2005, two groups in particular, what Pew calls “Pro-Government Conservatives” and “Social Conservatives,” stood out for their liberal economic/conservative foreign policy views, which used to be the ideological formula that unions followed before Sweeney.
The economic populism of these groups is without question. 79 percent of social conservatives and 94 percent of pro-government conservatives favor raising the minimum wage. 57 percent of pro-government conservatives and 61 percent of social conservatives favor reducing the deficit over cutting taxes. And only 18 percent of social conservatives and 22 percent of pro-government conservatives believe that outsourcing was good for the economy. In describing these groups, Pew said that social conservatives “tend to be critical of business and supportive of government regulation” and pro-government conservatives are “under substantial financial pressure,” two descriptions that seem tailor-made for union organizing.
But despite their liberal economic opinions, these two groups were hardly doves when it came to foreign policy. 82 percent of social conservatives and 67 percent of pro-government conservatives said that preemptive military force can be justified often or sometimes. The corresponding national figure was only 60 percent. On Iraq, at the time, 88 percent of social conservatives and 72 percent of pro-government conservatives still believed that the war was the right decision. For all groups, that number only stood at 49 percent.
Pew estimates that 20 percent of the general public and 23 percent of registered voters either fall into the social conservative or pro-government conservative camp. That represents a vast pool of economically pessimistic people. Labor’s dour message about the economy should appeal to these groups.
The reason why labor might not be getting through however could rest with foreign policy. Many of these same people are deeply patriotic and believe in a more aggressive foreign policy than the general public. They could very well be skeptical about financially supporting labor unions that do not agree with their own views. In the past, the economically liberal/foreign policy conservative voter did not have cognitive dissonance when he joined a union. That is clearly no longer the case.
Chances are slim that organized labor will change its foreign policy outlook anytime soon. The only legitimate challenger to Sweeney today is Service Employees President Andy Stern. Stern is even further to the left than Sweeney on most foreign policy questions. Teamsters president James Hoffa has taken a strong stand against investing in Iran. But the Teamsters have always been more conservative to begin with, having endorsed Richard Nixon and Ronald Reagan. They are not the best barometer for the broader and more diverse labor movement.
Labor continues to fret about their low membership numbers. An innovative labor leader might look at the foreign policy views of economically dissatisfied voters and chart a much different course than the one Sweeney has chosen.
Bryan O’Keefe is a labor policy analyst in Washington, DC.
