Anti-Labor Policies Being Pursued by U.S. Industry

As a labor historian, I would like to reinforce an argument that was understated in Eric Mann’s article (Opinion, Nov. 10), “American Labor: Laid Off and Left Out.” This is that the anti-union policies presently being pursued by American industry, with the tacit support of the Reagan Administration, carry “ominous implications for the future of our society” because--if history is any guide--they are likely to bring in their wake extensive strikes and protest on the part of workers when the political pendulum swings back toward the center, as it is bound to do.

In May, 1886, nearly a million U.S. workers, angered by the mid-1870s depression and by the arrogance of early manufacturers who believed they alone had the right to control the workplace, rose up to demand the eight-hour day. The American Federation of Labor came into being as a result.

After the anti-union decade of the 1920s, the Great Depression triggered mass labor strikes, the establishment of the Congress of Industrial Organizations, and the regulation of business by the New Deal.

Now industry is attacking trade unions again, believing that because unions have been making give-backs and smokestack industry is in decline, that they can afford to ignore the grievances of working people.

Sooner or later, however, a new coalition is likely to emerge, based this time upon white collar as well as blue collar unions, upon the minorities, as well as upon women and the elderly, which will once again force business to pay a far higher price for ignoring the legitimate interests of workers than it otherwise might.

Instead of simply treating labor as a “cost,” here are three suggestions for dealing with the present uncompetitiveness of American industry, which are both more humane, and more farsighted than industry’s present policies: (1) collaborate with labor, as well as U.S. foreign policy-makers, in an effort to raise the standard of living in the Third World, thereby raising the labor costs of its manufacturers; (2) modernize what remains of smokestack industries like coal and steel, instead of abandoning them under the excuse of diversification; (3) adopt genuine power-sharing with trade union representatives, over such matters as plant closings, the same way as in Sweden or Germany.

One such effort is presently being undertaken by Eric Mann’s United Auto Workers local in Van Nuys, where General Motors is threatening to close down the last remaining auto assembly plant in Southern California. The local community is attempting to persuade GM to keep it open by promising to expand the market for GM cars if it does. This is far more constructive than high-handed disregard for workers’ interests.

JOHN H.M. LASLETT

Professor of History

UCLA