Allison Schrager writes in City Journal about the absurdity of the United Auto Workers calling for a cease-fire in Gaza earlier this month. What this has to do with autoworkers is unclear, to put it mildly.
Schrager correctly notes that unions have always been political. The UAW in particular has always advocated social democracy, as Amity Shlaes has written previously, and longtime UAW president Walter Reuther was an early enemy of this magazine. The agenda of the union was always bigger than autoworkers.
This is an important point for conservatives to remember. Conservatives are used to the narrative of the “march through the institutions,” where progressives gradually take over formerly conservative or apolitical organizations. That narrative is true for some universities and philanthropic foundations. But there was no progressive march through the UAW, because the UAW was always progressive.
At various points in the past, some unions weren’t very ideological. These tended to be the ones that specialized in corruption instead, such as the Teamsters. And corruption and ideology aren’t mutually exclusive, as the UAW had two former presidents convicted of crimes and is still under the watch of a court-appointed monitor. Today, though, it’s clear that organized labor and progressivism are the same cause.
Schrager concludes, “Demanding that their members fork over dues that effectively back political causes they might oppose will only further erode union’s support.” That’s true, but it is based on the assumption that union leaders are looking to gain support. They’re looking to gain members, true. But that doesn’t have to come from persuasion or attraction.
If unions were looking to persuade or attract new members, they would have little reason to oppose right-to-work laws, which simply make union membership voluntary. Yet they oppose them.
If unions were looking to persuade or attract new members, they would have little problem with the Janus v. AFSCME Supreme Court decision that made financially supporting a public-sector union voluntary nationwide. But they lost their minds after the decision — and they lost membership.
If unions were looking to persuade or attract new members, they would take Schrager’s advice to get out of politics and instead focus on improving the workplace for their members. But they don’t do that. Because they aren’t interested in persuading or attracting new members.
They’re interested in pressuring government to compel people to unionize.
They want government to restrict independent contracting and classify more workers as employees so that they can organize them. They want government to repeal right-to-work in states where it exists and not pass it in states where it doesn’t. They want government to lock nonunion firms out of infrastructure projects. They want government to automatically deduct dues from government employees’ paychecks.
They know they are strongest when workers don’t have a choice. Then the money comes in no matter what, and they can use it for whatever they want.
There was no time in the past when autoworkers were deeply invested in the issues of apartheid in South Africa — but the UAW was. There was no time in the past when autoworkers were deeply invested in composing statements summarizing leftist ideology — but the UAW was, when Reuther propped up Students for a Democratic Society to write the Port Huron Statement.
In the same way, there was no time in the past when autoworkers were crying out for a fancy golf course in northern Michigan — but the UAW built one. There was no time, and never will be one, when autoworkers wanted their money to be embezzled — but the UAW embezzled it.
So don’t expect unions to get any less political going forward. For them to get their way, they don’t have to be palatable to anyone except the politicians they help elect.