Three Strikes and More

"Strike because they're trying to squeeze the life out of you."

--Slogan, 1970 Harvard student strike. "This is indeed the worst year for labor in over five decades."

--Douglas A.F user, United Auto Workers, Sept. 6. 1981

The afternoon before the baseball strike, Kansas City third baseman George Brett rose from a card game in the Royal locker room in Toronto. He was asked to comment on the impending work stoppage.

"Sorry, but I got to do my taxes now," he said.

There, it seems, you have it in a nutshell--baseball's best player more concerned with write-offs than runs-batted-in, more worried about tax deductions than run production.

But management provoked the baseball strike, a clear (though ineffective) attempt to bust the players union. "Who believes in unions?" Atlanta Braves owner Ted Turner reportedly asked at one management meeting. When no-one raised a hand, Turner allegedly bellowed. "Then let's bust this one!"

While Brett and his multimillionaire brethren will undoubtedly benefit from President Reagan's 25-per-cent tax cut, several of his fellow and less-well-paid baseball unionists suffered financially this summer. And most of them didn't even understand the tricky sticking issue of free-agent compensation. "Don't ask me. You'll have to call Marvin Miller," said Toronto Blue Jay player representative Alvis Woods in response to questions during the strike.

On the other side of the table, the owners' claims were ludicrous. They tried to damp down an inflationary spiral they themselves had created; and a mere glance at the pennant races when the strike began exposes the "competitive balance problem" as specious.

In the end the owners lost--they failed to bust the union. "I'm just glad to be playing baseball again," Blue Jay catcher and assistant player rep Ernie Witt said, "but I'm not happy with the settlement." Why, Ernie? "The whole thing could have been avoided. I just don't like it."

* * *

This summer's baseball strike, like all strikes, had its foibles, not the least of which was an average worker's salary of more than $140,000. But the perception of the players--that, somenow, profit-mongering magnates meant to deprice them of their rights--mirrors a sentiment spreading among American worker most of whom live closer to the economic margin.

The is one of employees clinging to, but increasingly sliding down the slippery slope of the Laffer curve. As the relentless logic of supply-side economics becomes clearer--that the rich will get richer while the poor grow pooer--strikes will increasingly come to be seen as a necessary tactic. And the "New Beginning" so carefully constructed by the forces of conservatism will crumble, buckling under the weight of the expectations it raised.

President Reagan's dismissal of striking air traffic controllers sent an unequivocal message to workers in both the public and private sectors. Together with Social Security benefit reductions and other domestic cutbacks, the mass firing is meant to underscore the administration's commitment to law and (the established) order, to the country's renewed toughness.

Far from a bold move, however, the PATCO dismissal signifies a cowardly attempt to intimidate unions and coerce them into unwitting collusion with Reagan's questionable economic policies. By heading off labor unrest at the pass, the Republicans hope to divert attention from measures which will harm most Americans.

With its disregard for minorities, the administration's assault on labor will boomerang, showing the folly of pouring dollars into defense while wounding the country to be defended. By next summer, cities may be torn asunder with riots reminiscent of this summer's events in Britain and all areas of the economy will be riven with strikes. The positive public reaction to Reagan's handling of the controller strike is instructive. Flexing of pectorals is appealing until one becomes muscle-bound. But more than anything, the air traffic situation throws into sharp relief the importance of the right to strike.

* * *

The hunger strikers in Northern Ireland and the members of everybody's favorite "independent trade union" in Poland have behind them the obvious power of ideals. They do not face the cruel dilemma which America's labor leaders must now confront.

The air traffic controllers broke the law and as such had been cast as outlaws and traitors. But against that reasoning, they took a courageous stance for freedom. The collective bargaining system has no validity if one side lacks leverage, and striking appears to be the measure of last resort by which employees can exert pressure on their employers.

By closing the door on compromise in the air traffic dispute, Reagan has indicated that workers have no right to move the mountain of management on their own terms. He has forced a Faustian decision upon American labor--cooperate or take your chances. PATCO gambled and lost.

For the past decade, organized labor in this country has steadily lost ground. The number of unionized workers has shrunk to barely a third of the labor force in an economy which has become overwhelmingly service-oriented. Following the tone set by former UAW president Leonard Woodcock and his successor, Douglas Fraser, prevailing wisdom has had it that in times of economic stress labor must cooperate with management wherever possible. This represents a strong departure from American labor's history: for years, the worst accusation that could be directed at union representatives was that they were "company men" or "in bed with management."

Despite the rising productivity of blue collar workers and the declining productivity of managers, as documented by MIT economist Lester Thurow, union members are being asked to bear the brunt of America's economic decline. Though many workers have risen to middle class stature and find the PATCO strike distasteful, the business-labor alliance may not last long at all. Washington's September 19 Solidarity Day is the first symbolic hint of these shifting winds.

In short, Reagan's decision is a ready-made recipe for class conflict. If for several years organized labor has been a cause without a rebel, the current danger lies in the possibilities of it becoming a rebel without a cause.

* * *

In Canada this summer, federally employed postal workers went on strike, delaying mail for more than two months and imperiling several small businesses. The postal employees have a legal right to strike, but Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau came under fire for not dealing with the dispute as "strongly" as Reagan dealt with PATCO.

The frustrating mail strike, the second in five years, seemed to hinge on the relatively minor question of paid maternity leave. The Liberal Party government did not grant the Canadian Union of Postal Workers the amount it sought, and the posties eschewed envelopes for picket signs.

While Conservative Joe Clark, leader of the federal opposition, urged Trudeau to take drastic action to end the postal strike, the prime minister stood by the right to strike even as government negotiators took a hard-line approach at the bargaining table. Trudeau believes in the need to compromise in a federal system, but hsi hands-off attitude toward the postal strike helped cause a significant summer by-election defeat in a traditional Liberal stronghold.

The by-election result (socialist Dan Heap edged Trudeau's former chief adviser, Jim Coutts) showed a public impatient with the economy and intolerant of strikers. When Reagan fired PATCO members, his decision was widely applauded.

* * *

What remains for workers besides the right to strike? Arbitration for public employees might help minimize conflict and improve the workers' lot. Unions must vigorously organize workers and attempt to forge the solidarity needed to counterbalance the pervasive threats to organized labor.

Polish unionists, Catholic hunger strikers, baseball players, air traffic controllers, and postal workers have at least this much in common: without the right to strike, they have few ways to control their own destiny. Any attempt to wrest away that influence should be greeted by a concerted response. And the next time we are inconvenienced or deprived by a strike, we should remember that such actions speak for all those who are having the life squeezed out of them.

President Reagan's dismissal of striking air traffic controllers sent an unequivocal message to workers in both the public and private sectors. Together with Social Security benefit reductions and other domestic cutbacks, the mass firing is meant to underscore the administration's commitment to law and (the established) order, to the country's renewed toughness.

Far from a bold move, however, the PATCO dismissal signifies a cowardly attempt to intimidate unions and coerce them into unwitting collusion with Reagan's questionable economic policies. By heading off labor unrest at the pass, the Republicans hope to divert attention from measures which will harm most Americans.

With its disregard for minorities, the administration's assault on labor will boomerang, showing the folly of pouring dollars into defense while wounding the country to be defended. By next summer, cities may be torn asunder with riots reminiscent of this summer's events in Britain and all areas of the economy will be riven with strikes. The positive public reaction to Reagan's handling of the controller strike is instructive. Flexing of pectorals is appealing until one becomes muscle-bound. But more than anything, the air traffic situation throws into sharp relief the importance of the right to strike.

* * *

The hunger strikers in Northern Ireland and the members of everybody's favorite "independent trade union" in Poland have behind them the obvious power of ideals. They do not face the cruel dilemma which America's labor leaders must now confront.

The air traffic controllers broke the law and as such had been cast as outlaws and traitors. But against that reasoning, they took a courageous stance for freedom. The collective bargaining system has no validity if one side lacks leverage, and striking appears to be the measure of last resort by which employees can exert pressure on their employers.

By closing the door on compromise in the air traffic dispute, Reagan has indicated that workers have no right to move the mountain of management on their own terms. He has forced a Faustian decision upon American labor--cooperate or take your chances. PATCO gambled and lost.

For the past decade, organized labor in this country has steadily lost ground. The number of unionized workers has shrunk to barely a third of the labor force in an economy which has become overwhelmingly service-oriented. Following the tone set by former UAW president Leonard Woodcock and his successor, Douglas Fraser, prevailing wisdom has had it that in times of economic stress labor must cooperate with management wherever possible. This represents a strong departure from American labor's history: for years, the worst accusation that could be directed at union representatives was that they were "company men" or "in bed with management."

Despite the rising productivity of blue collar workers and the declining productivity of managers, as documented by MIT economist Lester Thurow, union members are being asked to bear the brunt of America's economic decline. Though many workers have risen to middle class stature and find the PATCO strike distasteful, the business-labor alliance may not last long at all. Washington's September 19 Solidarity Day is the first symbolic hint of these shifting winds.

In short, Reagan's decision is a ready-made recipe for class conflict. If for several years organized labor has been a cause without a rebel, the current danger lies in the possibilities of it becoming a rebel without a cause.

* * *

In Canada this summer, federally employed postal workers went on strike, delaying mail for more than two months and imperiling several small businesses. The postal employees have a legal right to strike, but Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau came under fire for not dealing with the dispute as "strongly" as Reagan dealt with PATCO.

The frustrating mail strike, the second in five years, seemed to hinge on the relatively minor question of paid maternity leave. The Liberal Party government did not grant the Canadian Union of Postal Workers the amount it sought, and the posties eschewed envelopes for picket signs.

While Conservative Joe Clark, leader of the federal opposition, urged Trudeau to take drastic action to end the postal strike, the prime minister stood by the right to strike even as government negotiators took a hard-line approach at the bargaining table. Trudeau believes in the need to compromise in a federal system, but hsi hands-off attitude toward the postal strike helped cause a significant summer by-election defeat in a traditional Liberal stronghold.

The by-election result (socialist Dan Heap edged Trudeau's former chief adviser, Jim Coutts) showed a public impatient with the economy and intolerant of strikers. When Reagan fired PATCO members, his decision was widely applauded.

* * *

What remains for workers besides the right to strike? Arbitration for public employees might help minimize conflict and improve the workers' lot. Unions must vigorously organize workers and attempt to forge the solidarity needed to counterbalance the pervasive threats to organized labor.

Polish unionists, Catholic hunger strikers, baseball players, air traffic controllers, and postal workers have at least this much in common: without the right to strike, they have few ways to control their own destiny. Any attempt to wrest away that influence should be greeted by a concerted response. And the next time we are inconvenienced or deprived by a strike, we should remember that such actions speak for all those who are having the life squeezed out of them.