Subsidiarity is a Catholic social principle that celebrates the
multiplicity of small institutions that buffer a person from the mega-forces of
big business and big government; institutions like the family, the parish, an
ethnic club or the precinct. Brian Dijkema, writing in National Affairs (Winter/18), correctly and refreshingly includes
labor unions among those mediating institutions that help families navigate in
our wider society and global economy. I say “refreshingly” because in recent times
several social policy thinkers who acknowledge the crucial role of civil
society are cool toward unions. They are pro-family, pro-church and pro-soccer
league, but they don’t want the countervailing efforts of unions.
Dijkema,
who is with Cardus (www.cardus.ca), a Christian think tank in Hamilton,
is aware that the “social institutions that define a rich human life” are in
decline, leaving us with a more-or-less random collection of “atomized
individuals.” Dijkema thus offers
general suggestions for the renewal of local institutions, which in this essay
he applies to unions.
Organized
labor should embrace the Catholic principle of subsidiarity and its companion,
the principle of solidarity. Dijkema does not mean that union leaders should be
Catholics. He means that Catholic tradition (and other religious traditions)
has resources that can help unions attract and retain a younger generation.
Dijkema seems to assume that today’s churches are carriers of these social resources—an
assumption those of us involved with parish life question at times. In any
case, he is correct that unions and churches can be mutually beneficial. If
that is, they approach each other with clarity; not merely in a utilitarian way
to get more people at a union rally or to sell more tables at a church
banquet.
Dijkema
details a contrast between the dominant approach of unions today and an
approach that uses solidarity and subsidiarity. In the dominant approach,
unions pour money into electoral campaigns. Instead they need to use money and
energy “to recapture the imagination of local communities.” In the dominant
approach union leaders think power comes through elected officials whereas
power can emerge from deliberate encounters between and among grass-roots
leaders. Unions, Dijkema says, turn too eagerly to government entities to set
wages (a national minimum wage or a local living wage) instead of fighting for
a union’s proper function of collective bargaining. Many of today’s unions, Dijkema
charges, want “a big play” in the arena of government and/or corporate
partnership, a win that will give the union new life. But short cuts don’t
last. Unions, like churches, cannot grow “without the requisite work of
building the many small, social relationships that act as the strongest binding
agents for voluntary associations.” That requisite work means hundreds of
one-to-one conversations among a mix of like-minded people, precisely the dynamic
of subsidiarity and solidarity.
Dijkema makes
some worthwhile suggestions. For example, he thinks unions would benefit from
articulating a philosophy or theology of work. Such a project would also, I
would add, benefit churches as they seek to attract and retain young families.
However,
Dijkema’s either-or tone detracts from his message. Why should a union choose
between a national campaign on wages and proposals to “address the challenges
faced by young families”? Why, as Dijkema implies, is every campaign that
involves government a distraction? If unions and other fair-minded groups do
not oppose the misnamed right to work
laws, for example, there will only be fewer intermediate groups and more
atomized individuals. What if unions did not participate in Fight for $15
campaigns? What mechanism would there then be for teaching young adults about
immigration, labor history and more?
Dijkema
concludes with a quotation from Pope Benedict XVI (aka Joseph Ratzinger) on a
pure remnant church. Dijkema then proposes “a smaller, simpler and less
socially prominent labor movement.” Whatever Benedict XVI’s context, sectarian
Catholicism is a contradiction in terms. Advocating for a small church is
Catholic heresy. A baptized Catholic, for example, cannot casually become
non-Catholic. The entrance doors are wide open, especially during Lent. Given
the state of unions in the U.S., it is hard to understand how a smaller labor
movement would in any way make for a richer society.
Droel edits INITIATIVES
(PO Box 291102, Chicago, IL 60629), a newsletter on faith and work.
No comments:
Post a Comment