In Roe v. Wade, the Supreme Court held that women had a fundamental right to procure an abortion. So long as the decision remains the law of the land, any attempt to significantly restrict legal access to abortion will be futile. For this reason, most of the pro-life movement has long seen overturning Roe as one of the chief goals in the fight against abortion.
Recently, however, several of my co-contributors at Vox Nova have taken issue with this assumption. Morning’s Minion, for example, put the matter thusly:
Some claim that the source of the “right” [to an abortion] is a certain Supreme Court decision, and this decision should be overturned. Game over. But not so. The largest states, states that account for the majority of abortions, would retain the legal framework intact— this, combined with ease of travel, makes me think that abortion rates would not change very much upon reversal.
To the extent that bans against abortion would be ineffective if limited to certain states, one obvious solution would be to press for a national abortion ban. Such a ban would be unlikely to pass, of course. But I don’t see that such a ban would be any less likely to pass than, say, a national handgun ban, which Morning’s Minion favors as a means of addressing the interstate problem that he finds so vexing in the abortion context. One could also favor a more limited law, preventing women from crossing state lines to avoid a home state abortion law. A version of such a law (limited to minors) was making its way through Congress before the Democrats took over, and the chances that such a law could pass in a post-Roe world are at least as high as any comparable ban on handguns.
Suppose though, that we stick with the scenario posed by Morning’s Minion, where abortion remains legal in some states but not in others, and no legal restriction on travel is in place. Would the abortion rate be lower in such a case than it is under Roe? I would say yes, for three reasons.
First, while some women in restrictive states would no doubt go to less restrictive states to obtain abortions, the evidence suggests that many would not. For example, while some women in Ireland (which bans abortion) do obtain abortions in England (where abortion is less restricted), the abortion rate for Irish women is less than half of what it is for English women. The truth is that travel itself is expensive, and women will be less likely to procure abortions if they have to go from Birmingham to Baltimore to get an abortion than if they merely have to go down the street.
Second, while it’s true that many states in a post-Roe world would not ban abortion outright, most states (including stereotypically liberal ones), would be likely to pass more restrictions on abortion than is possible under Roe. The abortion rates in Western Europe, for example, tend to be lower than in the United States. Some have cited this as proof that laws against abortion are ineffective. Yet what such an argument overlooks is that most Western European nations place restrictions on the availability of abortion that would be declared unconstitutional if attempted in the United States (for a full treatment of this subject, I would recommend the book Abortion and Divorce in Western Law, by Harvard law Professor and current ambassador to the Holy See, Mary Ann Glendon).
Finally, there is the effect that overturning Roe would have on public attitudes toward abortion. People will sometimes try to pit law and culture against each other when in comes to abortion, saying that laws against abortion will be ineffective unless and until cultural views about abortion change. What this overlooks, however, is the profound way in which law can shape a society’s cultural and moral views. In her book Real Choices, Frederica Matthews-Green tells the story of a women who was pressured by her boyfriend into having an abortion. At first she was reluctant, wasn’t abortion wrong? But her boyfriend finally convinced her to go through with it. The winning argument: “Oh, so you think you you better than the Supreme Court?” As someone who has gotten into lots of arguments about abortion, I’ve found that the “it’s legal, so what are we arguing about” line of reasoning is surprisingly and disturbingly common. Especially among those who lack strong religious convictions, the law is going to be a strong guide as to morality, and as such any attempt to change people’s moral convictions about abortion is going to have to involve changes in the law.
Aside from the “it’s legal” argument, probably the most common arguments against abortion involve the supposed parade of horribles that will occur once abortion is made illegal. Such arguments would be far less convincing, however, if abortion was already illegal in many states. People who favor legalized abortion generally see it not as an unmitigated good, but as a necessary evil. To the extent that the experience of states with restrictive abortion laws can show abortion to be an unnecessary evil, therefore, people are liable to be more receptive to the pro-life cause.
None of this can happen, however, so long as Roe remains “settled law.” So while the fight against abortion must have many fronts (to return again to martial metaphors), the battle to overturn Roe has to be given a central place in any overall anti-abortion strategy.
You make a strong case for your proposition and I find myself substanially convinced of your logic and reason.
I would just comment that if another person failed to see the merit in your superior logic and reason, I would not question the sincerity of their Catholic faith, I would simply say they do not have the fine reasoning skills you have.
“The moral calculus does look easy until one considers that war, torture, the death penalty, poverty, racism, and even the excesses of capitalism — those evils so well defined in Catholic social teaching, and of concern to Catholics of all political persuasions — are fully present in the act of abortion.”
If I might since we are on the issue there was supurb post on this issue today the Mrs Scalia( The Anchoress) I found compelling this morning
http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/the-catholic-vote-and-the-counterbalance-to-abortion/
I do agree with your premise. There is a attitude ioften if it is legal it is moral and that effects epoples mindset
A few points:
* Yes, Ireland’a abortion rate is low relative to many European countries, but it is staggeringly high for a country without a single abortion provider. It is also very similar to countries like Germany and Belgium. And would not the natural barriers to travel be even lower in the US, where, after all, it would be within a single country?
* The points you make are well taken: while we can quibble with the numbers, it would be hard not be imagine rates falling with selective bans or more restrictive conditions. And I don’t disagree with the point you are making– the core problem in the US, differing from most other countries, is the so-called “right” to abortion that emanates from the judiciary. I believe wholehearedly that Roe is should be overturned. It claims something as a right which is so such thing, and as such is no valid law.
* So while we agree on principle, we might disagree on practice. Here’s the problem: the tactic of overturning Roe means picking Republicans who will pick the “right” judges. But abortion is not the only issue for these people, and indeed, is typically far down on the list. So politcians give us war, toture, unjust economic policies, massive numbers without adequate health care, disprespect for environmental problems…etc. And the judges are often no better, voting the wrong way on cases from torture to habeas corpus to the death penalty to union rights to gun control. And while all this happens: Roe remains legal. The evils that ensue become rapidly disproportionate.
* We should not play down the inevitable pro-choice backlash if Roe ie ever overturned. Would be see a judicial strategy on their side to overturn the overturning ot Roe? Would it be possible to impose any effective limitations in domains where it remains legal? This may sound like a cliche, but the best way to get rid of Roe is to change the culture, not through the political system. More often that not, especially today, the judiciary follows the dominant opinions of society.
“This may sound like a cliche, but the best way to get rid of Roe is to change the culture, not through the political system.”
The best way to overturn Roe is to put justices on the Court who will overturn Roe. Full stop. Of course we should try and change the culture. We always try to change the culture; the question is what should we do politically. To say we need to change the culture first in this context is to say we should do nothing in nicer language.
The ‘culture first’ argument also ignores the effect that the law has on culture as BA points out in the post. It is particularly ridiculous coming from Obama supporters (present company excluded) who say we need to change the culture first, then promptly propose doing nothing about Roe and electing a charismatic pro-choice President. Not only will Obama appoint pro-choice justices, electing a charismatic pro-choicer is a strange way of promoting cultural change.
And the judges are often no better, voting the wrong way on cases from torture to habeas corpus to the death penalty to union rights to gun control.
1) Judges have voted the wrong way on “torture”? In what case? My mind is blanking out at the moment.
2) As to most of the rest of the issues that you mention, Republican judges are leaving the democratic process in place. As to gun control, there is absolutely nothing in genuine Catholic teaching that says Catholic judges are bound to interpret the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution so as to be completely meaningless. Catholics are indisputably allowed to believe that judges are not empowered to set aside the law just because they would prefer an alternative law crafted by religious authorities.
3) Even if you think that American political parties should, at all points, implement the political program of bureaucrats at the USCCB, you can’t deny that both Republicans and Democrats differ from that program. Democrats may be closer on certain issues, but Republicans are closer on other important issues as well (abortion, cloning, embryonic stem cell research, gay marriage, school choice, allowing religious charitable organizations to be eligible on equal terms for government funding, etc.).
So what inspires someone like you to seize on the good things that Democrats do while admitting that they are in need of radical reform on some issues? Why not the other way around? Why not seize on the good things that Republicans do and try to work within the Republican party to reform it where it (by your vision) needs reform?
Blackadder,
Well argued. I too few Glendon’s exploration of the situation in Europe very informative (and a useful debating point!). MM raises a good issue about the backlash to Roe being overturned. How do you think pro-lifers should anticipate that and take action to limit its effects?
And did you notice that the table with Ireland’s abortion rate showed a lower rate for Northern Ireland? Do you know what regime is in place there?
A couple of more points that I missed in re-reading this post:
* I do indeed favor a national handgun ban, but I’m also aware that this would be next to impossible to achieve in the current climate– which is why it is not worth making it a political priority.
* I would not support travel bans. Remember the X case in Ireland? http://vox-nova.com/2007/11/07/abortion-and-constitutions-the-case-of-ireland/ And would prohibiting people from traveling not raise all kinds of issues?
Zak,
A pro-choice backlash is possible, but I’m not sure that it’s very likely. If it were likely, then near hysteria into which pro-choice groups fling themselves whenever there is a Supreme Court vacancy would make no sense. In general, people greet Supreme Court decisions with which they disagree with a few days of outrage, after which they promptly forget all about it.
MM,
* So while we agree on principle, we might disagree on practice. Here’s the problem: the tactic of overturning Roe means picking Republicans who will pick the “right” judges. But abortion is not the only issue for these people, and indeed, is typically far down on the list. So politcians give us war, toture, unjust economic policies, massive numbers without adequate health care, disprespect for environmental problems…etc. And the judges are often no better, voting the wrong way on cases from torture to habeas corpus to the death penalty to union rights to gun control. And while all this happens: Roe remains legal. The evils that ensue become rapidly disproportionate.
I fully understand that your different assessment of some issues means that you consider Republican-controlled government to be much more negative in its effects than I do. However, I find it interesting that you are perfectly willing to accept it as a given of our political landscape (as it arguably is) that progressive politicians will inevitably appoint pro-Roe justices (and let’s be honest, will doubtless give us rights to euthanasia and gay marriage given a bit more time) and yet do not seem to take from that that there may be some massively flawed assumptions in the progressive outlook which tie these issues together with the progressive economic policies for which you are so eager.
It’s partly the case that conservatives are on the right side of abortion, euthanasia and gay marriage simply because conservatives favor holding on to the mores of the past — and many Americans (especially progressive ones) see Western Culture and Christianity as something of the past.
And yet, it seems quite possible that the fact that progressives in America are on the wrong side of these issues right now underlines a fundamental deficiency in the progressive understanding of the human person and society — and that stemming from this fundamental deficiency we may expect even the things you are in favor of (universal health care, economic redistribution, environmental regulation) to be enacted in a deeply flawed way which is destructive to society in the long term.
Why should we turn over the radical restructuring of our country’s institutions to a political group that obviously has such a flawed understanding of humanity? Might it not be better to stand athwart history shouting “Stop!” at the moment, and wait “until the culture changes” before letting the forces of “progress” loose?
I think the near-hysteria is to make it seem that overturning Roe was entirely an act of fundamentalist mysogyny. They’re shaping perceptions in advance. I don’t see pro-lifers doing the same thing. Instead, they’re concerned with getting a pro-life judge on the court without it being obvious before the fact that he is pro-life, so that he can slip through confirmation.
Darwin,
I’ve been saying for a long time that both political ideologies that are prevalent in the US have a “fundamental deficiency” in the way they see the human person– they are just different strands of Enlightenment-era liberalism that glorifies individual rights, seeing society as a social contract rather than a cohesive entity. On one hand you have a concern for human rights, opposition to the death penalty, and support for economic and social justice– but a blindness that allows “personal liberty” to trump the life of the unborn and views marriage as solely about individual satisfaction, ignoring the social dimension. On the other side, you have those who protect the right to life of the unborn, who realize that marriage (as traditionally defined) supports the conmon good, who support mediating institutions– but who adopt a laissez-faire approach to economics whereby “personal liberty” trumps concerns of equality and social justice, where the environment can be abused in support of a materialistic culture, and where war and violence are seen as first resorts.
Pope Benedict noted that we need to close teh rift between these groups. We start in the US by recognizing that both political philosophies are incompatible with Catholic social teaching. Is it really an accident that the so-called “Reagan revolution” came after Roe v. Wade, and was followed by a radical redefinition of marriage? I think not.
Well done BA.
MM:
– You would favor a national handgun ban because you dislike guns, and the “problem” they present.
-You would not favor a national abortion ban, even though you supposedly agree that abortion is a scourge and evil.
Why the dichotomy? Sounds like you are playing logic games and rationalizing your views.
Is there any other area or country we can look to that went from very permissive abortion laws to very restrictive ones? I can’t think of any, but if there are any, it might give some indication of what to expect.
Don’t we have a number of justices on the court right now who have been appointed in the hope that they will overturn Roe? Would it be acceptable for a prospective nominee to let the president know he or she would be willing to overturn Roe without answering pertinent questions in confirmation hearings?
Say Roe is overturned and the next year abortions decline by half. What would be the impact of having half a million babies born to people who would otherwise not have had them?
“A pro-choice backlash is possible, but I’m not sure that it’s very likely. If it were likely, then near hysteria into which pro-choice groups fling themselves whenever there is a Supreme Court vacancy would make no sense. In general, people greet Supreme Court decisions with which they disagree with a few days of outrage, after which they promptly forget all about it.”
I think a pro-choice backlash is highly likely. Public opinion polls show that a majority of Americans support ‘Roe v. Wade’, even though in the same polls they don’t necesarily support the ban on restrictions it establishes. Most law professors are willing to admit Roe was nonsense (or at any rate grant that much of the criticism it has received has been well-deserved), but the media and a majority of Americans support it. It is a contentious issue, and, more cynically, there is a fair amount of money involved for abortion providers such as Planned Parenthood.
Perhaps it is a question of degree; by backlash I mean that it is likely in the short term to cause more people to identify as pro-choice, and that the reversal would be heavily criticized. I do not think that the popular outcry would be large or sustained enough for Roe to be re-instated. For better or worse, most Americans do not vote on the solely on the abortion issue. Nevertheless, I think a backlash is quite likely, even a fairly sustained backlash, and I hope to see it at some point.
Tim– I favor both. I see little possibilty of either, in the current cultural climate.
Is there any other area or country we can look to that went from very permissive abortion laws to very restrictive ones? I can’t think of any, but if there are any, it might give some indication of what to expect.
Poland had legal abortion under the Communists, and banned the practice in the early 1990s. The result seems to have been a significant decrease in the number of abortions performed on Polish women.
MM,
I agree with you that both major political wings of American thought have some flaws in common — though I’m sure that we have some differences in how we identify them.
However, there’s a crucial difference between the areas in which American progressives are laissez-faire (abortion, euthanasia, gay marriage) and those in which American conservatives are (wages, trade, unions, health care, economic redistribution): On the issues on which conservatives are laissez-faire, there is no one clear balance to be struck at a national level, and individuals and communities are likely to be able to work out their own best answers through balancing mutual benefit. (So for example, there is no one single “just wage” that can be easily imposed by the government, and individual employees and employers are arguably in a much better position to figure out what the just wage is in each given situation that the government is able to do by central authority.) But on the issues on which American progressives are laissez-faire, there is only one right answer and no balance to be struck based on individual conditions. There is no situation where abortion or euthanasia or gay marriage is right, and so there is certainly no problem with having such things dealt with nationally.
Further, I think you’re taking a huge leap of faith in imagining that American progressives will work out plans to deal with health care, just wages, etc. which are truly beneficial to the human person, when they have such a malformed ideas of the human person and common good. So not only will supporting them mean ceding the protection of the lives of the most vulnerable members of society, and allowing the radical redefinition of marriage, but it will also almost certainly fail to help cure the social ills that you consider so essential. Other than opposition to the Iraq war, it’s really hard to see where you imagine the upside is.
Is it really an accident that the so-called “Reagan revolution” came after Roe v. Wade, and was followed by a radical redefinition of marriage? I think not.
Nice try, but I think it would make much more sense to point out that Roe was the culmination of the period of complete progressive dominance (over both parties) that stretched from the New Deal through the 1970s. It was only when the American progressive assumption that human nature was a tabula rasa led to the complete abandonment of traditional religion and morality by the hard core of the progressive movement that conservatives were able to rally enough support to make any sort of imprint on the political landscape.
So Reaganism was arguably the result of Roe, but only in the sense that it was revulsion at the cultural bankruptcy of the Left which provided fertile ground to build an American conservative movement.
blackadderiv,
Interesting, and with a continuously dropping birth rate since well before the tightened restrictions on abortion.
Poland was the example I too would cite, although it presents both similarities and differences. On the one hand, the legal regime that allowed abortion was imposed without the support of a majority (as in the US), but on the other hand, when it was overturned, through legislation, a majority supported the change (which seems unlikely in the case of Roe being overturned). I think it would be a good idea for groups like NRLC to focus less on opposing McCain-Feingold or on specific races and more on changing public opinion about abortion – or there needs to be a group that does (by airing lots of ads about the absurd thinking behind Roe, about the good work done by pro-lifers to support pregnant women, and about the humanity of fetuses). If we want to talk about changing the culture, that’s where I’d start.
But blackadder makes a good point that just as many people were pro-choice when Roe was the law of the land, there’s a good chance pro-choice sentiment could change somewhat quickly once it isn’t. On the other hand, those who are pro-choice are more likely to be more fervent than now, since they will feel like their rights were taken away from them.
“Tim– I favor both. I see little possibility of either, in the current cultural climate.”
Thank you for the clarification…
That said, why would you place importance on attempting to change the legal climate (e.g. calling for gun bans, denouncing supreme court decisions, stressing statistics) and place little importance on making abortion illegal?
As a followup to my apparently-unanswerable question 3, my strong hunch is that there are a lot of conservative pro-lifers and evangelicals who are moving in a “liberal” direction on environmentalism, foreign aid, poverty programs, torture, etc., much more so than you’d ever find movement towards anti-abortion legislation among typical Democratic environmentalist or feminists. So given that you (supposedly) aren’t happy with either party, I suspect that the Republican party might ultimately offer more hope for reform.
In any case, I’d like to see a serious, non-hyperbolic argument that a charismatic and passionately pro-choice politician is somehow going to change the “culture” in a way precisely opposite to that politician’s beliefs. I don’t think such an argument can be made seriously and in good faith, but maybe I’m wrong.
Is there any other area or country we can look to that went from very permissive abortion laws to very restrictive ones?
The United States. From the begining of the Republic to the late 19th century, we had rather permissive abortion laws. More restrictive laws came about later.
DC: On the issues on which conservatives are laissez-faire, there is no one clear balance to be struck at a national level, and individuals and communities are likely to be able to work out their own best answers through balancing mutual benefit. (So for example, there is no one single “just wage” that can be easily imposed by the government, and individual employees and employers are arguably in a much better position to figure out what the just wage is in each given situation that the government is able to do by central authority.)
DC, my friend, I continue to be amazed on your appropriation of liberal ideas. Obviously the liberal view on a just wage is as noted above, let employees and employers negotiate rather than set by the central government. No liberal is asking for the central government to take on this task. Liberals seek to simply prevent employers from refusing to negotiate with their employees.
“DC, my friend, I continue to be amazed on your appropriation of liberal ideas. Obviously the liberal view on a just wage is as noted above, let employees and employers negotiate rather than set by the central government. No liberal is asking for the central government to take on this task.”
I am a little confused. Isn’t the minimum wage an attempt by the central government to over-ride negotiations between employers and employees? Granted, it doesn’t cover that many people anymore with inflation, etc. Nevertheless, it is categorically false to assert that liberals only seek ‘prevent employers from refusing to negotiate with their employees.’ Minimum wage laws may be good or bad on the merits, but they certainly aren’t there to facilitate negotiation.
Kurt,
You’re going to start making me think that you’re actually a conservative at heart.
For instance, this is precisely while I’m against unions, because the get in the way of direct market negotiations between employers and employees — by keeping other workers by securing jobs by offering to work for less, and by keeping highly talented workers from commanding wages higher than union scale would allow.
But if you’re against unions and the government getting involved to impose a “just wage”, I’m starting to think you’ll be kicked out of the “liberal” club. :-)
Outlawing abortion without a corresponding change in culture will inevitably lead to a growth in the already prevalent contraceptive mentality. We will see new technology devoted to sterilization, as well as a massive campaign to promote birth-control.
Yet political action, if done correctly, shapes culture. There is room for agreement here, just not with this election. Catholics have already lost this election. But we can still fight for a just government. But how?
[...] answers this question in the affirmative in this thoughtful and compelling post. PermaLink | | Trackback/Pingback [...]
It wouldn’t reduce it by a whole lot. Besides, a complete abortion ban is neither possible nor desirable. A mother shouldn’t be forced to die in an either-or situation. Nor should women be forced to end an ectopic pregnancy via the Catholic slight-of-hand method that is far more complicated and dangerous. (Oh, we just took out the tube, that the fetus died in the process wasn’t really our goal…)
Of course, abortion is, in most cases, a form of birth control. If people used the pill, condoms and what not properly, only a few (the ‘margin of error’) would get pregnant without desiring to.
Gerald-
Seriously, why are you still Catholic?
So politcians give us war, toture, unjust economic policies, massive numbers without adequate health care, disprespect for environmental problems…etc. And the judges are often no better, voting the wrong way on cases from torture to habeas corpus to the death penalty to union rights to gun control. And while all this happens: Roe remains legal. The evils that ensue become rapidly disproportionate.
Then legislators need to overturn unjust policies and replace them with just policies. This is what a representative republic is all about. Judges don’t vote “the wrong way” on issues. Judges’ who job is determining if we are following the rules outlined in our Constitutions (both state and federal).
We don’t need judges who take a creative view of our Constitution (much like you do with Catholic doctrine). We need judges who understand what the words in our founding documents mean and rule accordingly.
Roe is bad law. By the fact that Roe exists, a generation of Americans have been led to believe that abortion is a “right”. This attitude needs to change and the overturning of Roe is the first step.
I prefer the “citizenship for the unborn Constitutional amendment” path which would make Roe moot. If an embryo is a citizen, he or she is protected by the 14th amendment.
Gerald,
You haven’t figured out that with God, attitude is everything. God isn’t so much interested in what you do, than why you do it. In the case of an abortion ban, there has always been (and I would imagine there will always be) judicial override possible. In the case of the life of the mother, this would occur. In the case of an ectopic pregnancy, I don’t understand what in the heck you are saying. Are you saying women are forced to end ectopic pregnancies? That they’re not given the opportunity to die from a tube rupture?
Also, there is no “sleight of hand”. With God attitude is everything. Are you trying to kill the child (who cannot be saved in any case) or treat the mother? If it were possible to do both, would you do it?
Kurt,
For instance, this is precisely while I’m against unions, because the get in the way of direct market negotiations between employers and employees — by keeping other workers by securing jobs by offering to work for less, and by keeping highly talented workers from commanding wages higher than union scale would allow.
I’m interested in this. Let’s take as a first example an industry that is partially union and partially non-union like paperworkers or auto parts production. Explain for me the negotiation between employees and employers?
DarwinCatholic and Kurt,
If I understand Catholic social teachings, the Church is solidly behind the right to organize unions and bargain collectively. How can a Catholic be “against unions” without dissenting from Church teachings?
No one is forced to end a lethal pregnancy. If someone wants to die, that’s their deal. As far as the sleight of hand is concerned – Since it’s doomed anyway, you go for the less intrusive, less dangerous procedure. The goal, the ‘why’ is the same in both approaches – end the pregnancy. The double effect shtick isn’t credible for one second here. Not that anyone sane would cut out the tube anyway.
Nice work, Blackadder.
Kurt,
I’m thinking that in order to do a halfway decent treatment of why I’m generally down on unions, I’d have to write something long enough I should make it a post over on my blog rather than cluttering up Blackadder’s comments with something unrelated.
David Nickol,
The Church teaches that human dignity is such that workers should be allowed to freely associate for the purposes of negotiating with their employers. My issue with unions as they currently exist in the US is that they attempt to _require_ membership of all employees at a given company. Association isn’t free if you force people to be members.
I don’t have a problem with collective bargaining if it’s voluntary for the empoyees, and there are certainly times and places where unions or other workers associations have been needed in order to keep the excesses of unjust employers in check, but at this time in the US, most of the unions that I have run into strike me as tools of selfishness rather than liberation — and often they destroy the industries that that they are successful in, and hurt the workers in the long run.
There may be a few people (who think that the Church is the Democratic party at prayer) who would say that puts me outside the Church, but having read the social encyclicals, I don’t think so.
Kurt,
I’m thinking that in order to do a halfway decent treatment of why I’m generally down on unions, I’d have to write something long enough I should make it a post over on my blog rather than cluttering up Blackadder’s comments with something unrelated.
That’s fine, but I was only asking that, taking an example such as the paperworkers or auto parts production, for you to explain for me the negotiation between employees and employers?
Well, I don’t have a lot of specific knowledge about paperworkers or auto parts production (and I’m guessing since you name them that you do) but if you think about it, ever instance in which an employer offers a specific wage and an employee either accepts it or rejects it is at least an implicit if not an explicit negotiation.
Looking back at my own work experience, I can list of two instances in which I either quit a job or refused to take a job because the pay was too low — and in both cases they came back to me after a week and offered me the money I wanted. That kind of thing is more common with skilled jobs, but it happens at a macro level in less skilled jobs as well.
Eight years back (while finishing college) I spent six months working at a call center in West Virginia as their training manager. One of the first things I was asked to do was call all their ex-employees and tell them that the company had just raised the base pay from $7/hr to $8/hr and that weekend work was no longer required. This netted several very full training classes, and pretty soon the sales floor was full again after being half full when I arrived. I would assume that whatever else this guys had gone off to do after quiting that company in turn had to raise wages somewhat as their labor pool dried up.
Now, with low skill jobs and a fairly steady stream of people willing to work for very little (say, via immigration) it can be the case that wages don’t rise, or even fall, and so resorting to union tactics becomes very attractive. However, one has to ask oneself if this is necessarily fair to those for whom low wages are their only negotiation tool. If Jose is new in town, doesn’t know anyone, does not have a high school degree and doesn’t speak the language very well, one of the prime ways he can compete for a job is by offering to work for less than others are willing to. If the job he wants (and can do just fine) is controlled by a union shop and has starting wages of $15/hr, he can’t try to get a foothold by offering to work for $12. And since plenty of “natives” who have high school degree and look and sound more like the hiring manager are willing to work for the $15, there’s no reason to hire Jose and he has to go mow lawns for $6/hr instead.
So even when it seems like unions can keep wages higher on low skilled jobs, they’re actually doing so by keeping other workers from being able to negotiate to get those jobs by being willing to work for less.
DarwinCatholic,
Of course, the way things generally work, a union must represent all the workers whether they belong to the union or not. It is not difficult to understand why unions want everyone they represent to be a member, or at least pay dues (or pay something). I can understand agreeing with the Church’s teachings about collective bargaining and believing that unions misuse their power. But unions with no power cannot bargain effectively, and one of the tactics employers use to weaken unions is to try to work things so potential union members can (and will) opt out. This happened to the union I used to belong to.
Regarding your example of Jose, merely because the employer and the employee mutually agree on a wage, that does not make it just. If $15/hour is a just wage and it is the going rate, why should Jose have to work for less? In your example, it sounds very much like Jose is being discriminated against. If he can “do just fine” but has to offer to work for 20% less to get the job, something’s wrong.
Regarding your example of Jose, merely because the employer and the employee mutually agree on a wage, that does not make it just. If $15/hour is a just wage and it is the going rate, why should Jose have to work for less?
Well, just because $15 is the going rate doesn’t necessarily mean that it’s the minimum just wage either. It could just as well be that the organized employees are trying to demand more than a just wage.
It could be that Jose is just being discriminated against, but if (as in my example) he hasn’t been the high school and doesn’t speak the language as well as the workers willing to work for $15, there are reasons why, all other things being equal, the employer would go for someone else. If it’s a low skilled job that has historically paid pretty good wages, it may be that a worker like Jose could do the job just fine — but that people with more qualifications (though not required qualifications) would crowd him out unless he takes the job for less than they’re willing to accept.
Great post and (never thought I’d say this) thoughtful response from MM. Thanks for giving me something to chew on.
DC,
I appreciate your post. The first example doesn’t seem to give any description of an individual employee negotiating over wages, benefits and working conditions. It seems like the employer was out to lunch as to what was needed to retain a productive workforce to the point where he had only half the staff he needed. Late in the game, the employer finally realized he was out of touch with workforce demands and hired a bright, hot-shot training manager, authorizing him to 1) recognize the value of experience by seeking out the former employees, and 2) offering them an across the board $1/hr raise and an improvement in working conditions. Seems to me that if the employees had a forum to collectively discuss wages, benefits and working conditions, the employer may never had got himself into the trouble he did.
Second example, I see you point about Jose. Of course, you can also understand that when Jose offers to work for $12/hour, this doesn’t help Joe, the $15/hr worker who the boss fires in order to give Jose his $12/hr. job. Joe could get his job back from Jose by offering to work for $11/hr it would seem. Maybe if Joe has a lot of charm, the boss will keep him on rather than give Jose his job if he takes a pay cut to $13/hr.
Anyway, rough on Joe if he had made some long term or intermediate term life decisions expecting to have a $15/hr wage — like buying a home, having a baby or enrolling his kid in Catholic school.
Kurt,
On the call center story — perhaps the issue is that I’d not included enough details. When the opened a 200 job call center in the town a couple years before, they’d been packed. People needed jobs and $7 looked pretty good. But at time went by, people had burned out and other low-end employers had raised their wages (example: a former call center employee became the manager of the local pizza hut, raised the delivery driver wages by a couple dollars, and then hired all his old friends). So after a couple years, they found themselves down from 200 employees to 100 and had to raise the pay and conditions to get people back. So though it was long cycle, it was pretty clear a negotiation that was going on. (I don’t know if I count as “hot shot” though, I made $9 and was mainly valued because I was in college and spoke un-accented English — and could work the computers.)
As for Joe and Jose — I’m not sure it necessarily has to be a bleak as you’re concerned. Maybe if the company drops its new hire wage from 15 to 13, it helps the company keep the plan in the US. Or maybe if the company becomes more competitive because it can sell for less, it expands the plant and Joe (who has experience) is offered a more skilled job or a management roll.
But yes, it is potentially rough on Joe. I guess the question is: Can we really stem that off in the long term if Joe is truly working a “low skill” job and only making a decent wage because the union has artificially constricted the labor market. That worked in the 50s and 60s when much of the world was undeveloped, stuck under communism, or trying to rebuilt itself out of the rubble from WW2, but these days it tends to just put the unionized company out of business.
Are we helping Joe by allowing the union to mislead him into thinking you can build a lifelong career on a high school diploma, a union card, and very few transferrable skills, or are we setting him up for a possibly unrecoverable fall in middle age?
DC,
In your first example, it seems to me that the long cycle, in which the company was missing out on business and that better paying jobs could have been created, could have been shortened if management had some forum to relate to their employees (“union” being the usual term for such). It too bad this situation lasted two years.
But more to the point, with Jose and Joe, I wouldn’t accept (nor does the Catholic Church) your premise that the wages are artificially constricted because of unionization. Nor do I accept the premise that unions obstruct worker advancement. More important than those two points, I have serious trouble with the premise that all manual labor jobs are transitional. Millions of Americans will spend their whole life in manual labor jobs because the economy needs and demands this work. Dispensing with the idea of human dignity for manual workers is something I find most troubling. And to suggest that it is just to compensate people as if these are teenage summer jobs when in fact it will be a lifetime for millions very much conflicts with my understanding that all work has dignity, be it manual work or a desk job.
You suggest some “maybes” for the company. I think this is the problem. First it is the company, unilaterally, looking for a solution with relating to the workers. Second, it is guessing at “maybes.”
I would tell you how I would handle the situation you describe with a union, drawing on real events I’m familiar with.
BOSS: Kurt, this plant is not profitable. We are closing it.
Kurt: Well, Boss, the union contract you singed says you have to give us 90 days notice before closing the plant.
BOSS: Right. I made you give up a sick day for that provision.
Kurt: So let’s use these 90 days to see if can make this plant profitable.
BOSS: No dice. I’m riding out the 90 days. Nothing says I have to negotiate with you.
Kurt: Well, I guess I need to print up some flyers for the union members about the job skills classes the union sponsors, see if we can help get them jobs at other union plants and bring in some of the guys from the Labor Council to help them write a resume. On the day the plant closes, we can have the Unemployment Insurance people set up a desk at the union hall so they don’t have to go downtown to apply. Of course, it would be nice if they could set up in the plant and they got an hour of leave to sign up for UI.
BOSS: yeah, well I’m not in the business of being nice. I’m in the business of doing business.
Alternatively:
BOSS: Okay, 90 days. Whadda got?
Kurt: We re-open the contract and cut wages to $14.50.
BOSS: No dice, $14/hour.
Kurt: Listen, you could re-organize the work. Right now you are requiring applicants to pass an English writing test. That’s important to know how to work some of the machinery, but about a fifth of the guys don’t work those machines. We will have two job classifications, general workers and machinists. Machinists get $15.50/hour. General workers get $13. It works out to the same amount of money as paying everyone $14.
BOSS: But when people are out on leave, or sick I can’t move them around as easily.
Kurt: Well, we want to keep the plan open. We get two weeks vacation now. We will agree to change that to one week vacation and a one week plant shutdown in August. For the workers, it’s still two weeks off, except they have to take a week of it in August. This will reduce absenteeism by at least half. It also saves you big bucks in energy costs having the plant closed for a week.
BOSS: This might work.
Kurt: But with the energy savings, any current employees who are not made Machinists stay at $15/hr. New hire general workers make $13. No current employee loses pay. As turnover occurs, you’ll be up to 20% general workers at $13/hr.
BOSS: I’m good with this but I got to run it by the shift managers to see if they see any problems with it.
Kurt: Actually, remember our labor-management affirmative action committee?
BOSS: You know I don’t believe in Affirmative Action.
Kurt: Right. Even though Affirmative Action is not about quotas.
BOSS: Yeah, well I let you have your committee so long as I didn’t have to do anything.
Kurt: And you never read the report?
BOSS: I am a busy man.
Kurt: Well, the report said that there are a lot of immigrants in this area. It also said that some of the work here requires applicants they can read and write English at a certain level that is far beyond what is needed for the job. The report said that Hispanic immigrants are not being hired for jobs they can do because of artificial and unneeded writing standards and that if job qualifications were adjusted to what the job really required, more Hispanics would be hired. If you read the full report, you will find that what we both agreed to had already been looked at by your managers on the affirmative action committee and they said it was fine.
BOSS: I guess we have a deal.
Kurt: I hope so. This will have to be voted on by the workers. One more thing. You said that absenteeism is too high. We have too many workplace injuries here. The company industrial hygienist is a bozo. You need someone qualified in that job. The union doesn’t like it when workers are getting hurt and you shouldn’t like it when workers are out on injury.
BOSS: No deal there. That “bozo” you refer to is my son-in-law.
Kurt: (in is head) I guess we will have to wait to get rid of him until after his wife finds out about his girlfriend.
Kurt,
I think your examples, especially the second one, show a lot of reasonableness and the sense in which unions can sometimes be good for both workers and the company. (Which is a nice change from the public employees union by father was forced to join when the community college he worked at unionized. They stacked the college board with political activists who hired a massively top heavy and overpaid administration — the new college president made more than twice as much as the governor of the state — while driving the college into debt and thus having to freeze wages and lay people off. Plus Dad had to the do the work of the deparment secretary as well as his own, because she’d refused to ever learn how to use a computer when typewriters went out and the union leadership ruled that she couldn’t be terminated because she didn’t do any of her responsibilities other than answering the phone and delivering mail.)
I’ve go to admit, I suspect that any decent company would (if it didn’t have a union to hold it back) figure out the machinist vs. general workers split all on its own — and would dispense with the unnecessary English test even faster. After all, the company has a motive to figure that out, and the union has a motive not to, unless threatened with something like a plant closure or layoff.
On whether unions obstruct advancement: The unionized workplaces I’ve seen (and I’ve refused to work in one — though some of my friends have, so it’s an outsider view) strike me as placing much more emphasis on seniority as opposed to ability. Not to say that there’s no advancement, but it seems to be much slower. Perhaps that’s a result of the general culture in those workplaces and not the unions, but that’s certainly something (other than my personal dislike for the union approach to things) that has turned me off companies that are unionized. (At this point, probably not a danger since I’ve gravitated towards a field that isn’t unionized even at unionized companies.)
On the dignity of manual work: Believe me I think there’s a _lot_ of dignity to manual work. I didn’t mean to suggest (nor do I think it would be the case in the absence of unions) that manual work would all be paid at entry level wages. What I do think is a problem, however, is when unions manage to force artificially high wages for _unskilled_ work.
And _of course_ unions artificially constrict the labor market in order to keep wages up. That’s the whole point of a union shop. The employer cannot hire anyone to fill a given position unless that person is a member of the union, and union members have all agreed that they won’t work that position unless they are paid a certain minimum amount. Even if there are lots of other people in the region who would be quite capable of doing the work, and would consider themselves lucky to make 50% of the union wage for the job, the fact that the union controls access to the position allows the union to keep the pay well above market rates.
This works so long as business is booming, but when other manufacturers elsewhere in the world get into the market, you get a situation like modern Detroit.
DC,
I’m sory to read about your father’s bad experience with unions and probably can’t offer anything better then the times I’ve counseled friends who report to me their bad experience with the Catholic Church.
You tell me above that any decent company would dispense with an unneccesary English test. My personal experience is to the contrary, but more to the point, I took that from the scenario YOU wrote; of Jose able to do the job but others with better English skills blocking his entrance (“Joe”, as I named him).
Your example as to how unions constrict the labor market descibes a “closed shop.” Closed shops have been illegal since the Taft-Hartley Act was passed in 1947. That’s when there still was a Czechoslovakia !
Unions and advancement is also a topic where I’m not sure you fully understand the role of unions and how they help their members’ advance, but maybe if you would elaborate more I would have a better understanding of your point.
What exactly is the difference between a “closed shop” and a “union shop”, then?
I know that when my father’s college was unionized, those who had voted against unionizing (or otherwise were not members of the union) were given three options: join the union, don’t join the union but pay a fee to the union basically equal to union dues, or be terminated. (People hired afterwards had to join the union as a condition of employment.)
Similarly, when my wife was stagemanaging in Los Angeles, union shop theatres would only hire members of the stage hands union. You could only join the union if you’d worked at least three shows. So the way to get in was to work for free (the theatre was allowed to take up donations, if they wanted to, for the “interns”) for three union shows so that you could join the union and actually paid to work.
A closed shop is where an employer makes you join a union as a condition of employment. A union shop is where an employer doesn’t require you to join a union or pay union dues as a condition of employment, but must fire you after 90 days if you don’t do so. Doesn’t strike me as being a terribly big difference.
The difference is signficant in that in a union shop, the union must accept anyone who the boss hires as a member of the union. Therefore, responding to DC’s point in raising the matter, there is no ability for the union to constrict employment. The employer CAN hire anyone. The union is required by law to represent all persons in the bargaining unit, even if the person pays neither dues nor an agency fee and even if the cost of representation (say, in a discrimination or Workers’ Comp action) costs the union thousands of dollars. Unions do not have the legal right to only represent a portion of a unit.
The difference is signficant in that in a union shop, the union must accept anyone who the boss hires as a member of the union. Therefore, responding to DC’s point in raising the matter, there is no ability for the union to constrict employment.
They may not be able to constrict employment directly, but they do do so indirectly by making unionized firms less productive and profitable than they otherwise would be.
The union is required by law to represent all persons in the bargaining unit, even if the person pays neither dues nor an agency fee and even if the cost of representation (say, in a discrimination or Workers’ Comp action) costs the union thousands of dollars.
Yes. That seems, to me at least, to be a manifest injustice.
constrict employment…indirectly by making unionized firms less productive and profitable.
Certainly if we presume organized capital is, by its nature, virtuous and organized workers are, by their nature, not virtuous, that is a fair conclusion. However, if we take to heart the Church’s teaching which rejects a Calvinist view of the nature of man and the social encyclicals which speak of the moral good of workers forming associations, you then have a more difficult time supporting that premise.
Certainly if we presume organized capital is, by its nature, virtuous and organized workers are, by their nature, not virtuous, that is a fair conclusion.
The fact that unionization will tend to make firms less productive and profitable is not dependent on whether “organized capital” (by which I presume you mean employers) or organized workers are virtuous. The rain falls on the just and unjust alike, and the law of supply and demand applies equally to saints and to the wicked.
Unless I am much mistaken, however, in a union shop the union still sets the pay range for each type of position based on its agreement with the employer. So while an employer may be able to hire whoever he wants, he can for a $15/hr position only hire “people who work for at least $15/hr” not “people who work for $12/hr”.
So sure, the company may be able to hire anyone (so long as that person later joins or pays the union) but the company is not able thus to seek a lower cost of labor — and depending on the rules may also not be able to seek higher productivity by combining roles that the union defines as separate.
I don’t think we need to assume anything in particular about the virtue or vice of employers or employees (and it would certainly be a relief on this blog to have a conversation in which “Calvinism” is never brought it) — it’s simply that in some situations (and union situations especially) the empoyees and the company have different interests. I don’t doubt that, as per various encyclicals, there are situations in which it is necessary for workers to organize in order to seek just wages and safe working conditions. (And indeed, I think it’s far better for companies in the long run if they do pay just wages and have safe working conditions.) However, once unions come into be as a standing entity, they need a reason for being to justify they money they take away from workers — and that reason for being tends to be squeezing above market wages and benefits out of employers while preventing reductions in pay or workforce that an employer might otherwise make as a result of improved productivity. What this means is that unionized companies tend over the long term to have higher cost models, innovate more slowely, and be less competitive than un-unionized companies. And in the long run this only serves to hurt the union employees. All of which we’ve been seeing play out in recent years in everything from the auto industry to the grocery stores.
The ideal, I would hope everyone agrees, is that the employees want the business to succeed, and the business wants to see that the employees enjoy the fruits of that success. In situations that become adversarial, the business tries to give the employees as little as possible in order to score bigger profits, or the empoyees trying to milk the company for as much money/benefits as possible while doing the minimum amount of work — and both of these extremes usually end up hurting everyone in the long run.
DC,
Well, I think you are mistaken, at least under US labor law. I know little of overseas standards. No, a union cannot define roles (position descriptions or work duties) nor can a union set a pay range for a position. The workers and management can jointly come up with an agreement as to wage rates and job duties for the duration of a contract. Few would argue that in these negotiations, management does not have the upper hand. Further, federal law includes a long list of topics that it is illegal for the union to attempt to bargain over and which are reserved as management prerogatives. Typically, a contract will set pay rates for certain jobs for the duration of the contract, so yes, you are correct that the union bargains so to prevent Jose walking in the door and offering to do Joe’s job for $3/hr less (or, more commonly, management seeking a Jose). When the term of the contract is up, management is free to seek lower labor costs. Management usually bargains to include “re-openers” in contracts so if there is an economic reason, wages can be re-negotiated mid-contract. However, a labor-management contract usually does give workers some stability in their lives that as they take out a mortgage (a 30 year commitment), start a planning (a 18+ year commitment) or enroll a child in Catholic school (up to a 12 year commitment), they are not threatened with the loss of livelihood the day someone walks in the door offering to do their job for less.
The various social encyclicals do not propose that there are some situations in which it is necessary for workers to organize in order to seek just wages and working conditions. The letters teach that it is normative (not extraordinary) for workers to form unions and it is a reflection of the social nature of man.
I too think the ideal is that employees want the business to succeed and the business wants to see the employees enjoy some of the fruits of that success. Putting all power in one party’s hands does not seem to be something that promotes such a goal. Giving workers a voice at work, even the limited voice American labor law allows, seems to be essential to achieving that balance. Giving workers a written contract so that they know what is expected of them and what are their rewards and duties of their job does not seem extraordinary nor one step away from Sovietization. To me is seems to respect the dignity of work.
I’ll close with telling you about my week. I had two interactions of note. One a worker from a unionized workplace with a story I have heard a surprising number of times from both union and non-union workers. Three months ago he put in for leave and was approved. He put down a non-refundable deposit of $1,200 to take his family to Orlando. Last week, management rescinded his leave. He makes less than $30K/yr. The union steward managed to fix it for him. Second incident, a non-union employee who was dismissed from her job without a reason given to her. I had the circular discussion with her I have had many times before. The boss can’t do that. Why not? Its unfair. So, its unfair. Can’t I sue? Because your boss was unfair? No. Why not? What law was violated? There must be some law. It’s called ‘at-will employment.’ No reason or notice need be given.
I hate the second incident. They always look at me like I am lying and I think they hate me for not giving them the answer they want.
The various social encyclicals do not propose that there are some situations in which it is necessary for workers to organize in order to seek just wages and working conditions.
I assume you meant “do propose” rather than “do not propose.” In any event, I would note that while Catholic Social Thought does indeed support the right of workers to associate, the model of unionism traditionally contemplated by CST is quite different than model which prevails in America today.
I’m all for man being a more social creature — though on the flip side none of the union workplaces I’ve seen have done any union-based socializing. (The unions seemed to function more like a parallel, self-funded HR department.)
As for in whose hands the power generally ends up — all of my experience has been in dealing with skilled jobs: office and warehouse. But I’ve helped with hiring at my current company and my previous one, and in both cases we were always simply desperate to find good people, and invariably willing to pay a fair step up from what the best candidate had made at his or her previous job. Getting a good person who seemed willing to stick around for a long time was _always_ the number one concern, and so in that sense the power was at least equally distributed, even though none of these involved unions.
Now I understand that with low-skill jobs, that’s not as much the case. (Though you still want a hard working, dedicated person who will get along with other workers and learn on the job and move up — I would assume.) And I guess I really find it hard to believe that a truly “low skill” (as in, you could pretty readily get rid of someone with five years experience and replace him with somene cheaper with no experience with no loss of productivity or quality) job is something any adult should be counting on for a long term career.
A final thought, and I’ll leave it alone:
There are certainly non-union approaches to worker solidarity. From my last-week experience:
One of the women on our team (six people counting manager) had a miscarriage last week. Our boss told her to take the whole week off. There’s a paid time off and a paid medical time off account that we each have, but as per usual practice at this company, we simply won’t report this instance since it was an emergency and involuntary. We made up the load by a couple of us (the boss most of all) working an extra couple hours each day. Since we’re all salaried rather than hourly, her time out and our extra hours are no cost and invisible so long as all the work gets done. And indeed, we managed to keep on top of everything so that she had not extra load when she felt ready to come back.
Blackadderiv,
Sorry for the awkward phrasing. What I meant is the Church does not consider trade unions as a response only for some special situations but recommends unions as a general good. In other words, not as something extraordinary to respond to extraordinary abuses but ordinary to respond to ordinary concerns.
Cardinal Gibbons made the case in Rome of the American model of trade unionism and received papal approval. In the immediate postwar period, the Holy See applied the American model to the Church Universal. Also, it was very kind of the Holy Father to appoint AFL-CIO President John Sweeney as a lay advisor to the Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace. I have a longer article on this topic I can send you privately.
DC,
I don’t know of an HR office that elects its head and all other officers, holds monthly meetings open to any employee, submits all major decisions to a vote of the general membership, makes the financial files open to inspection of the employees and can proudly claim it was their bowling team that integrated bowling leagues in America.
Yes, certainly there are non-union examples of worker solidarity.