Union enthusiasts should support abundance

You want it to be one way, but it’s the other.

A union worker poses with his hard hat. (Photo by Nitat Termmee)

Kate Andrias and Alexander Hertel-Fernandez produced a report for the Roosevelt Institute back in April, arguing that abundance-oriented advocates and intellectuals should do more to cater to labor union interests.

When I heard them present a version of this argument at a conference earlier this year, I raised what I thought were some good points during Q&A, namely that to create a labor/abundance synthesis, the change should probably go in the opposite direction. Abundance, as it currently exists and is articulated, has a lot to offer American labor unions on the merits, and people who believe in the union movement ought to make that point to labor leaders themselves and encourage them to adopt the abundance-related ideas that would be good for unions. The authors clearly do not agree, so I’m going to restate my argument here.

Before we get to that, though, I want to flag that my less interesting critique of their paper is that they are not taking the dynamics of pro-union politics seriously enough.

The union’s job is always to ask for more.

If you’re a backbench legislator representing a safe seat, then there’s no particular problem with saying “yes” to every ask from every union. That won’t actually translate into policy because the mayor or the governor or the president or the frontliners in the legislature will say no to at least some stuff. The unions define as “pro labor” the backbenchers who back them on everything, and that sets the bar for what it takes to be a “pro-labor” politician.

The problem is that you can’t actually run a city or a state or a country on the basis of saying yes to everything that every labor union asks for. It doesn’t work. It doesn’t even really make sense, conceptually, because a union that’s getting everything it asks for just isn’t asking for enough stuff.

If you want to formulate a governing agenda, that agenda can’t be “give labor everything they ask for.” This is why the authors don’t really engage with specifics. The Washington Teachers’ Union was assertively campaigning for prolonged school closures during last winter’s snowstorms. Do Andrias and Hertel-Fernandez really think everyone should just reflexively agree with that ask regardless of the broader impact on the city?

I’m skeptical.

But enough complaining! Because the main thing I have to say is that embracing abundance would be good for labor.

The forgotten conflicts

Labor-oriented intellectuals are often eager to pick fights with moderates who sometimes disagree with some labor unions about some public policy issues, but they forget that these conflicts run in multiple directions.

The International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, for example, loves data centers.