Hey Mr. Green,
Since when did the Sierra Club start taking up union issues? My yearly dues say, “Stick to the environment," but I recently got a message from the Club urging me to support the Employee Free Choice Act.
–Paul in Richmond, California
The Sierra Club's position on the Employee Free Choice Act is based on the need to build green alliances and coalitions to promote a green economy. Many unions have been strong advocates for safety standards to protect their members from toxic substances and pollutants. In these industrial situations, the health of a union's workers coincides exactly with the goals of the environmental movement. Moreover, the growth of a green economy will be much stronger if it offers well-paid, safe jobs that union protection can provide.
The Employee Free Choice Act would allow employees to choose to unionize a workplace by simply by signing cards rather than going through an election process. It’s well-known that employers can intimidate or even fire pro-union workers during elections to decide on unionization, causing unions to lose. This is why Free Choice legislation is so important to labor. Seems to me that's not asking for much.
Alliance with unions is not something new for the Sierra Club. In the early 1990s, for example, the Club (and some other major environmental groups) allied with labor in opposing the North American Free Trade Act (NAFTA). They rightly predicted that outsourcing jobs to countries with weak environmental laws would amount to outsourcing pollution.
More recently, the Club has been joining with unions like the steelworkers in the Apollo Alliance, which is pushing for major government support of clean energy. In advocating for green projects, the unions have common cause with environmentalists because it in the unions' interest to create jobs in this area. (The mere fact that installing alternative-energy equipment can't be outsourced is something both groups can take comfort in.)
Beyond these specific issues, because the unions generally support pro-environmental political candidates, stronger unions generally promote stronger environmental policies. The depressing rise of anti-environmental policies since the Reagan administration is, in my opinion, related to the decline in union membership. In the mid-1950s, 35 percent of the workforce was unionized. By 1983 it had dropped to 20 percent, and now stands at 12 percent. It's also likely that erosion of union membership is one of the causes the oft-bemoaned demise of the middle class. What this means for the green economy is simply that the typical homeowner has less to spend on green technologies.
Having said all this, I'm realistic enough to understand that tree-huggers and construction workers aren’t gonna be smooching inside the cabins of earth-moving machines any time soon. Environmental interests can crash head-on with union interests, as, for example, when construction unions push for development and road-building that environmentalists oppose, or when autoworkers were as gung-ho for producing gas-guzzling SUVs as their bosses were. Such differences are bound to occur because the unions' foremost concern is jobs and income for their members. But even where there is serious discord, if environmentalists move closer to unions, they will be in a much better position to enlist union backing for green projects. Despite inevitable clashes between environmentalists and unions, in the long run, stronger unions will beget stronger environmental policies.
The perception of unions today is often based upon old models, when the US had many more jobs based upon manufacturing. It should be noted that most union workers in this day and age are public sector...teachers, librarians, nurses, janitors, firemen, etc.
What many folks don't know is that the "rank and file" at the Sierra Club chose to unionize some years back too!
Construction unions still exist, but they have largely been busted by development interests, who now often bypass trained and skilled union workers for unskilled and often undocumented workers.
I applaud the Green movement for aligning with what is left of the union movement! As Mr. Green notes, our mutual opposition to NAFTA is evidence of where we (coulda, shoulda) might have effected change. Sadly, we lost that battle, and the ramifications are enormous.
Posted by: ProudtobeAmerican | June 09, 2009 at 07:14 PM
I don't agree that the Sierra Club should be taking a position on this. In my city a few years ago an attempt to construct a fully "green" building was successfully thwarted by the plumbers union which insisted that only flushable urinals be used (so they'd have the work).
And the small private school I once worked at was closed down because they couldn't afford to install central air-conditioning in the space they wished to renovate (after U. of Penn took over their existing site) as demanded by the local union.
Unions are neither intrinsically good nor bad for the environment - it all depends on the specific situation. We have other battles to fight with our dues!
Posted by: Diana Krantz | July 16, 2009 at 05:28 PM
What many folks don't know is that the "rank and file" at the Sierra Club chose to unionize some years back too!
I applaud the Green movement for aligning with what is left of the union movement!
Posted by: columbia sportswear | December 21, 2011 at 12:50 AM