EDITORIAL & OPINION — Labour needs a new agenda — Us and them

Canadians and Americans are different in one major way, a visiting foreign businessman once observed. South of the 49th Parallel, the American Dream — the notion that Joe Average can become Top Dog through education, hard work and determination — is alive and strong. The vibrancy of the U.S. economy testifies to the entrenchment of that ethic.

Canadian society, the visitor observed, reflects, to a greater degree, the remnants of the class struggle brought here by British trade unionists after the Second World War.

The best way to describe the difference is with the admittedly simplistic story of an American father who, on seeing a wealthy man drive by in a nice car, tells his son that anyone willing to put his shoulder to the wheel can climb the ladder to prosperity. Including you, my son.

The British trade unionist, faced with the same situation, might tell his son that the rich businessman got the fancy car and riches by “exploiting” the hard work of others. And that workers must fight these “greedy capitalists” to get their fair share of the pie. Including you, my son.

Of course, this difference does not cut through all Canadian society. Nor is it particularly well-entrenched, because, before the last world war, Canadians and Americans were remarkably similar. Pioneers and immigrants of both countries were a feisty, self-reliant lot, in part because there was no social safety net.

That self-reliance was tested in the Great Depression when millions fell on hard times through no fault of their own. People were willing to work, only there was no work to be had.

But their core values were not lost, and few people showed interest in radical socialism or communism — a romantic ideal in some intellectual and labour circles at the time. They didn’t see the ideas of Karl Marx as a roadmap to a nice house and car and white picket fence.

Notwithstanding this indifference by the masses, the labour movement grew into a powerful force and accomplished many great things from the 1920s through to the 1940s. Members of the movement fought for and won better working conditions and benefits for workers — struggles made easier by labour shortages in the post-war economic boom.

Labour’s identity crisis began in the 1950s and 1960s, when prosperity eliminated many of the hardships of the past. Union raiding then became the main focus. Labour is being criticized now for lacking vision, for being too polarized and too entrenched in an anachronistic view of employer-employee relationships, and for promoting the politics of envy — the notion that one person has the right to covet another’s earned wealth.

The labour movement has other challenges. Membership is declining, in accordance with a decline in many traditional, labour-intensive industries, and the movement’s political cornerstone, the New Democratic Party (NDP), has moved progressively more to the centre, away from labour-related issues per se. And the labor movement is not finding many converts in the growing high-technology and information sector.

To add insult to injury, unionized workers aren’t toeing the political party line. An auto worker in Oshawa, earning a good buck only to see fifty cents taken off the top, can not be blamed for liking the latest round of tax cuts proposed by Ontario Premier Mike Harris.

The biggest irony of all for unionized workers is that their own pension funds — huge by any measure — are being used to invest in capitalist enterprises that have boosted earnings by downsizing their workforce. Public workers, in particular, have huge pools of pension capital. Yet, there is no evidence that investments are made on any principle other than profit. There is hypocrisy here that no one wants to acknowledge or address.

We’re not saying the labour union does not have a role to play in creating a better society. It does. But what it requires is a vision for the future based on reality, not outdated values and ideas.

Unionized workers have the financial clout to become owners and co-owners of business enterprises, yet few make this crossover. For example, the labour movement could become more involved in micro-credit lending to small businesses, here and abroad, providing an umbrella for such things as worker-owned, free-enterprise co-operatives.

One thing is certain: the labour movement must evolve if it is to remain relevant in the next century. We can only wait and watch to see if rises to the challenge.