Comments in Our Sunday Visitor

I recently commented in an article that appeared in Our Sunday Visitor about the relationship between the United States Catholic Church leaders and institutions with their employees. The article provides a few historical examples, including the 1949 gravediggers strike in New York.

Unions, yes. But when the Church is employer?

By Brian Fraga
Despite Catholic teaching on workers’ rights to organize, U.S. Church leaders and institutions have often had a history of strained relationships with their employees, in some cases busting unions and intimidating workers into silence, say labor movement experts.

One of the most notorious cases cited by scholars occurred in 1949, when Cardinal Francis Spellman, then the archbishop of New York, used seminarians to break a strike by low-paid gravediggers at Gate of Heaven Cemetery in Hawthorne, N.Y.

Cardinal Spellman blamed communist agitators for influencing the workers. Dorothy Day, founder of the Catholic Worker movement, which supported the gravediggers, wrote a letter to the cardinal, whom she said had been “ill-advised” and exercised “so overwhelming a show of force against a handful of poor working men.”

Battling unions 

That episode was not an isolated incident of Church-sanctioned union busting, and marked a troubling shift in Catholic employer-worker relations, according to Joseph J. Fahey, director of labor studies at Manhattan College in New York.

Fahey told Our Sunday Visitor that a lack of knowledge about Catholic social teaching among Church leaders and the removal of religious sisters and priests from the day-to-day operations of institutions have enabled anti-union sentiments.

“In the hospitals, laypeople have been hired to run the hospitals who often come from secular business environments,” Fahey said. “And what businesses do is fight unions.”

There are several recent examples of Catholic-labor tensions. In 2008, now-retired Bishop Joseph F. Martino of Scranton, Pa., unilaterally de-certified the Scranton Diocese Association of Catholic Teachers, the union that represented diocesan educators for 30 years.

Bishop Martino replaced the union with a diocesan-managed employee relations program that the union head called a “company union.”

When the union appealed to the Vatican, it ruled that Bishop Martino did not violate civil or Church law, and that unions are not the only way to guarantee dignity and justice for employees. The diocese then issued a statement noting that the decree “refutes what some people have erroneously charged: that Bishop Martino was violating Church teaching or social doctrine regarding labor unions.”

Last year, the National Labor Relations Board called upon Borgess Medical Center, located in Kalamazoo, Mich., to appear before a hearing after the Michigan Nurses Association accused Borgess of trying to bust the union. Borgess, a member of Ascension Health Network, the largest U.S. Catholic health-care chain, reached a contract earlier this year with the nurses union, which withdrew its unfair labor practice complaint.

Health care flash point 

Sister Monica McGloin, a Dominican Sister of Hope who is also a member of the Cincinnati Interfaith Committee for Worker Justice, told Our Sunday Visitor that “the record was poor” for Catholic-labor relations.

“I think that, especially in Catholic health care institutions, we have seen a long-running resistance allowing staff members to vote on unions,” Sister McGloin said.

“I was involved in a project in Michigan last summer where we were hosting a faith delegation to hear from people in the Catholic health care system. It became very clear from the conversations that there were union-busting activities.”

Fahey said Catholic social teaching is unequivocal in saying that labor unions are an indispensable part of social justice in that they protect workers’ rights, guarantee their freedom to associate while fostering subsidiarity and solidarity.

Fahey argues that Catholic employers have increasingly developed an anti-union animus, in many cases even contracting “union avoidance firms” that boast of their ability to keep unions out of the workplace.

But Father Robert Sirico, president of the free-market think-tank, the Acton Institute, said there is a popular distortion about how Catholic social teaching views unions. Even in the 1949 gravedigger strike, Father Sirico said, Cardinal Spellman acted only after the union had already rejected a 3 percent raise offer. There were also 1,000 bodies waiting to be buried in the cemetery. “This should be a clear example of the legitimacy of breaking a strike,” he said.

Father Sirico said that if there is any problem in the Church institutions’ dealings with workers, it is that employees are often kept on even if their performance is deleterious to the mission. He said it is incumbent upon Church administrators to make efficient use of their money since the faithful has entrusted them with those resources.

‘Conflict and contention’ 

Fahey said that Church-affiliated schools, hospitals and social service institutions have increasingly cracked down on unionizing attempt since the Cardinal Spellman episode.

Years of constant hostilities surrounding workers’ attempts to unionize at Catholic hospitals led the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops in 2009 to publish a document, titled “Respecting the Just Rights of Workers: Guidance and Options for Catholic Health Care and Unions,” meant to provide guidelines for fair labor negotiating processes.

The document called for Catholic hospitals to not use “traditional anti-union practices,” such as employing union-busting firms, while requesting that unions not adopt public campaigns for leverage in negotiations.

The bishops wrote: “We all know that there can be risks in dialogue. ... But some instances of conflict and controversy surrounding Catholic health care and labor have diminished Catholic values, health care ministry, the labor movement and our common commitment to a fair and just workplace.

“None of us — Catholic health care, the labor movement, or the Church — has been well served by the status-quo with all of its conflict and contention.”

Sister McGloin said the bishops’ guidelines were observed in January when 6,500 hospital workers of Ohio-based Catholic Healthcare Partners voted against unionizing.

“They had a process where neither the union or the institution interfered,” she said.

Commentary on Catholics and Unions in the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel

In today’s Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, I have a new opinion piece published that looks at “the protests in Wisconsin against the changes in collective bargaining for public-sector unions” through the lens of Catholic social thought:

Catholic teaching’s pro-union bias

There is a long-standing bias in Catholic social teaching toward unions, and this dates from the long history of labor struggles for fair wages and safe working conditions. There is a romance associated with this history, and it is bound up with strong moral concerns. And it is not just historical. The Catholic Church played a heroic role in the fall of Communism in Poland through its influence on labor unions that were striking against oppression, which is to say state coercion.

Pope John Paul II, who knew something about the social role of labor unions, also warned about their drift into politics. In his encyclical Laborem Exercens, he wrote: "Unions do not have the character of political parties struggling for power; they should not be subjected to the decision of political parties or have too close links with them."

The reality with all public affairs, however, is that conditions change. Just because something is called a union does not make it automatically good and moral. Essential considerations of justice and freedom must be in place. Generally speaking, the long history of unions has been bound up with the right of free association. So far as I can tell, the current practice of public-sector union organizing has little or nothing to do with this principle, so it is right and proper that Catholic social teaching should also recognize this.

This reality comes to mind because of the protests in Wisconsin against proposed changes in collective bargaining for public-sector unions. But the driving force behind the budgetary move has nothing to do with human rights, unless one considers the rights of Wisconsin taxpayers.

The alarming reality of state and federal overspending and debt is something that cannot be denied. Prudent and necessary cuts must be made in the Wisconsin budget, and state employees must be part of that plan. How do public-sector unions fit into this? It is nearly impossible for anyone to work for the public sector without being a member, and unions collect dues, which operate like taxes for most everyone else.

This was not always the case. Public-sector unions emerged after World War II in the wake of the crack-up of many big-city political machines, and they were a convenient way for government employees to extract higher salaries and benefits at public expense.

What does this have to do with the freedom of association? Industrial unions have been on the decline for decades precisely because of the freedom of association. Organizing activity for years has shifted to the public sector, where union political contributions carry a lot of weight. Unions that remain strong are that way because they push against the freedom of association, denying alternatives to workers and taxpayers.

A one-time member of a Wisconsin union, Stephen J. Haessler, tells me: "My previous experience with agency shop as a former member of a WEAC (Wisconsin Education Association Council) local affiliate is instructive. I opposed my dues monies going to endorse pro-choice political candidates, but my opinions and preferences did not matter because dues were automatically deducted from my pay whether I joined the union or not. This was a violation of the principle of the freedom of association."

Here's the question Catholics need to ask themselves: Are the unions I support of the same type that are idealized in Catholic social teaching? Or have they changed to the point where they are unions in name only but actually just political machines for coercing workers and extracting money through the political process?

The bias toward unions in Catholic social teaching is rooted in a perception that unions fulfill certain moral conditions. When they fail to do so, the application of moral teaching can change. There is no a priori reason to back every union demand and no reason for Catholics to feel under any doctrinal obligation to do so.

 

Interview: Catholics vs. Gov. Walker?

I have done an interview with Catholicvote.org’s Kathryn Lopez about the protests in Wisconsin.  Here is an excerpt:

 

Lopez: Is there a Catholic position on the tea party and tightening the fiscal belt? If Congress starts really taking on entitlement reform, will the Church be protesting?

Fr. Sirico: Of course there is no specific Catholic position on the tea party or the specifics of entitlement reform. As the social-teaching tradition has stated consistently, the Church has not specific economic or political policy prescriptions to offer. The Church offers principles such as freedom, human dignity, solidarity, and subsidiarity. The application of these principles is largely up to the lay faithful who must prudently apply them in real life, and maintain a spirit of charity when the disagree on their respective applications. Beware anyone who tells you what “the Catholic position” is on the tea party, the specifics of budget debates or entitlement reforms. These are matters of prudence, not dogma. In fact, it’s often the case that the person trying to tell you that this is the Catholic position on a prudential issue turns out to be an incorrigible dissenter on the true non-negotiables of Catholic faith and morality! They know who they are.

In terms of entitlement reform and fiscal belt-tightening, much will depend on what they consist of. Catholic social teaching is not blind to the excesses of the welfare state and has underscored the damage it can inflict upon a society’s moral ecology and economy. Obviously the Church must pay attention to how entitlement reform affects the least among us, but with attention to the common good of society. Indeed, it might even be an opportunity for the Church in America to reflect upon how we can better help our brothers and sisters in need without simply assuming that yet another government program or unaffordable entitlement will help resolve the problem in the long term.

Read the entire interview at Catholicvote.org.

2011 Acton Lecture Series: Inaugural Lecture on Christian Poverty

I recently spoke at the inaugural lecture of the 2011 Acton Lecture Series on February 3rd in Grand Rapids, Michigan.  My talk was titled “Christian Poverty in the Age of Prosperity.”

Appearing on EWTN Discussing the Federal Budget and the Deficit

Raymond Arroyo, host of EWTN’s World Over program, has invited me on the show tonight (Thursday, February 17, 8:00 p.m. Eastern) to discuss the federal budget as a “moral document” and the mounting federal deficit.  I am sure the conversation will also explore other important faith and policy issues of the day. 

 

Please check your local cable listings or tune in live online here.

 

'Social Justice' is a complex concept

A column by Anthony M. Stevens-Arroyo, a Catholic writer for the Washington Post, makes the claim that "Catholic social justice demands a redistribution of wealth." He went on to say that "there can be no disagreement" that unions, the government and private charities should all have a role in fighting a trend that has "concentrated" money into the hands of the few. In this conjecture Stevens-Arroyo confused the ends with potential means.

What Stevens-Arroyo is promoting is an attenuated and truncated vision of "social justice" that has fostered a great deal of injustice throughout the world. This path, he should know, has been decisively repudiated by the Church.

He also betrays a strange split in thinking common to those on the religious left, who are quick to denounce the profit motive and commercialism. Yet, they seem to think that the key to happiness is giving people more stuff — by enlisting the coercive power of government. This perverse way of thinking holds that "social justice" demands that we take money from those who have earned it and give it to those who have less of it. That's not social justice; that's materialism.

A friend and colleague, Arthur Brooks, a social researcher who is now president of the American Enterprise Institute, has shown that what makes people truly happy is a system that "facilitates earned success among its citizens and does not create disincentives to achieve or squash ambition." That's the market economy.

The incredible growth of economies in places like China and India isn't happening because wealth was being shifted around, but because wealth is being created.

What happens when wealth is "redistributed" is obvious now.

We're seeing the train wreck of the "social assistance state" in Europe.

In his 1991 social encyclical "Centesimus Annus," Pope John Paul II warned that a bloated state "leads to a loss of human energies and an inordinate increase in public agencies, which are dominated more by bureaucratic ways of thinking than by concerns for serving their clients, and which are accompanied by an enormous increase in spending." I call that prophetic.

Let's also be clear that the Church's teaching condemns the idolatry of money and material goods.

The Church finds another way, neither condemning market activities nor exalting them beyond their rightful place in the grand scheme of things. It asks us to work for the highest good and to contribute as we can our time, talents and wealth that we have earned for the betterment of the world. The Church also demands that we build just systems of trade that enable the poor to be the agents of their own betterment.

So let's drop these false notions about what constitutes the Church's understanding of social justice.

A system that pits the haves against the have-nots, with politicians and bureaucrats acting as referees, should be rejected by anyone sincerely interested in building a just social order.

 

Civility, not just after tragedy

The tragic shootings in Tucson that left U.S. Rep. Gabrielle Giffords gravely wounded and a score of others dead or wounded have sparked a national discussion about how we conduct our public discourse.

This is something we should all welcome, in an age of instantaneous media and its often vitriolic political and social debate.

For those of us who are Christians, our guide should always be to speak the truth in love. That is, we witness to the truths that are revealed to us by the Lord, without shying away from critical issues or glossing over important differences we have with others. This is especially important in an era of globalization and the need for greater interfaith relations, where words or phrases can so easily be misunderstood. And it’s possible to have this dialogue in a reasonable and respectful fashion.

Yet, I find it not a little strange that many of the voices calling now for civility and temperance in our political discourse were, not long ago, either silent in the face of hateful language or participants.

I speak, of course, of the religious left, which was so much a part of the “Bush derangement syndrome” in recent years and, with the rise of the tea party movement, seems to have shifted its fire in that direction.

Take, for example, the Rev. Jim Wallis, the self-appointed chaplain to the Democratic National Committee, who in recent weeks has become an apostle of civility. This is the same man who said this in response to the “shellacking” that the Democrats got in November: “There was very little values-narrative in this election. And there was almost no attention to the faith community and its concerns.”

Really? This was true of those millions of Americans who were pushing back against out-of-control government spending, ruinous debt, an intrusive and badly flawed health care bill, and a general sense that our nation was losing its moral bearings?

Remember, if you will, the invective and hate hurled at former President George W. Bush over the Hurricane Katrina response. Entertainer Kanye West famously said at the time that Bush “doesn’t care about black people.”

Where was the hue and cry from the liberal pastors and priests over West’s outrage? In fact, former Sen. Bill Frist, a physician, said the Bush administration funding for AIDS relief and malaria eradication programs for Africa probably saved 10 million lives worldwide.

Following the election of Bush in 2000, the Rev. Jesse Jackson called for a “civil rights explosion.” He stood in front of the Supreme Court and vowed to “take to the streets right now, we will delegitimize Bush, discredit him, do whatever it takes, but never accept him.” I had my differences with Bush on a number of important issues. But he endured eight years of attacks, some of them vile, like this and the “social justice” ministers said nothing about it.

We all need to raise the level of public discourse, and not just as it applies to our political favorites. The Christian’s calling is to purify the heart, because it is the seat of the passions. And all actions begin there.

St. John Chrysostom, in a famous homily on fasting, warned us not to be too legalistic in its observance. More important than the foods we are abstaining from are our actions and the “disgraceful and abusive words” which we sometime use to “chew up and consume one another.” In this he echoes the words of Jesus Christ, who taught us that “what goes into a man’s mouth does not make him unclean, but what comes out of his mouth, that is what makes him unclean” (Matthew 15:11).

The point here is to remind us that our words have weight and effect. Yes, let’s proclaim the truth, and do it in a civil and even a loving fashion. That’s the civility that both the left and the right deserve.