By Tony Campolo
Whenever there are proposals for social change by progressives, whether they be for a plan to save the environment, calls for a just tax code; raising the minimum wage to 15 dollars an hour, establishing universal health care, or a creating a just distribution of wealth, there is likely to be strong resistance from those corporate leaders whose vested interest is to maintain the status quo.
There is little doubt that the power and wealth of the captains of business and industry are far too great in today’s society. The incomes of top corporate executives have reached obscene levels, especially when compared to the incomes of most other Americans. In 1945, according to one estimate, there was a 35 to one dollar ratio when the incomes of executives of major corporations were compared with the average incomes of the workers in their companies. Today, that ratio is 350 to one. Of great importance is that in many, if not in most cases, the major part of what these executives get paid is not in cash, but rather in shares of stock in their respective companies. They usually have a vested interest, therefore, in maximizing the profits of those companies by paying their workers as little as possible. This is one reason the distribution of wealth in America has become so extremely unbalanced with 22 percent of the nation’s wealth being concentrated in one percent of the population. It takes no genius to recognize that such concentrations of wealth translates into a concentration of power, nor why those who so greatly benefit from the present system have good reason to oppose its being changed.
Once there were positive checks on corporate power. More than 60 years ago, Kenneth Galbraith, the almost legendary economist from Harvard University, referred to these checks as “countervailing powers.” They were the powers of government and labor unions. According to Galbraith, whenever corporate power became too great, the allied powers of government and labor unions were able to curtail corporate power. However, this effective balance of countervailing powers which existed for several decades, has, unfortunately, been negated over the past 20 years.
First, the power of labor unions has been significantly reduced because union membership has dramatically decreased. Labor unions primarily have been made up of industrial workers, and American industrial production has undergone a precipitous decline. A significant amount of industrial production has been gradually shifted to Asian and Latin American countries where U.S. companies could secure cheaper labor. Also, automation has displaced the jobs of many U.S. workers. An often-overlooked cause of declining union membership has been that corporate management often employed propaganda techniques that effectively have made unionizing undesirable to many workers.
Government, the other possible countervailing power, according to Galbraith, that might have served as a check on the growing control that the corporate sector exercises on society, has been significantly diminished because of changes in the financing of political campaigns. The U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling, Citizens United, has made it possible for corporations to highly influence, if not control, what government can do to limit corporate power. That ruling removed most of the limits on the financial contributions that corporations can make to the campaigns of candidates running for office. Corporate contributions to election campaigns now overwhelm what unions and all other donors together can contribute. Will Rogers, the humorist of a century ago, once said, “Nobody should complain about the U.S. Congress. It’s the best Congress that money can buy!” If that was true back in his day, it is even more so today.
Surveys taken by political scientists reveal that corporate leaders generally do not use their unchecked power for the common good. They are more likely to be governed by the self-serving principles of Ayn Rand and the doctrines of social Darwinism. Their unbridled capitalism has led, among other social problems, to the degradation of the environment along with the denigration and exploitation of working people both in America and in Third World countries.
This situation, however, is not hopeless. Something can be done to check the growing dominating role of corporate power. Unions could be revitalized! The power of organized labor could be increased if there were a major new effort for recruiting into its membership those hundreds of thousands of American workers who are underpaid and have few benefits such as health care and paternity leave. Consider the 350,000 underpaid workers in the fast food industry, and that even larger group of workers who are in the service sector of the economy. This latter group includes hotel maids, janitors, cleaning personnel, household servants and security guards. The unionization of these often-neglected workers would increase the power of unions significantly. But unionizing such workers may be more difficult than it at first seems because there are laws about unionizing that would have to be changed for this to happen.
There are religious leaders and their followers who have convictions that require a deep commitment to the poor and oppressed, and would likely work for such changes including unionization if they believed that such efforts could make life better for exploited people. Getting religious leaders involved in strengthening unions may not be as unlikely as it at first seems. There is a historical example of this in the late 19th century and early 20th century when church leaders in New York and Chicago lent significant help and legitimation to the labor movement. Biblically-based incentives for social justice motivated many social gospel leaders, such as Walter Rauschenbusch and Washington Gladden, to give support to, and even work to help the labor movement. Together, with labor leaders, they worked to end child labor and to promote such social benefits as the eight-hour workday and the five-day work week. Liberal socially conscious church leaders mobilized support for union initiatives to advance women’s suffrage and the passing of the Social Security Act. As recently as the middle years of the 20th century, church leaders could be found marching arm-in-arm with Martin Luther King to support a union strike for garbage collectors in Memphis, Tennessee.
To once again gain that kind of support from church leaders, as well as from the leaders of other religious groups, unions would have to change their image. Justified or not, a survey of public opinion likely would show that unions are viewed both in negative ways and as being irrelevant as a force for the common good. To many in the religious community, they seem to be interested only in higher wages and better benefits for their members. Furthermore, to a large extent in the public’s mind, there have been too many links between unions and organized crime, as well as evidence of internal corruption. Also, in the early 20th century, union strikes sometimes were marked by violence as well as being infused with Marxist ideologies. For many religious leaders, unions would have to “clean up their act” and portray a more positive image before they would be willing to lend their support.
What would go a long way towards changing their image and gaining the support of religious leaders would be for unions to adopt an overtly socially progressive agenda. Such an agenda would have to show commitments to end racism and sexism, not only in the workplace and in union practices, but in society in general. Also, religious leaders would like to see unions adopt a “green agenda” that promotes environmental responsibility in America’s industries, as well as a commitment to end the exploitation of “sweatshop” workers both in the United States and in developing countries. This latter commitment should be easy for unions to embrace because it has been the exploitation of workers, both at home and abroad, that has taken so many legitimate jobs away from union workers.
There is a good possibility that such a progressive social agenda could gain support for unions among many religious communities. The leaders of those mainline denominations allied with the National Council of Churches, along with most Roman Catholic bishops, as well as many progressive Jewish leaders, likely would consider partnering with unions to further such causes. African-American and Hispanic church leaders, who often opt for social policies that help the poor, would likely join such a coalition of religious leaders. Joining this possible assembly of Christians and Jews would be those Evangelicals who belong to such socially progressive groups as the Red Letter Christian led by activist Shane Claiborne and the Sojourners community, led by best-selling author, Jim Wallis; joining them would also be those who identify with the Poor People’s March, led by Rev. William Barber. While there is some truth to the sarcastic claim that Evangelicals are the Republican Party at prayer, there are a host of Evangelical leaders who march to the beat of a different drummer and many of them could be won over to supporting labor unions should unions embrace a commitment to a social justice agenda.
To grow and once again become the kind of countervailing force that could check the ever-growing power of corporations, the labor movement would benefit greatly if it had a few charismatic leaders such as it had decades ago in Clara Lemlich and, more recently, in Ceasar Chevez. In a media-oriented society there is a need for voices to articulate the vision of justice that the union movement at its best is all about. Doing much to help the labor movement’s image would be for it to be seen as having the support and moral legitimation of religious leaders, such as that which Martin Luther King provided for the Civil Rights movement. When the struggles for economic justice for exploited workers become difficult, there will be a need for voices to declare: “With God all things are possible.” With that kind of leadership, it is even possible to envision inspired justice-oriented young people calling on people to support the movement and conducting membership drives for unions. This could happen if idealistic young men and women could believe that unions were standing up for downtrodden workers who have had no voice.
Too much time and effort has been spent on describing the existential situation when the real challenge is how to change it. Could a pragmatic response be a revitalized social justice-oriented labor movement, undergirded by religious leaders working together for society’s common good? Could such a coalition seeking, not only benefits for union members, but also to serve those whom Jesus called, “the least of these” be the grounds for a new labor movement? Could such a movement become once again, in Kenneth Galbraith’s words, a countervailing force that could check the ever-expanding power of the corporate sector of society?
I can almost hear the question asked centuries ago by the prophet Isaiah: “Who will go for us, and whom shall we send?” I would that a new generation of faith- based activists might answer, “Here we are! Send us!”
— Tony Campolo is one of the most influential Christian leader in the world. Along with Shane Claiborne, Tony created the Red Letter Christian network (www.redletterchristians.org). He is a scholar, author, speaker, and represents the best of the teachings of Jesus. He is a member of the board of directors of Christian Ethics Today.
