Building a Strong Union

Labor groups and environmentalists share many common goals—
and a common adversary

Southern Sierran July 2002

By Tom Politeo

On a recent weekend, I ran into a fellow activist I hadn’t seen in about 25 years. I knew him as part of an environmentally-minded group working on Los Angeles harbor issues in the San Pedro-Wilmington area. He had since moved and spent some years being active with Cesar Chavez and the United Farm Workers.

As he lamented about the narrowing of focus over the years in the environmental and labor movements, we reflected on issues that affect both groups. Though different, the two movements share much in common.

Many labor problems are labor problems exactly because they are environmental problems first. Pesticides spayed on our crops and the diesel smog from our ships, trucks and trains harm workers as much as they harm the earth.

Many environmental problems are labor problems first. Low wages, for example, contribute to urban decay—which in turn fosters urban sprawl.

But it seems that many activists myopically view only their own parts of big-picture problems. It’s a shame, because the two movements share a lot of common ground.

Unfortunately, mutual suspicion and a history of friction keeps some folks away from the mutual cooperation that would advance our common goals.

Many labor and environmental activists have begun believing the rhetoric of a common adversary: the ardent pro-business lobby. Though some businesses behave as responsible corporate citizens, others put making a profit ahead of any form of social responsibility. The lobbies that support an ardent pro-biz view characterize labor and environmental movements in a way that drives wedges between them.

In this pro-biz view, the thick-headed union guys are only interested in their wage packages and have no concern for public health or safety. Their compensation demands force businesses to cut other corners.

Similarly, it is the air-headed, upper-class enviros—who would rather hug a tree than see workers put food on their families’ plates—who deprive people of their jobs.

There is more than a grain of truth in these caricatures. It’s a wonderful sort of truth for pro-biz folks, because once tensions cut the line of communication between the two movements, labor and environmentalists can find themselves at odds. As each group specializes in its own interest area without consideration for the other, friction is bound to follow.

What is important for union and green activists to realize is that each group specializes in aspects of a common larger issue. The problem: a business climate that doesn’t hold up its ethical and social responsibilities—not to labor, not to neighborhoods and not to the environment.

We can’t simply blame businesses for this. In a competitive economy, if one business cuts corners, others must soon follow. Business naturally opposes having standards of behavior set for it by our government, but that is exactly what we in the labor and environmental movements, along with civic-minded business leaders, must do. We must set and enforce viable standards for ethics and responsible behavior.

In the small-picture view of reality, we look only at the part of a problem that interests us. An environmentalist might cut a notch on his belt when he protects an old-growth forest from logging, regardless of the impact on workers. Time pressure takes him on to the next battle.

Likewise, lumber workers may be pleased if they secure a good contract in spite of the environmental consequences of their work. Then, it’s time to get back to making a living.

Neither view goes far enough. Each group needs to see the whole picture. When environmentalists don’t, they create opposition for their goals. Ditto labor. There are genuine consequences for imbalance in our actions either way. If we cut down all our forests, lumber workers will be out of work anyway. If we halt economic development, we won’t have the resources we need to help the environment.

Storm in a port

You need look no further than the ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach to see the strong common ground between the environmental and labor movements—and the faultlines that can separate them.

International Longshore and Warehouse Union organizer Peter Peyton recently spoke at a neighborhood council meeting in San Pedro about his organization’s take on the future of the port. It sounded like he was making a presentation for the Angeles Chapter’s Harbor Vision Task Force. With so much common ground, it would hardly seem there was room for disagreement.

However, misunderstanding and lack of communication can lead activists into some very prickly corners.

Consider the loggers-vs.-tree huggers stereotype. A couple of months ago, that scenario played out in real life on Knoll Hill, a small rise adjacent to the port. The port has been slowly buying it up with the hopes of leveling most of the approximately 20-acre hill and using it as part of a work area for a new terminal.

Many residents, community leaders, environmentalists and historical preservationists oppose razing the hill, the last remaining of seven similar hills that once stood in San Pedro. The Sierra Club has endorsed the preservation efforts.

Then, at a rally to save the hill, some union members confronted Knoll Hill preservationists, leaving a bad taste in many people’s mouths. Though saving all of Knoll Hill may mean some project delays, it certainly won’t stop the project. (It might even generate more work.)

When a union is irritated with an employment problem, it can go on strike. The ILWU has done so to refuse shipping radioactive materials, as well as to obtain better contracts or working conditions.

It is important for union workers to realize that environmentalists don’t have that option. The only comparable tools they have are political lobbying and lawsuits.

It is also important for both labor and green activists to go the extra mile and understand their counterparts’ goals—even those that aren’t shared. Labor’s environmental concerns may begin to fade once immediate hazards to workers are taken care of. However, these are only part of the bigger environmental picture. Labor must give room for the eco-community to work on additional issues, such as preserving Knoll Hill.

Likewise, the environmental movement needs to grasp the larger issues that deal with labor. Sometimes, as with truckers who can barely scrape by because compensation rates are so low, the labor problems themselves cause environmental problems (see related article).

It is not far-fetched to assume that when an industry is abusing its work force it is probably also abusing the environment. It’s all part of the larger problem caused by those businesses that put profit motives above all else. Solving this problem means ensuring that businesses behave responsibly across the board.