January 12, 2025 • 63 mins
Lainey Newman, co-author of Rust Belt Union Blues, joins the pod to shed light on how deindustrialization and globalization have weakened organized labor, particularly in regions like the Rust Belt. We discuss how these changes have left a void filled by conservative organizations and cultural movements, leading to a significant realignment of working-class voters towards the Republican Party.
Lainey traces the peak of union influence in the 1950s to its gradual decline from the 1970s onward. We discuss the evolving relationship between unions and political parties, examining how cultural and identity-based issues have impacted voting behaviors and party alignments. From the friction within the Democratic Party's coalition over cultural issues to the unintended consequences of political strategies - were these dynamics inevitable or could have been foreseen and mitigated?
From the fallout of not bailing out the steel industry in the 1970s to the perceived cultural and ideological challenges associated with figures like Kamala Harris, we discuss the long-term implications of these decisions on union and working class voters, and what the Democratic Party needs to do to win these voters back.
-------------------------
Follow Deep Dive:
Bluesky
YouTube
Email: deepdivewithshawn@gmail.com
Music:
Majestic Earth - Joystock
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Lainey (00:00):
I think what often gets discounted in this conversation
about union decline is how allof these efforts to break unions
and to break the power ofcollective bargaining, to stall
contract negotiations andwhatnot, all of that has this
underlying effect of breakingwhat it actually means to be a
(00:21):
union which is to be on oneanother's side, what it actually
means to be a union which is tobe on one another's side.
And so that you know, I think,that that, dating back, you know
, to the mid 20th century, early20th century, was always,
always in the background andsomething that employers were
trying to do.
And also, you know, the Rightto Work Committee, for instance,
(00:42):
which has been bankrolled by,you know, the Koch brothers and
whomever else reallyprioritizing, you know,
activating those tensions.
Shawn (00:58):
Welcome to Deep Dive with me, s C Fettig.
Unions and union membershiphave been in decline in critical
places in the United States forthe past couple of decades, and
this has had electoralimplications with shifting
allegiances of the working classand, further down the line,
implications for Americandemocracy itself.
(01:18):
Labor unions were once thecornerstone of a working class
life, especially in Rust Beltcommunities like western
Pennsylvania.
Unions were more than justadvocates for fair wages and
workplace protections.
They were a kind of glue thatbound communities together,
creating a sense of sharedpurpose and connection.
But over the past severaldecades, the power of unions has
(01:42):
diminished significantly.
Deindustrialization,globalization and concerted
efforts to weaken organizedlabor have eroded the
institution, leaving a vacuum inboth economic and civic life.
In their absence, new forceshave emerged to shape the
political identities ofworking-class voters.
Forces like conservativeorganizations.
(02:04):
Identities of working-classvoters.
Forces like conservativeorganizations, evangelical
megachurches and culturalmovements that emphasize issues
like gun rights and patriotismover bread-and-butter issues and
civic engagement.
This shift has contributed tothe growing realignment of many
working-class voters away fromDemocrats and toward the
Republican Party, a realignmentthat's reshaping electoral
(02:26):
politics in America and may haveplayed a significant sleeper
role in the election of Trump toa second term.
So did the decline of unionstip the scales?
Could a stronger labor movementhave helped Democrats reconnect
with disaffected working-classvoters, and what does this shift
mean for the long-term healthof American democracy?
(02:47):
I discuss all of this with myguest today, lainey Newman,
co-author of the book Rust BeltUnion Blues, which examines the
political shift amongworking-class voters,
particularly in westernPennsylvania, and how the
decline of unions as botheconomic and social institutions
has contributed to a growingalignment of working class
voters with conservativepolitics and the Republican
(03:09):
Party.
All right, if you like thisepisode or any episode, please
give it a like, share and followon your favorite podcast
platform and or subscribe to thepodcast on YouTube.
And, as always, if you have anythoughts, questions or comments
, please feel free to email meat deepdivewithshawn at gmailcom
.
Let's do a deep dive.
(03:29):
Lainey Newman, thanks for beinghere.
How are you?
Lainey (03:39):
I'm doing great.
How are you, Shawn?
Shawn (03:41):
I'm doing great as well and I'm glad to have you here to
talk about something that Ithink one I don't know that I in
my I guess quote unquoteanalysis of contemporary
politics give a lot of attentionto.
You know, I'm going to forgivemyself for that, because I also
think you know some of the workthat you do, and particularly
(04:01):
some of the stuff that you'vewritten about, is stuff that
doesn't get a lot of attentionby the media in discussing kind
of the evolution of our politicsand also an explanation of why
we are where we are right now.
Lainey (04:13):
Yeah.
Shawn (04:13):
So I'm glad to have you here to talk a little bit about
it.
Lainey (04:17):
Definitely yeah.
Shawn (04:18):
I think I told you in advance that you know I grew up
in Wisconsin and I was livingthere when Scott Walker was the
governor.
And you know I grew up inWisconsin and I was living there
when Scott Walker was thegovernor and you know he kind of
made union busting his missionRight and I think in retrospect
he probably he largely succeededand this was really just part
of a larger push, especially inthe Midwest, to break the backs
of unions.
(04:39):
I think yeah.
At that time I didn't reallygrasp the importance of it or
the potential implications of it.
I do think we're seeing it now,though, but I'm not the person
that quite can quite explainwhat it is.
And before we get to how itmight have impacted this past
November election or the theshape of the electorate today, I
(04:59):
guess I'd like a bit of abetter understanding of how we
even got here in the first place, bit of a better understanding
of how we even got here in thefirst place.
So I'm wondering if you couldhelp me understand, you know, a
little bit of the history of thedecline of unions, how it's
kind of shaped electoralpolitics over time, in what ways
, and then how we got to wherewe are today, and then we can
dig in a little bit into wherewe are today.
Lainey (05:19):
Sure, yeah.
So things have changed a lotover the last couple of decades,
as we talk a bit about in thebook.
So I guess I'll start bytalking about kind of the peak
of union membership and uniondensity in the United States,
which was in the 1950s, whenover a third of private sector
employees were union members Atthat time.
(05:41):
Private sector employees sowhat I mean by that is, you know
, people working in coal mines,you know steel mills, textile
factories, any type ofcorporation, really not teachers
and sort of the public sectorunion union members we think of
today that were historicallypretty unregulated and had been
(06:07):
pressured by unions and in partby the federal government coming
out of the Great Depression, tocreate regulations to protect
workplaces.
And so there was this big pushin the 40s, in the 30s and the
40s to unionize and the 30s andthe 40s to unionize, and that
(06:29):
was really sort of at its peaktowards the 50s and the 60s as
well.
Things were still pretty strong.
To me, in our research wedocument the decline of American
labor and the power of Americanlabor, which had been building,
building, building, and eventhough there wasn't sort of the
NLRA or National Labor RelationsAct before, you know the Great
(06:50):
Depression and that type ofthing, there were still, you
know, movements of unionists andstrikes and picket lines and
that type of thing.
So really it was building allthroughout this, all throughout
American history.
And we point to the 1970s andor I guess at the highest level
at the White House, but thenalso in the private sector and
(07:30):
down throughout, even unionsthemselves.
And so I would say strength inthe 1950s at its highest and
then sort of downhill from there, especially in the 70s and
beyond.
Shawn (07:51):
So in my preamble I think I kind of prefaced this idea
that the blame for the declinelies at the feet of the
Republican Party.
But I think that's anovergeneralization.
You can correct me if you thinkI'm wrong.
But there's also regionalimplications to the evolution of
unions and unionization youknow, I think about.
You know North versus South,which is a common, common cleave
, right I think about, like BillClinton when he was the
(08:12):
governor of Arkansas, while hepaid lip service, you know he
wasn't particularly friendly tounions.
So that's like that's somethingelse that I think perhaps has
influenced the decline of unions.
But another is, like I said, Igrew up in a small town in
Wisconsin and I come from aworking class family.
I was raised by a single parentwho was not in a union.
(08:32):
So that was wasn't part of mylife, sure, but I was kind of an
outsider and I was gonna say Igrew up gay but I didn't.
I realized that I was in mylate teens and the reason I even
mentioned that is because Ialways knew that I was voting
the same way, that unions wereright and that was
(08:52):
pro-democratic or for Democrats.
But I always felt like it waskind of strange bedfellows that
we were voting for the sameparty but for very different
reasons, and I'm wondering ifthere's something culturally
here that was at play fordivision at some point.
Lainey (09:19):
Yeah, absolutely sort of alignment between unions and
union members and the DemocraticParty, particularly happening
in the 1960s with culturalissues, and by that I mean, you
know, racial issues.
Really, that came between theDemocratic Party and unions as
early as when Kennedy was inoffice, really, when there were
(09:43):
riots and protests inPhiladelphia because contractors
weren't hiring anyone any ofthe you know companies that had
Black members and unions weresort of blacklisting anyone who
wasn't white, not allowing theminto membership.
I mean, this was going on for along time and the Democratic
(10:04):
Party as the party of civilrights in the 1960s, you know, I
think that a lot of people viewthat as the point at which
there was this, you know,momentous division, and I do
think that that had something todo with the sort of ongoing
fragmentation of sort of theunion base in the Democratic
(10:26):
Party.
I don't think that that's theentire answer, but I do think
that you know the culturalissues.
Today, we see, you know not somuch racial issues, but you know
it's certainly for a long time.
You know LGBTQ issues and today, you know, with the trans
issues that were at the centerof this past election for sure,
(10:49):
abortion and gay marriage backin the 2010s and 2000s.
So yeah, absolutely.
I think that you know people inunions were voting based on.
This is the party that supportsa working class coalition.
And then you have a whole othersegment of the Democratic Party
, which really, I think inrecent history has taken over
(11:12):
the Democratic Party, that ismore focused on sort of, I guess
, identity-based issues.
Shawn (11:21):
It's almost hard, I think , to look back in the context of
the way that you're explainingthis, and this makes absolute
sense.
But it's almost difficult tolook back and imagine, given our
understanding of human nature,and then the coalitions that the
Democratic Party was buildingand trying to maintain 40s, 50s,
60s and forward.
It's almost like, in hindsight,we could predict that there was
(11:42):
going to be some friction atsome point.
But do you think this is tosome degree a failure of
imagination, where we are on thepart of Democrats, or some type
of ingenuity I would saynefarious ingenuity on the part
of Republicans to kind ofirritate that friction?
Lainey (12:02):
Oh yeah, I mean.
So there's, there's a lot ofevidence, I think, that I've
seen and we don't talk aboutthis that much in the book but
just in doing additionalresearch and potentially, you
know, for future sort ofpublications but that you know
that Republicans wereconservative entities during
this time, were, and corporateentities as well, were
(12:26):
activating these tensions verypurposefully.
We do touch on that a little bitin the book, but racial
conflict benefited the employerin the mid-20th century and so I
do think that that wassomething that was very
intentionally recognized byRepublicans.
I think what often getsdiscounted in this conversation
(12:54):
about union decline is how allof these efforts to break unions
and to break the power ofcollective bargaining, to stall
contract negotiations andwhatnot, all of that has this
underlying effect of breakingthe what it actually means to be
a union, which is to be on oneanother's side.
And so that you know, I thinkthat that dating back, you know,
to to the mid 20th century,early 20th century, was always,
(13:18):
always in the background andsomething that employers were
trying to do, and and and alsoyou know the Right to Work
Committee, for instance, whichhas been bankrolled by, you know
, the Koch brothers and whomeverelse really prioritizing, you
know, activating those tensions.
Shawn (13:37):
So if we take this a little bit outside of the realm
of solely politics because youknow it takes a number of
factors probably to explain thedecline of unions and
unionization in the UnitedStates so if we remove politics
a little bit and we look at thisthrough the lens of the economy
and the evolution of society,is there something about the way
(13:59):
that these have changed and theways in which they impact
working class folks' lives suchthat they also would have or
could have contributed to thedecline of unions, irrespective
of the political realm.
Lainey (14:12):
Yeah, I mean.
So there's definitely, you know,as you said, there's tons of
factors that went into thedecline of unions and I think a
huge one was, you know, just thedecline of manufacturing itself
and the decline of the US assort of the producer of a lot of
you know, raw materials andsteel and energy and coal.
(14:46):
That's often what what peoplepoint to in in terms of, you
know, pinpointing a a economicfactors that that contributed to
the decline of organized labor.
Obviously, as you mentioned,the, the South um has
historically and continues tohave very low rates of of
unionization, um, and the Northhas had much higher rates
comparatively, um, there was,you know, a lot of effort by
(15:07):
companies internally and from,you know, and foreign investment
that you know went to the South, from the North, in order to
avoid union labor and unionwages.
And so you know the economicfactors that allowed, I guess
the invisible hand that allowedthat those types of changes to
(15:29):
happen.
You know, foreign investmentand globalization and offshoring
and that type of thing all sortof, is part and parcel of union
decline happening in the 70sand 80s.
Shawn (15:43):
I want to try this question out on you and it's
really oversimplified.
So I want to admit that upfront.
I want to pivot a little bit tothis election and the impact
that the evolution ofunionization has had and how
that played out.
But to get there, I guess I'mwondering is it again?
This is oversimplification.
(16:03):
No-transcript.
Lainey (16:24):
Yeah.
So it's a good question.
I think it's a question at thetop of top of mind for a lot of
people and and I think I thinkthat in a certain sense, the
answer is yes, but I think thatit's more than just economic and
cultural.
So I'm going to complicate thequestion a bit.
Um, I I think that you know,one of the things that we we
talk about a bit in Rust Belt,union Blues, is this idea that
(16:48):
people have have said about howunion members who vote for
Republicans are voting against,quote unquote, voting against
their own best interest.
Democrats support unions andyou know unions pay better wages
and any worker who sees a unioncontract and a non-union
contract, if they don't knowwhich is which, they're going to
(17:10):
always pick the union contract,and so you know.
Or even if they do know whichis which, essentially just
because of how much better thosejobs are, pay and benefits wise
.
So I think that you know that'sthat's a line of thinking that
that I understand, but that wesort of push back on um, because
we don't see voting as sort ofa calculation of um, sort of a
(17:35):
metric based calculation of ofum.
You know, I guess, pluses andminuses based on the parties and
the candidates.
We, we more see, you know,voting as something that is, you
know, informed by one'snetworks, by the groups of which
one is part, the environment.
You know social factors andrelationships, family, you know
(18:01):
everything that goes intosomeone's identity also goes
into, you know how they vote.
And so one thing that, um, thatI that I think of is a steel
worker, for instance, could saywell, you know, trump really
helped us because he put on, you, put into place these steel
tariffs.
Um, you know which, which youknow Senator, some Democrats
(18:21):
that supported and that Biden,some of which Biden maintained.
Or that same steelworker couldsay I'm not going to vote for
Trump because you know he'santi-union labor.
So the way that we evaluate Ithink you know the pros and cons
and the economic pros and consand I guess I suppose the
(18:45):
cultural pros and cons as wellis all sort of informed by what
we're listening to, right, whattypes of, I guess, which track
we're adhering to.
You know whether we're adheringto that track of saying, oh,
the tariffs you know reallyhelped the steel industry,
versus, you know where, I'm notgoing to vote for someone who's
(19:05):
anti-union labor.
And so our theory is thatbecause unions don't occupy a
space in people's minds anymoreor in their communities and
their family life.
That puts, you know, thoseissues at the top of mind,
essentially, as those issues areprioritized in that way.
(19:30):
That underlies these decisionsthat people make.
Shawn (19:38):
So you're kind of complicating my next question
and I appreciate you for it, butit is making me wonder how to
frame this question.
Essentially, what I want to getat is if it's true that there
are other factors in people'slives that are playing a much
more salient kind of role ininfluencing, perhaps, the
relationships that they have,the types of groups and people
(20:02):
that they engage with, thethings that they care about,
that are perhaps lendingthemselves to making it easier
to vote for a Republicancandidate or align with a
Republican candidate more sothan a Democratic candidate.
And, in the light of thiselection and the unique
character of Trump, I wonder if,if irrespective of whether or
(20:27):
not unions are present, thatthere's something about these
types of voters or these typesof folks that the you know
landscape has shifted so muchthat, if they're in a union or
not, they are attracted to thesetypes of politics.
Lainey (20:42):
Yeah, yeah, I agree with you there.
I think that there has been ashift, you know, in sort of the
understanding of who's on theaverage person's side.
If we put ourselves into thatposition, we're talking about
this subset of voters.
You know who's on our side andI think that you know whether,
(21:06):
whether people in the mid 20 ormid to late 20th century were
members of unions or not, therewasn't the same sort of um, I
think, paradigm about sort of usversus them that there is now.
I think now the the them is theelite, like the sort of, I
guess, cultural elite that isrepresented by the elite,
(21:28):
universities, the, you knowpeople, successful, you know,
highly educated, I guess wealthy, you know liberal, coastal
elites versus, you know, theaverage American who's, you know
, concerned about how, you knowwhat they're going to be able to
buy their kids for Christmasand the prices of eggs going up
(21:48):
at Walmart and that type ofthing.
I think that there's a real sortof sense of just a chasm,
really, that that people sensebetween themselves and what is
represented as the democraticparty or what they see as the
democratic party.
And I think that you know, ifwe think back to this era of
union power, labor power, really, it was the, the, the them, uh,
(22:11):
was the corporate elite.
You know, it was more or thatthat that unions were trying to
activate and what they sort oftapped into was, you know, the
bosses.
Um, those guys are the ones whoare the other.
It's us workers versus thebosses, and who's going to help
(22:33):
the bosses and who's going tohelp the workers?
And so I do think that thatwhole paradigm has definitely
shifted, as you said.
I do think that that hasshifted and I think that in part
, it shifted because unionsaren't occupying that space
anymore, that's informing howpeople are seeing you know
themselves relative to the restof society.
Shawn (22:54):
Okay, so that's, I guess, where I'd like to go.
Next, then, is, if we focus onthat the decline of unions as
being a significant factor, inkind, of the morass we're in,
how much do you attribute thatdecline to this political moment
, to the election of Trump thisyear?
Lainey (23:12):
Yeah, I think it's contributed hugely.
I do.
I think that when you look atthe electoral map and think
about the key swing states rightnow and, of course, this
election there were several,including North Carolina,
arizona, et cetera, but the keyswing states I mean everyone was
(23:33):
focused on Pennsylvania,wisconsin and Michigan, and that
has been the case for the pastseveral elections those were the
states that were the epicenterof union power, I mean really
that were the union theepicenter of union power.
I mean really WesternPennsylvania, michigan, detroit,
(23:56):
outside of Detroit, you knowWisconsin, with going back all
the way to La Follette and LaFollette, I think you know union
leader, storied union leader,and so I do think that you know
that you can't, it's impossible,to ignore the importance of
this transition and thistransformation in terms of you
(24:17):
know the electoral outcomes.
Shawn (24:20):
So one of the things that , in all honesty, reading Rust
Belt Union Blues, there was akind of chilling feeling that
came over me when I was readingthis, in that there, I think
there's something missed in howwe think about this current
moment in our politics and howoften we attribute this to or
simply being a Trump phenomenon,and I think there's something
(24:44):
in reading the book that reallygot me thinking that this is not
solely a Trump phenomenon.
Now he's clearly tapping intosomething, and Biden was able to
kind of chip away at that in2020.
But I am starting to have thisconcern that, especially
following this election and thereturns suggesting that to these
(25:07):
critical voters, these workingclass voters in the Rust Belt
states or in the blue wall, thatthe Democratic Party is just
not speaking to them, and myfear is that we've turned a
corner in such a way becausethere's nothing on deck, the
Democrats aren't reallyproposing anything, and I want
to get to Bernie Sanders alittle bit later and that, to me
(25:29):
, suggests that we're looking atprobably a protracted period of
time to which these voters,these working class voters, may
be lost to the progressive causeor to the Democratic Party.
Lainey (25:40):
Yeah, I mean, I think that working class people have,
you know, feel, and this is whatwe talk about in the book, but
you know that Democrats havejust abandoned them and have
prioritized other other issues.
I guess economic liberalizationin the laissez faire way, you
(26:03):
know meaning of liberalization,you know starting with really
starting with Clinton andthrough the Obama era, biden
sort of went a differentdirection, I think, than that.
But I do think that you knowthe sentiment is that you know
these areas have reallystruggled and the election of
(26:26):
Democrats, either on the locallevel or on the federal level,
hasn't saved the communities andhasn't saved the good paying
jobs.
I saw that all the time when Iwas doing this research.
It's really sad that you knowwhat some of these communities
(26:46):
look like and you know, you cantell that there was a lot of
life once there and that therewas a lot lost.
And so I think that there is asentiment that you know what was
going on for so long voting forDemocrats.
You know unions, you know theunion member and union family,
union communities aligningthemselves purely, you know,
(27:08):
completely with the DemocraticParty and essentially then not
getting any what, what, whatpeople have seen as anything in
return.
I do think that the DemocraticParty has, you know, done some
things for, for, for workingclass people, but clearly it's
not felt by by a lot of people.
So I I do agree that I thinkthat it's a lot broader than
(27:30):
just, you know, just just Trumpand this decline.
I mean we, we document it backto the seventies.
Jimmy Carter, you know, didn'tbail out the, the steel industry
.
Obama did bail out the, youknow, the auto industry after
the 2008 financial crisis.
But I think that you know, thechoice to not bail out the steel
(27:53):
industry back in the 70s thatwould have then, you know, would
have now been seen as a drop inthe federal budget still has
ramifications.
I mean, you think about the USsteel and Nippon steel deal,
that that was recently rejected,but and how essentially that
some people are, a lot of unionmembers are saying that that's
the end of, you know, the US, ussteel's presence in western
(28:16):
Pennsylvania, because there'ssort of no feasible way to come
out of that.
Whether that's true or not, Idon't know.
Basically, I mean, yeah, Ithink that this goes way back
and and that that it isn't justTrump, that it's much, much
larger, and that we have, youknow, we, have a lot to rebuild
(28:39):
in these areas if we, if we wantto earn back these voters.
Shawn (28:47):
So I'm taking kind of a circuitous route to where I want
to go.
So that explains this nextquestion, which is I feel like
the Democratic Party as much asthe Republican Party, but in a
very different way has gonethrough quite an evolution on
its platform in the last decadeor so.
And we can blame, you know,republicans for the us versus
them narrative, especially as itrelates to queer folks and
trans folks.
(29:08):
But we can also blame theDemocratic Party, I think, for
kind of flailing a little bit inhow to maintain their big tent.
You know, I forgive theDemocratic Party for having to
do that, but at the same time itfeels like they're flailing and
I feel like we are at a momentin time where, in order for the
Democratic Party to kind ofrebuild that coalition, they
(29:28):
have to somehow find a tentativebalance between appeasing I'm
just saying broadly the workingclass vote, the union vote and
those that make cultural issues,progressive cultural issues,
their top priority.
And I feel like that's anincredibly difficult task, if
not impossible, and I wonder ifyou think there's a way to
(29:52):
thread that needle.
Lainey (29:54):
Yeah, it's a really good question.
So I think that it is a bigproblem.
I think that you know thecultural sort of baggage that
Kamala Harris carried on some ofthe sort of progressive issues
was a huge reason why, or asignificant reason why, you know
, the election went the way thatit did, her seen, as you know
(30:16):
too quote unquote leftist by alot of people, even though she
was pretty moderate on most ofthe issues you know in reality.
So I think that you know, Ithink that there there's a
couple issues with how the partyis set up right now, or sort of
the state of the party rightnow.
I would first say that I don'tthink that there's been, like
(30:36):
you know, there hasn't been sortof a clear sense of direction
and leadership in a soul youknow, based on, or a leader you
know him or herself, um, sincethe Obama era and it, um, and so
I think that that sort of youknow, since since 2012, I think
that the party has sort of beentrying to find itself, um, and
(30:57):
we have, you know, biden, who Ithink was really great for the
moment but wasn't, you know, ata place where he could continue
the sort of mission because ofage.
So I think that that's onething.
I also think that and Iremember sort of reading about
this with Clinton, with BillClinton who had sort of a
(31:24):
reckoning moment when he wasapproached by some
African-American activists wherehe basically, you know, said
I'm on your side, but we alsohave to recognize that you know,
we're, you know I have to run acampaign so I can't talk about
all these issues or whatever.
I think that one thing that'shappened is there's been sort of
(31:45):
this or whatever.
I think that one thing that'shappened is there's been sort of
this a closure of the gap or ofthe space between the activists
and advocates for certainprogressive issues and the party
itself, and there's become sortof litmus tests on candidates,
whereas, you know, in previoustimes I suppose, the activists
(32:17):
advocate and sort of activateabout a certain issue, activism
and you know what would beelectorally feasible.
Because it's just, you know, nottrue right now that you know
the broad population supportscertain measures.
So you know, politicians can'tnecessarily come out in support
(32:37):
of those measures, even if theprogressive community is really
sort of passionate about them,and I think that the space
between those two sort of groups, you know, has has just kind of
collapsed and they're sort ofnow one, I mean now, you know,
intermingled, and so there's,there's, there's this sort of
sense that they're, you know,everyone who's a Democrat has to
(32:58):
be a hundred percent on on meet, all of these sort of checks in
terms of cultural issues.
So I think that one way tostrike that balance and so I
could touch on a couple ofthings here, but one is
leadership.
Who's the leader of the party?
What's the direction of theparty?
How do we sort of have a visionfor the party moving forward?
And then, second, how do we saythe party needs to focus on
(33:24):
electoral success, you know weand differentiate that from some
of the activism on the left.
Shawn (33:33):
So I guess, that brings me to if we keep in mind that
the message could be at fault,but also the messenger can be a
problem, or lack thereof, Isuppose.
So that brings me to BernieSanders, because he was pitching
a very populist but workingclass message, pro-union message
(33:53):
, when he was running againstHillary Clinton in 2015, 2016.
And I've been mulling this ideaand I'm not the, I'm sure I'm
not the only one but that, hadBernie Sanders won that, there
was a very real possibility atthat moment to have cobbled back
together kind of that unionvote under the Democratic Party
(34:16):
without what I think under Trumphas evolved to include what I
consider to be really homophobic, misogynistic, racist, nativist
language and rhetoric that isnow just seems to be bundled up
in this whole movement.
That seems difficult todisentangle and I wonder if you
think that Bernie Sanders andhis message was a better message
(34:38):
and messenger that might haveaverted some of this.
Lainey (34:43):
I think that in hindsight, the answer is yes.
I mean, it's hard.
It's hard to say you know inthe moment without knowing you
know the future.
I think that everyone was soconfident in 2016 that a
Democrat could be any Democrat,could be Donald Trump.
You know that that wasn't that.
(35:06):
It wasn't a question of whetheryou know sort of we were going
to have to stave off this partyof various, you know, isms, I
guess, racism, homophobia, etcetera, um, and and the goal was
, I think, internally, the partywas had this idea of, you know,
the first woman president andall all of these different sort
of markers, including that, youknow, hillary.
(35:27):
It was Hillary's turn, quoteunquote.
I think that you know thepopulist and sort of appeal of
Bernie Sanders can't be ignored.
I mean, he had a vision for theparty.
He, you know, clearly waspopular, was activated people or
galvanized people in a way thatHillary didn't, and so, to the
(35:52):
extent that the party was sortof mingling in the affairs of
sort of, or weighing the outcome, I think that that was wrong.
But you know, that being said,it's hard to think about the
counterfactual.
I do think that that that typeof leadership of someone who who
has a very sort ofstraightforward you know no
(36:16):
bullshit, um, you know, you knowtalks to the people type of
attitude that that people senseis genuine.
I think that that's a hugething.
Um, whether you know apolitician comes across as
two-faced or duplicitous orwhatever um is, is personality
really an appeal is just huge.
And so I think that you knowthe Democrats should think,
(36:40):
should, should remember thatlesson of of who's getting
people excited.
Um, and, and you know, even ifit's not the first choice of the
of the quote unquote core party, and you know, even if it's not
the first choice of the quoteunquote core party, you know
it's really important, movingforward, that we listen to
what's getting people excited,what's galvanizing people.
Shawn (36:58):
So we've talked about the types of things that have
contributed to the decline ofunions and how that brought us
to today.
But there's another directionto that relationship to the
decline of unions and how thatbrought us to today.
But there's another directionto that relationship, which is
that the decline of unions alsoimpacts other things, and so
these are things that you'vewritten about, and you've talked
about things like civicengagement in communities, which
, in turn, influences or canweaken our institutions, which,
(37:20):
in turn, can threaten ourdemocracy.
So I'm wondering if you couldtalk a little bit about how the
decline of unions hascontributed to that and what
that relationship has lookedlike.
Lainey (37:28):
Sure, yeah, absolutely so.
I think that unions were partYMCAs, uh, et cetera, churches,
(37:57):
religious institutions, um had a, had sort of had a much larger
role in people's lives.
And this goes back to the workof, you know, bob Putnam with
Bowling Alone, um in in the in,I guess, the late nineties, that
that was Um, but so, yeah, Imean there's.
So unions were part of thatwhole fabric of civic engagement
(38:17):
and all of those, all of thoseinstitutions and organizations
sort of built on one another.
And that's the thing aboutgrassroots community
organizations is, you know,people here, people are in one
and then you know there'scrossover between one and the
other.
I was just talking to someonewho was saying that the
(38:38):
pensioners of the local I thinkit was the, I can't remember
which local, it was for thesteelworkers, but some
pensioners affiliation of alocal union, would meet at the
Elks Lodge every month orwhatever, and they would hold
their meetings there, whereasthe union meetings themselves
(38:59):
would be at the union hall andthere was all this sort of
crossover and we talk a lotabout that in the book is
documenting crossover betweenthese organizations.
And so I think that one thingthat the decline of unions has
done one thing that the declineof unions has done and this goes
along with simply, you knowgood paying jobs and you know
(39:21):
people being sort of co-locatedin one area, you know decline of
manufacturing as well Peopleare no longer sort of part of
those interconnected communitiesin the way that they once were.
I think unions had the benefitof being sort of workplace
mandatory, I suppose.
I mean you could obviously haveopt-outs for various reasons,
(39:43):
but it was one organization orcivic group that all people who
worked at a certain place werepart of.
It wasn't based on, you know,race or ethnicity or religion or
whatever it was.
It was based on workplace.
And so it it created all.
It created relationships and anetwork, um, amongst a lot of
(40:04):
different you know people whohad very different backgrounds,
um, and who maybe wouldn't behanging out at the Slovak club
but went there because their youknow, buddy was, you know was a
member, and then they ended uphanging out there every Sunday
to drink beers, which issomething that I was told by one
of the retirees that you know,everyone would just go to one
(40:25):
another's sort of groups becauseit was just a place to go and
hang out.
And so I think that that's that, that initial, that those
initial connections that werebred by unions, when those no
longer exist, that reallyimpacts the ripple effect of
(40:47):
civic organizations and howcivic organizations can build on
one another.
So, in addition to all theeconomic losses that have
happened and democratic erosionfrom the decline of unions and
all that, it's absolutely, Ithink, the case that civic life
has suffered as a result.
Shawn (41:09):
I think there's generally been in the lexicon of
explanations of why democracycan collapse or may.
Backslide is the story of adecline of civic engagement writ
large irrespective of unions.
The rise of social media, theability for people to kind of
(41:30):
engage with each other only inways that they want and to do it
anonymously, that this all hascontributed to a chipping away
at democracy.
And then you know that was kindof kickstarted under the
pandemic when everybody was athome, required to be at home.
And I can see where that alsowould apply to union members as
well.
Right, that same kind ofnarrative.
But if we buy that narrative, Iwonder if there's a proactive
(41:55):
argument to be made here thatrobust, strong and robust unions
actually contribute to thehealth of a democracy.
Lainey (42:02):
Yeah, yeah, I mean I think that there is One thing
that unions taught were you knowsort of democratic norms.
You know the unions were likeother organizations, like
paternal groups and and others.
Unions were federatedstructures so that actually in a
lot of ways like mirrored sortof a governing structure.
(42:22):
And so there was, there wassort of, so there was education
about the democratic you knowsort of processes on multiple
levels.
Processes on multiple levels.
The first was, you know, viathe structure of the union and
participating in union meetings,or at least you know elections
or whatnot, so that you knowthat has a democratic component.
(42:44):
And then the other is thatunions would educate members
purposefully and veryintentionally about democracy.
And so in some of these oldunion publications that we
looked at, there's long, longform articles about you know how
the United States Department ofTreasury works, or you know
what the Attorney General of theUnited States does and how to
(43:07):
file, and not only those, youknow sort of more abstract
concepts, but also you know verysort of particular concepts
about you know how to file forSocial Security benefits and
what to do if you know sort ofmore abstract concepts, but also
you know very sort ofparticular concepts about you
know how to file for socialsecurity benefits and what to do
if you know a claim gets deniedby an insurer or something like
that, like things to helpmembers navigate the landscape
(43:28):
of you know democratic and otherpolitical sort of institutions.
And so you know even and onething that we talk about in the
book is just knowledge that was,I guess, spread by unions about
completely unrelated things.
Just that was, you know, usefulto members.
So a lot of people in WesternPennsylvania hunt and you know
(43:49):
then and now.
But you know so what are thewhen does the season start?
When you know what types of youknow shotguns can you use at
this time of the month versusthat time of the month.
You know what's the limit ondeer that you can take or shoot,
so that type of thing.
I mean things that were usefulto people and things that were
(44:09):
more abstract.
So I think that the educationhappened on a lot of different
levels, subconsciously andconsciously.
And then there's also, of course, you know just the sort of
integration of all differenttypes of people that you get in
a union, and I don't only meanyou know racially, but I also
mean you know once women startedbeing accepted into workplaces
(44:32):
and you know people of differentbackgrounds.
I mean it used to be a big bigdifference ifplaces and you know
people of different backgrounds.
I mean it used to be a big bigdifference if you were, you know
, irish, catholic, catholic,versus you know someone who
German, or whatever, um and so,or Italian, you know, and so I
think that what you had in theseplaces were a unification, you
know, unification of interestsbetween very different people,
(44:53):
and and that that went a longway in terms of, you know,
uniting of interests betweenvery different people, and that
that went a long way in terms of, you know, uniting people and
making them sort of feel liketheir fellow American, was, you
know, their friend, and thatthey, you know, had common
interests with them despitetheir differences.
Shawn (45:11):
One of the things that I found particularly I want to say
striking, but I'm going to usethe word striking as an action
in a minute.
So what I found particularlyinteresting in this past
election was the schism thatseemed to emerge between union
leadership and the rank and file, with rank and file being
(45:31):
largely supportive of Trump andI'm just painting with a broad
brush here and union leadershipeither being torn or
pro-democratic.
And I live in, I live inSeattle, the Seattle area, and
so I you know we had the Boeingstrike right before the election
and I was really again, I wantto, I want to say the word.
I was struck by the fact thatso many of the striking workers
(45:55):
were fervently pro Trump and theunion leadership was not on the
same page at least some of themwere not on the same page and I
almost feel like, to somedegree, what might be happening
here is a bit of a microcosm ofwhat's happening at the larger
level in our politics, which isjust a backlash against the
elite.
But I'm wondering if there isan emerging schism between union
(46:17):
leadership and rank and filethat's having an impact on the
effectiveness of unions.
Lainey (46:24):
Yeah, absolutely so.
I think that there is anincreasing schism, though I
think that there always has beensort of a separation between
the leadership and the rank andfile.
But I think now the leadershipis not as trusted as it once was
.
There's always sort of beenthis sense of we don't want, you
know, the union leaders tellingus who to vote for, and we
(46:47):
found in a 1955 survey of UnitedSteelworkers members that they
didn't really think that it wasnecessary for the union to
endorse anyone, that they wantedjust sort of information
instead of a directive.
But I think that now thedifference is there has become a
sense that amongst many unionmembers that the union
(47:10):
leadership on the executivelevel out in DC is just another,
just a wing of the DemocraticParty.
They don't even think about theRepublicans, they don't, they
don't consider it, they're justin the back, they're in the
pocket of the Democratic Partyand they don't care about what
the members think either.
That that chasm has emerged inrecent years, and particularly
(47:35):
accelerated with Trump, and hasresulted in people feeling that
the leadership isn't listeningto the membership and that poses
a really significant problemfor unions themselves how unions
run union structure, becausethe whole idea is to sort of
adhere to the members' interests.
(47:55):
So what happens when themembers you know I guess I was
told by one person that you knowover two thirds of the UMW
workers.
So United Mine workers supportTrump, and I'm sure that that
was 2020.
I don't know what it was 2024,but it probably was similar.
You know what happens when avast majority of because you
(48:16):
know the membership would haveessentially discredited that
(48:38):
endorsement.
Do I think that that is theright decision to make?
I'm not.
It's, you know.
It's not clear to me thatthat's the right decision to
make.
I heard from a lot of peoplethat the role of the union is to
, you know, advise their memberson what's best for them and
that type of argument.
But I do see why a leader woulddecide to not go against the
(49:01):
sort of broad-based wishes ofthe membership so directly.
And so I do think that thatemerging difference between
unions, union leadership,difference between unions, union
leadership, often in DC and themembers out across the country,
sort of builds on itself andhas in recent years become even
(49:22):
more apparent.
Shawn (49:29):
You know, what it kind of strikes me is that it's almost
as if so there were exogenousthreats to unionization.
You've kind of explained thatevolution, but now it almost
feels like the wolf is in thehouse, in that you know, if the
members are turning againstleadership, that is, that feels
like a potential existentialthreat to unionization in and of
itself.
So it's almost like not to laythis all at the feet of the
Republican Party.
(49:49):
But at this point themembership, the rank and file,
could finish the job.
Lainey (49:54):
Yeah, I mean that's really tough because I think a
lot of people feel that.
You know, unfortunately, a lotof people feel workers that I
spoke to in my research don'tfeel like the union was
benefiting them too much and Ithink in their minds, you know,
separate the job from the union.
(50:16):
What I mean by that is folks whohave, you know, union jobs
understand that those jobs aregood jobs.
You know there's protection,you know there's often much
better benefits, higher wages,than a non-union job.
But there's often anattribution error that emerges
between sort of you know whypeople see that as a good job,
(50:40):
which is something thatfrustrates, I think, a lot of
union leadership.
But people see the union assort of extraneous, as
unnecessary, and I even hadsomeone tell me well, now we
have OSHA and now we have, youknow, we have these laws that
protect us.
Why do we need, you know, whydo we need the unions to take
(51:01):
money out of our pocket?
And so I think that that senseof you know the disaggregation
between what unions you knowbring to the table and you know
sort of the on the face, on thesurface, you know job that's
offered by an employer is reallyproblematic and that's
something that you know unionleadership is concerned about, I
(51:23):
think, moving forward.
Shawn (51:25):
So earlier I asked you to kind of look back and pose a
counterfactual and imagine howthat would play out.
And I guess now, just quickly,I want to ask you, looking
forward, to prognosticate andI'm a pessimist, I'll just admit
that up front.
But given what you've studiedin the history that you, that
you're aware of, as it relatesto union building and union
(51:46):
busting in the United States,and the current moment and where
we are and the behavior ofunion both at leadership and
rank and file levels, what kindof hope do you have that unions
can play, you know, a democracybuilding role in the next decade
or so?
Lainey (52:02):
Yeah, yeah, well, it's, you know, it's, it's.
It's hard to be optimistic, Ithink, having done this research
, and I try to be optimistic butI probably am, more naturally
also a pessimist, but I mean, Ithink that there's.
I think, you know, one of ourgoals in this project was to try
(52:25):
to figure out what gave unionssuch power over and such you
know sort of loyalty amongstmembers, amongst you know
Americans, and why, for so long,being a union member was a core
part of people's identity.
You know, there's, I think,about one article in a union
(52:47):
publication that I read thatquoted a member who had passed
away recently who said you know,my most important possession is
my union card, and that type ofthing.
We saw a lot, I mean not youknow, in various iterations that
the pride in being a union manand at the time it really was
(53:08):
men for the most part, but thepride in being a union man was
really important to people andthat gave unions a lot of power
politically, socially, etc.
And when something is so coreto one's identity, the political
calculus is very different thanjust sort of pulling on
(53:32):
marginal issue stances of aparticular candidate, like
whether they're going to supportfuture, you know, sort of
pro-union legislation orsomething like that.
I mean, in other words, it's,you know, it's a lot more
powerful when a union is reallycore to one's identity than if
(53:53):
the union is just saying, well,this person is going to in the
future, probably, if it comesdown to it, would vote in a way
that would benefit you If thathas nothing to do with you know
who you are and your communityand your family life, et cetera.
And so I think that you knowone thing that we want out of
the project that we did and thatwe are hoping for, is that
(54:16):
unions can, you know, build backthe sort of power that they had
in communities and amongstpeople, not only in the
(54:41):
workplace but outside theworkplace, partnering with other
organizations and having moreof a presence in people's lives
than just, you know, in theemployer-employee relationship
in terms of collectivebargaining.
So I think that's one thingthat we saw, as you know,
something that wasn't reallyfocused on but was such an
important part of what madeunions so powerful was this
(55:05):
sense of loyalty and identity.
So I do think that there's alot of potential and I think
that you see in some unions thatreally you know that being more
effective and working to acertain extent.
I mean, we talked to somemembers of the IBEW who talked
(55:25):
about how, you know, the tradeshave maintained more of a sense
of identity because the tradeunions so you know very, when
you think about the AFL and CIOCIO was industrial unions mainly
and the AFL was the tradeunions.
So the trade unions, like IBEW,you know, brick masons there's,
(55:49):
you know you know, lots ofplumbers, pipefitters etc.
That they've maintained more ofa sense of identity because
they've been it's sort of moreof a skillset based organization
and and and there hasn't beenas much expansion into into
other realms.
So the steel workers I mean soI'm now a member of the United
(56:09):
Auto Workers as a, as a teacherhere at Harvard University,
whereas you know when you thinkof an autoworker you don't think
of a graduate student atHarvard University but that a
lot of industrial unions haveexpanded in that sense and have
expanded beyond their initialsort of realm, whereas the craft
(56:29):
unions haven't.
And so there's.
So I heard from one some peoplethat you know they think that
that's a real strength and thatthere's a lot more sort of
buy-in because it's seen, as youknow, this is our group that
represents us, and and um, youknow that there's a lot of
tattoos, even that, um, peopleget tattoos with their, with
their union logo, from the, fromthe craft unions and that type
(56:50):
of thing.
And, um, you know, to the extentthat you can sort of compare,
how various unions have fared interms of, you know, maintaining
a sense of identity andmaintaining a presence in
people's lives apart from theworkplace, and that type of
thing.
You can see where there's, youknow, benefits and what has
worked and what hasn't, and sothat is one thing that I think
(57:12):
can give us hope is that, youknow, maybe in the future we can
see how some more unions can,can build, build back in this
way and become more integral topeople's lives, using some of
the techniques that have beeneffective.
You know, for some of theseother unions, um, and techniques
that you know currently aren'tin play, but maybe you know that
are that people innovate, um,because there's a lot of, you
(57:34):
know, incredibly talented peoplein in labor and um, and it's,
you know, I, I, I never want tobe sort of um, just I guess you
know nagging on labor or or, orcritiquing them or whatever.
I mean, people are workingincredibly hard.
Um, and so you know, I do thinkthat there is a lot of
potential there and there's some, there's excitement.
(57:55):
I mean, there's a lot of publicsupport right now, so there's
there's definitely some hope.
Shawn (58:00):
Okay, final question.
You ready for it?
Lainey (58:03):
Yes, I am.
Shawn (58:04):
What's something interesting you've been reading,
watching, listening to or doinglately, and it doesn't have to
be related to this topic, but itcan be this topic, but it can
be Well, let's see.
Lainey (58:19):
I feel, like my, my life as a student has been taking up
most of my most of my time, but, um, one thing that I that I
listened to is the podcaststrict scrutiny.
Um, I, I recommend that one.
Um, I I think that it'simportant.
You know, legal rules seem veryabstract and are very abstract,
but are often incrediblyimportant, and one of the things
that I'm working on in thefuture is looking at how
(58:43):
changing legal how changing youknow legal rules because of
Supreme Court decisions haveimpacted how unions are able to
spend money on communitybuilding initiatives, and so you
know some things that you don'tthink that you know courts
should have anything to do with.
Or you know, or do haveanything to do with, they have
something to do with, and so Ithink that it's important to
(59:05):
know about.
You know what's going on in thelegal landscape, and so that's
a good one landscape, and sothat's that's a good one.
Let's see if I can give another.
I do a lot of.
I really like reading fiction,so right now I am reading a, the
book called the Friend bySigrid Nunez, which was
(59:30):
recommended to me by my mom andit's really good so far.
So I'll also recommend that one.
And I don't really watch muchTV, but I follow the Pittsburgh
Steelers a great deal.
So it hasn't been too greatover the last couple of games,
but we're hoping for aturnaround come the playoffs.
(59:50):
So, but yeah, those are acouple of things I'd say.
Shawn (59:53):
You know, I love strict scrutiny and I think those folks
are so smart and they're sowitty and they're so funny.
But I think I sometimes get socaught up in how witty and funny
they are that I forget they'relike they're talking about some
really weighty stuff and I'mlike am I just like g my way
(01:00:14):
into authoritarianism?
Lainey (01:00:16):
I know, I know, but you, I mean, at a certain point
there has to be humor.
You know, it's, there's.
Yeah, I, I agree, I they're,they're fantastic, um, and I was
lucky to work with Kate Shaw abit um for a while, so she's,
she's lovely, um, but they'reall, they're all great, and
sometimes we do have to laugh.
Shawn (01:00:35):
Yeah, yeah, Lainey, thanks for taking the time.
I think it's a complicatedtopic and I think it's one
that's going to play out inserious ways over the next
decade or so.
So thanks for explaining it tome.
Lainey (01:00:46):
For sure, thanks for having me.
Shawn (01:00:54):
Unions have historically played a vital role in fostering
civic engagement, communityties and a political voice for
working-class Americans, andtheir decline has left a void,
one that's been filled by forcesthat often prioritize division
and cultural resentment oversolidarity and progress.
In the absence of strong unions, the working class has become
(01:01:17):
increasingly vulnerable topolitical manipulation and
disinformation.
Under a second Trump presidency, the erosion of labor rights
and democratic norms couldprobably will accelerate,
creating fertile ground forfurther polarization and
authoritarianism.
Creating fertile ground forfurther polarization and
authoritarianism.
Unions don't just supportworkers.
They sustain democracy itselfby fostering participation and
(01:01:41):
equity and accountability.
We talk a lot on this podcastabout how to preserve democracy,
how to identify when it's underthreat and what needs to be
done to rebuild an erodingdemocratic system.
One of the focuses of ourattention needs to be on
revitalizing unions and makingtheir role in our society a
priority.
Once again, All right, checkback next week for another
(01:02:04):
episode of Deep Dive Chat soon,folks.
Thank you, Thank you, you.
I think what often gets discounted in this conversation
about union decline is how allof these efforts to break unions
and to break the power ofcollective bargaining, to stall
contract negotiations andwhatnot, all of that has this
underlying effect of breakingwhat it actually means to be a
(00:21):
union which is to be on oneanother's side, what it actually
means to be a union which is tobe on one another's side.
And so that you know, I think,that that, dating back, you know
, to the mid 20th century, early20th century, was always,
always in the background andsomething that employers were
trying to do.
And also, you know, the Rightto Work Committee, for instance,
(00:42):
which has been bankrolled by,you know, the Koch brothers and
whomever else reallyprioritizing, you know,
activating those tensions.
Shawn (00:58):
Welcome to Deep Dive with me, s C Fettig.
Unions and union membershiphave been in decline in critical
places in the United States forthe past couple of decades, and
this has had electoralimplications with shifting
allegiances of the working classand, further down the line,
implications for Americandemocracy itself.
(01:18):
Labor unions were once thecornerstone of a working class
life, especially in Rust Beltcommunities like western
Pennsylvania.
Unions were more than justadvocates for fair wages and
workplace protections.
They were a kind of glue thatbound communities together,
creating a sense of sharedpurpose and connection.
But over the past severaldecades, the power of unions has
(01:42):
diminished significantly.
Deindustrialization,globalization and concerted
efforts to weaken organizedlabor have eroded the
institution, leaving a vacuum inboth economic and civic life.
In their absence, new forceshave emerged to shape the
political identities ofworking-class voters.
Forces like conservativeorganizations.
(02:04):
Identities of working-classvoters.
Forces like conservativeorganizations, evangelical
megachurches and culturalmovements that emphasize issues
like gun rights and patriotismover bread-and-butter issues and
civic engagement.
This shift has contributed tothe growing realignment of many
working-class voters away fromDemocrats and toward the
Republican Party, a realignmentthat's reshaping electoral
(02:26):
politics in America and may haveplayed a significant sleeper
role in the election of Trump toa second term.
So did the decline of unionstip the scales?
Could a stronger labor movementhave helped Democrats reconnect
with disaffected working-classvoters, and what does this shift
mean for the long-term healthof American democracy?
(02:47):
I discuss all of this with myguest today, lainey Newman,
co-author of the book Rust BeltUnion Blues, which examines the
political shift amongworking-class voters,
particularly in westernPennsylvania, and how the
decline of unions as botheconomic and social institutions
has contributed to a growingalignment of working class
voters with conservativepolitics and the Republican
(03:09):
Party.
All right, if you like thisepisode or any episode, please
give it a like, share and followon your favorite podcast
platform and or subscribe to thepodcast on YouTube.
And, as always, if you have anythoughts, questions or comments
, please feel free to email meat deepdivewithshawn at gmailcom
.
Let's do a deep dive.
(03:29):
Lainey Newman, thanks for beinghere.
How are you?
Lainey (03:39):
I'm doing great.
How are you, Shawn?
Shawn (03:41):
I'm doing great as well and I'm glad to have you here to
talk about something that Ithink one I don't know that I in
my I guess quote unquoteanalysis of contemporary
politics give a lot of attentionto.
You know, I'm going to forgivemyself for that, because I also
think you know some of the workthat you do, and particularly
(04:01):
some of the stuff that you'vewritten about, is stuff that
doesn't get a lot of attentionby the media in discussing kind
of the evolution of our politicsand also an explanation of why
we are where we are right now.
Lainey (04:13):
Yeah.
Shawn (04:13):
So I'm glad to have you here to talk a little bit about
it.
Lainey (04:17):
Definitely yeah.
Shawn (04:18):
I think I told you in advance that you know I grew up
in Wisconsin and I was livingthere when Scott Walker was the
governor.
And you know I grew up inWisconsin and I was living there
when Scott Walker was thegovernor and you know he kind of
made union busting his missionRight and I think in retrospect
he probably he largely succeededand this was really just part
of a larger push, especially inthe Midwest, to break the backs
of unions.
(04:39):
I think yeah.
At that time I didn't reallygrasp the importance of it or
the potential implications of it.
I do think we're seeing it now,though, but I'm not the person
that quite can quite explainwhat it is.
And before we get to how itmight have impacted this past
November election or the theshape of the electorate today, I
(04:59):
guess I'd like a bit of abetter understanding of how we
even got here in the first place, bit of a better understanding
of how we even got here in thefirst place.
So I'm wondering if you couldhelp me understand, you know, a
little bit of the history of thedecline of unions, how it's
kind of shaped electoralpolitics over time, in what ways
, and then how we got to wherewe are today, and then we can
dig in a little bit into wherewe are today.
Lainey (05:19):
Sure, yeah.
So things have changed a lotover the last couple of decades,
as we talk a bit about in thebook.
So I guess I'll start bytalking about kind of the peak
of union membership and uniondensity in the United States,
which was in the 1950s, whenover a third of private sector
employees were union members Atthat time.
(05:41):
Private sector employees sowhat I mean by that is, you know
, people working in coal mines,you know steel mills, textile
factories, any type ofcorporation, really not teachers
and sort of the public sectorunion union members we think of
today that were historicallypretty unregulated and had been
(06:07):
pressured by unions and in partby the federal government coming
out of the Great Depression, tocreate regulations to protect
workplaces.
And so there was this big pushin the 40s, in the 30s and the
40s to unionize and the 30s andthe 40s to unionize, and that
(06:29):
was really sort of at its peaktowards the 50s and the 60s as
well.
Things were still pretty strong.
To me, in our research wedocument the decline of American
labor and the power of Americanlabor, which had been building,
building, building, and eventhough there wasn't sort of the
NLRA or National Labor RelationsAct before, you know the Great
(06:50):
Depression and that type ofthing, there were still, you
know, movements of unionists andstrikes and picket lines and
that type of thing.
So really it was building allthroughout this, all throughout
American history.
And we point to the 1970s andor I guess at the highest level
at the White House, but thenalso in the private sector and
(07:30):
down throughout, even unionsthemselves.
And so I would say strength inthe 1950s at its highest and
then sort of downhill from there, especially in the 70s and
beyond.
Shawn (07:51):
So in my preamble I think I kind of prefaced this idea
that the blame for the declinelies at the feet of the
Republican Party.
But I think that's anovergeneralization.
You can correct me if you thinkI'm wrong.
But there's also regionalimplications to the evolution of
unions and unionization youknow, I think about.
You know North versus South,which is a common, common cleave
, right I think about, like BillClinton when he was the
(08:12):
governor of Arkansas, while hepaid lip service, you know he
wasn't particularly friendly tounions.
So that's like that's somethingelse that I think perhaps has
influenced the decline of unions.
But another is, like I said, Igrew up in a small town in
Wisconsin and I come from aworking class family.
I was raised by a single parentwho was not in a union.
(08:32):
So that was wasn't part of mylife, sure, but I was kind of an
outsider and I was gonna say Igrew up gay but I didn't.
I realized that I was in mylate teens and the reason I even
mentioned that is because Ialways knew that I was voting
the same way, that unions wereright and that was
(08:52):
pro-democratic or for Democrats.
But I always felt like it waskind of strange bedfellows that
we were voting for the sameparty but for very different
reasons, and I'm wondering ifthere's something culturally
here that was at play fordivision at some point.
Lainey (09:19):
Yeah, absolutely sort of alignment between unions and
union members and the DemocraticParty, particularly happening
in the 1960s with culturalissues, and by that I mean, you
know, racial issues.
Really, that came between theDemocratic Party and unions as
early as when Kennedy was inoffice, really, when there were
(09:43):
riots and protests inPhiladelphia because contractors
weren't hiring anyone any ofthe you know companies that had
Black members and unions weresort of blacklisting anyone who
wasn't white, not allowing theminto membership.
I mean, this was going on for along time and the Democratic
(10:04):
Party as the party of civilrights in the 1960s, you know, I
think that a lot of people viewthat as the point at which
there was this, you know,momentous division, and I do
think that that had something todo with the sort of ongoing
fragmentation of sort of theunion base in the Democratic
(10:26):
Party.
I don't think that that's theentire answer, but I do think
that you know the culturalissues.
Today, we see, you know not somuch racial issues, but you know
it's certainly for a long time.
You know LGBTQ issues and today, you know, with the trans
issues that were at the centerof this past election for sure,
(10:49):
abortion and gay marriage backin the 2010s and 2000s.
So yeah, absolutely.
I think that you know people inunions were voting based on.
This is the party that supportsa working class coalition.
And then you have a whole othersegment of the Democratic Party
, which really, I think inrecent history has taken over
(11:12):
the Democratic Party, that ismore focused on sort of, I guess
, identity-based issues.
Shawn (11:21):
It's almost hard, I think , to look back in the context of
the way that you're explainingthis, and this makes absolute
sense.
But it's almost difficult tolook back and imagine, given our
understanding of human nature,and then the coalitions that the
Democratic Party was buildingand trying to maintain 40s, 50s,
60s and forward.
It's almost like, in hindsight,we could predict that there was
(11:42):
going to be some friction atsome point.
But do you think this is tosome degree a failure of
imagination, where we are on thepart of Democrats, or some type
of ingenuity I would saynefarious ingenuity on the part
of Republicans to kind ofirritate that friction?
Lainey (12:02):
Oh yeah, I mean.
So there's, there's a lot ofevidence, I think, that I've
seen and we don't talk aboutthis that much in the book but
just in doing additionalresearch and potentially, you
know, for future sort ofpublications but that you know
that Republicans wereconservative entities during
this time, were, and corporateentities as well, were
(12:26):
activating these tensions verypurposefully.
We do touch on that a little bitin the book, but racial
conflict benefited the employerin the mid-20th century and so I
do think that that wassomething that was very
intentionally recognized byRepublicans.
I think what often getsdiscounted in this conversation
(12:54):
about union decline is how allof these efforts to break unions
and to break the power ofcollective bargaining, to stall
contract negotiations andwhatnot, all of that has this
underlying effect of breakingthe what it actually means to be
a union, which is to be on oneanother's side.
And so that you know, I thinkthat that dating back, you know,
to to the mid 20th century,early 20th century, was always,
(13:18):
always in the background andsomething that employers were
trying to do, and and and alsoyou know the Right to Work
Committee, for instance, whichhas been bankrolled by, you know
, the Koch brothers and whomeverelse really prioritizing, you
know, activating those tensions.
Shawn (13:37):
So if we take this a little bit outside of the realm
of solely politics because youknow it takes a number of
factors probably to explain thedecline of unions and
unionization in the UnitedStates so if we remove politics
a little bit and we look at thisthrough the lens of the economy
and the evolution of society,is there something about the way
(13:59):
that these have changed and theways in which they impact
working class folks' lives suchthat they also would have or
could have contributed to thedecline of unions, irrespective
of the political realm.
Lainey (14:12):
Yeah, I mean.
So there's definitely, you know,as you said, there's tons of
factors that went into thedecline of unions and I think a
huge one was, you know, just thedecline of manufacturing itself
and the decline of the US assort of the producer of a lot of
you know, raw materials andsteel and energy and coal.
(14:46):
That's often what what peoplepoint to in in terms of, you
know, pinpointing a a economicfactors that that contributed to
the decline of organized labor.
Obviously, as you mentioned,the, the South um has
historically and continues tohave very low rates of of
unionization, um, and the Northhas had much higher rates
comparatively, um, there was,you know, a lot of effort by
(15:07):
companies internally and from,you know, and foreign investment
that you know went to the South, from the North, in order to
avoid union labor and unionwages.
And so you know the economicfactors that allowed, I guess
the invisible hand that allowedthat those types of changes to
(15:29):
happen.
You know, foreign investmentand globalization and offshoring
and that type of thing all sortof, is part and parcel of union
decline happening in the 70sand 80s.
Shawn (15:43):
I want to try this question out on you and it's
really oversimplified.
So I want to admit that upfront.
I want to pivot a little bit tothis election and the impact
that the evolution ofunionization has had and how
that played out.
But to get there, I guess I'mwondering is it again?
This is oversimplification.
(16:03):
No-transcript.
Lainey (16:24):
Yeah.
So it's a good question.
I think it's a question at thetop of top of mind for a lot of
people and and I think I thinkthat in a certain sense, the
answer is yes, but I think thatit's more than just economic and
cultural.
So I'm going to complicate thequestion a bit.
Um, I I think that you know,one of the things that we we
talk about a bit in Rust Belt,union Blues, is this idea that
(16:48):
people have have said about howunion members who vote for
Republicans are voting against,quote unquote, voting against
their own best interest.
Democrats support unions andyou know unions pay better wages
and any worker who sees a unioncontract and a non-union
contract, if they don't knowwhich is which, they're going to
(17:10):
always pick the union contract,and so you know.
Or even if they do know whichis which, essentially just
because of how much better thosejobs are, pay and benefits wise
.
So I think that you know that'sthat's a line of thinking that
that I understand, but that wesort of push back on um, because
we don't see voting as sort ofa calculation of um, sort of a
(17:35):
metric based calculation of ofum.
You know, I guess, pluses andminuses based on the parties and
the candidates.
We, we more see, you know,voting as something that is, you
know, informed by one'snetworks, by the groups of which
one is part, the environment.
You know social factors andrelationships, family, you know
(18:01):
everything that goes intosomeone's identity also goes
into, you know how they vote.
And so one thing that, um, thatI that I think of is a steel
worker, for instance, could saywell, you know, trump really
helped us because he put on, you, put into place these steel
tariffs.
Um, you know which, which youknow Senator, some Democrats
(18:21):
that supported and that Biden,some of which Biden maintained.
Or that same steelworker couldsay I'm not going to vote for
Trump because you know he'santi-union labor.
So the way that we evaluate Ithink you know the pros and cons
and the economic pros and consand I guess I suppose the
(18:45):
cultural pros and cons as wellis all sort of informed by what
we're listening to, right, whattypes of, I guess, which track
we're adhering to.
You know whether we're adheringto that track of saying, oh,
the tariffs you know reallyhelped the steel industry,
versus, you know where, I'm notgoing to vote for someone who's
(19:05):
anti-union labor.
And so our theory is thatbecause unions don't occupy a
space in people's minds anymoreor in their communities and
their family life.
That puts, you know, thoseissues at the top of mind,
essentially, as those issues areprioritized in that way.
(19:30):
That underlies these decisionsthat people make.
Shawn (19:38):
So you're kind of complicating my next question
and I appreciate you for it, butit is making me wonder how to
frame this question.
Essentially, what I want to getat is if it's true that there
are other factors in people'slives that are playing a much
more salient kind of role ininfluencing, perhaps, the
relationships that they have,the types of groups and people
(20:02):
that they engage with, thethings that they care about,
that are perhaps lendingthemselves to making it easier
to vote for a Republicancandidate or align with a
Republican candidate more sothan a Democratic candidate.
And, in the light of thiselection and the unique
character of Trump, I wonder if,if irrespective of whether or
(20:27):
not unions are present, thatthere's something about these
types of voters or these typesof folks that the you know
landscape has shifted so muchthat, if they're in a union or
not, they are attracted to thesetypes of politics.
Lainey (20:42):
Yeah, yeah, I agree with you there.
I think that there has been ashift, you know, in sort of the
understanding of who's on theaverage person's side.
If we put ourselves into thatposition, we're talking about
this subset of voters.
You know who's on our side andI think that you know whether,
(21:06):
whether people in the mid 20 ormid to late 20th century were
members of unions or not, therewasn't the same sort of um, I
think, paradigm about sort of usversus them that there is now.
I think now the the them is theelite, like the sort of, I
guess, cultural elite that isrepresented by the elite,
(21:28):
universities, the, you knowpeople, successful, you know,
highly educated, I guess wealthy, you know liberal, coastal
elites versus, you know, theaverage American who's, you know
, concerned about how, you knowwhat they're going to be able to
buy their kids for Christmasand the prices of eggs going up
(21:48):
at Walmart and that type ofthing.
I think that there's a real sortof sense of just a chasm,
really, that that people sensebetween themselves and what is
represented as the democraticparty or what they see as the
democratic party.
And I think that you know, ifwe think back to this era of
union power, labor power, really, it was the, the, the them, uh,
(22:11):
was the corporate elite.
You know, it was more or thatthat that unions were trying to
activate and what they sort oftapped into was, you know, the
bosses.
Um, those guys are the ones whoare the other.
It's us workers versus thebosses, and who's going to help
(22:33):
the bosses and who's going tohelp the workers?
And so I do think that thatwhole paradigm has definitely
shifted, as you said.
I do think that that hasshifted and I think that in part
, it shifted because unionsaren't occupying that space
anymore, that's informing howpeople are seeing you know
themselves relative to the restof society.
Shawn (22:54):
Okay, so that's, I guess, where I'd like to go.
Next, then, is, if we focus onthat the decline of unions as
being a significant factor, inkind, of the morass we're in,
how much do you attribute thatdecline to this political moment
, to the election of Trump thisyear?
Lainey (23:12):
Yeah, I think it's contributed hugely.
I do.
I think that when you look atthe electoral map and think
about the key swing states rightnow and, of course, this
election there were several,including North Carolina,
arizona, et cetera, but the keyswing states I mean everyone was
(23:33):
focused on Pennsylvania,wisconsin and Michigan, and that
has been the case for the pastseveral elections those were the
states that were the epicenterof union power, I mean really
that were the union theepicenter of union power.
I mean really WesternPennsylvania, michigan, detroit,
(23:56):
outside of Detroit, you knowWisconsin, with going back all
the way to La Follette and LaFollette, I think you know union
leader, storied union leader,and so I do think that you know
that you can't, it's impossible,to ignore the importance of
this transition and thistransformation in terms of you
(24:17):
know the electoral outcomes.
Shawn (24:20):
So one of the things that , in all honesty, reading Rust
Belt Union Blues, there was akind of chilling feeling that
came over me when I was readingthis, in that there, I think
there's something missed in howwe think about this current
moment in our politics and howoften we attribute this to or
simply being a Trump phenomenon,and I think there's something
(24:44):
in reading the book that reallygot me thinking that this is not
solely a Trump phenomenon.
Now he's clearly tapping intosomething, and Biden was able to
kind of chip away at that in2020.
But I am starting to have thisconcern that, especially
following this election and thereturns suggesting that to these
(25:07):
critical voters, these workingclass voters in the Rust Belt
states or in the blue wall, thatthe Democratic Party is just
not speaking to them, and myfear is that we've turned a
corner in such a way becausethere's nothing on deck, the
Democrats aren't reallyproposing anything, and I want
to get to Bernie Sanders alittle bit later and that, to me
(25:29):
, suggests that we're looking atprobably a protracted period of
time to which these voters,these working class voters, may
be lost to the progressive causeor to the Democratic Party.
Lainey (25:40):
Yeah, I mean, I think that working class people have,
you know, feel, and this is whatwe talk about in the book, but
you know that Democrats havejust abandoned them and have
prioritized other other issues.
I guess economic liberalizationin the laissez faire way, you
(26:03):
know meaning of liberalization,you know starting with really
starting with Clinton andthrough the Obama era, biden
sort of went a differentdirection, I think, than that.
But I do think that you knowthe sentiment is that you know
these areas have reallystruggled and the election of
(26:26):
Democrats, either on the locallevel or on the federal level,
hasn't saved the communities andhasn't saved the good paying
jobs.
I saw that all the time when Iwas doing this research.
It's really sad that you knowwhat some of these communities
(26:46):
look like and you know, you cantell that there was a lot of
life once there and that therewas a lot lost.
And so I think that there is asentiment that you know what was
going on for so long voting forDemocrats.
You know unions, you know theunion member and union family,
union communities aligningthemselves purely, you know,
(27:08):
completely with the DemocraticParty and essentially then not
getting any what, what, whatpeople have seen as anything in
return.
I do think that the DemocraticParty has, you know, done some
things for, for, for workingclass people, but clearly it's
not felt by by a lot of people.
So I I do agree that I thinkthat it's a lot broader than
(27:30):
just, you know, just just Trumpand this decline.
I mean we, we document it backto the seventies.
Jimmy Carter, you know, didn'tbail out the, the steel industry
.
Obama did bail out the, youknow, the auto industry after
the 2008 financial crisis.
But I think that you know, thechoice to not bail out the steel
(27:53):
industry back in the 70s thatwould have then, you know, would
have now been seen as a drop inthe federal budget still has
ramifications.
I mean, you think about the USsteel and Nippon steel deal,
that that was recently rejected,but and how essentially that
some people are, a lot of unionmembers are saying that that's
the end of, you know, the US, ussteel's presence in western
(28:16):
Pennsylvania, because there'ssort of no feasible way to come
out of that.
Whether that's true or not, Idon't know.
Basically, I mean, yeah, Ithink that this goes way back
and and that that it isn't justTrump, that it's much, much
larger, and that we have, youknow, we, have a lot to rebuild
(28:39):
in these areas if we, if we wantto earn back these voters.
Shawn (28:47):
So I'm taking kind of a circuitous route to where I want
to go.
So that explains this nextquestion, which is I feel like
the Democratic Party as much asthe Republican Party, but in a
very different way has gonethrough quite an evolution on
its platform in the last decadeor so.
And we can blame, you know,republicans for the us versus
them narrative, especially as itrelates to queer folks and
trans folks.
(29:08):
But we can also blame theDemocratic Party, I think, for
kind of flailing a little bit inhow to maintain their big tent.
You know, I forgive theDemocratic Party for having to
do that, but at the same time itfeels like they're flailing and
I feel like we are at a momentin time where, in order for the
Democratic Party to kind ofrebuild that coalition, they
(29:28):
have to somehow find a tentativebalance between appeasing I'm
just saying broadly the workingclass vote, the union vote and
those that make cultural issues,progressive cultural issues,
their top priority.
And I feel like that's anincredibly difficult task, if
not impossible, and I wonder ifyou think there's a way to
(29:52):
thread that needle.
Lainey (29:54):
Yeah, it's a really good question.
So I think that it is a bigproblem.
I think that you know thecultural sort of baggage that
Kamala Harris carried on some ofthe sort of progressive issues
was a huge reason why, or asignificant reason why, you know
, the election went the way thatit did, her seen, as you know
(30:16):
too quote unquote leftist by alot of people, even though she
was pretty moderate on most ofthe issues you know in reality.
So I think that you know, Ithink that there there's a
couple issues with how the partyis set up right now, or sort of
the state of the party rightnow.
I would first say that I don'tthink that there's been, like
(30:36):
you know, there hasn't been sortof a clear sense of direction
and leadership in a soul youknow, based on, or a leader you
know him or herself, um, sincethe Obama era and it, um, and so
I think that that sort of youknow, since since 2012, I think
that the party has sort of beentrying to find itself, um, and
(30:57):
we have, you know, biden, who Ithink was really great for the
moment but wasn't, you know, ata place where he could continue
the sort of mission because ofage.
So I think that that's onething.
I also think that and Iremember sort of reading about
this with Clinton, with BillClinton who had sort of a
(31:24):
reckoning moment when he wasapproached by some
African-American activists wherehe basically, you know, said
I'm on your side, but we alsohave to recognize that you know,
we're, you know I have to run acampaign so I can't talk about
all these issues or whatever.
I think that one thing that'shappened is there's been sort of
(31:45):
this or whatever.
I think that one thing that'shappened is there's been sort of
this a closure of the gap or ofthe space between the activists
and advocates for certainprogressive issues and the party
itself, and there's become sortof litmus tests on candidates,
whereas, you know, in previoustimes I suppose, the activists
(32:17):
advocate and sort of activateabout a certain issue, activism
and you know what would beelectorally feasible.
Because it's just, you know, nottrue right now that you know
the broad population supportscertain measures.
So you know, politicians can'tnecessarily come out in support
(32:37):
of those measures, even if theprogressive community is really
sort of passionate about them,and I think that the space
between those two sort of groups, you know, has has just kind of
collapsed and they're sort ofnow one, I mean now, you know,
intermingled, and so there's,there's, there's this sort of
sense that they're, you know,everyone who's a Democrat has to
(32:58):
be a hundred percent on on meet, all of these sort of checks in
terms of cultural issues.
So I think that one way tostrike that balance and so I
could touch on a couple ofthings here, but one is
leadership.
Who's the leader of the party?
What's the direction of theparty?
How do we sort of have a visionfor the party moving forward?
And then, second, how do we saythe party needs to focus on
(33:24):
electoral success, you know weand differentiate that from some
of the activism on the left.
Shawn (33:33):
So I guess, that brings me to if we keep in mind that
the message could be at fault,but also the messenger can be a
problem, or lack thereof, Isuppose.
So that brings me to BernieSanders, because he was pitching
a very populist but workingclass message, pro-union message
(33:53):
, when he was running againstHillary Clinton in 2015, 2016.
And I've been mulling this ideaand I'm not the, I'm sure I'm
not the only one but that, hadBernie Sanders won that, there
was a very real possibility atthat moment to have cobbled back
together kind of that unionvote under the Democratic Party
(34:16):
without what I think under Trumphas evolved to include what I
consider to be really homophobic, misogynistic, racist, nativist
language and rhetoric that isnow just seems to be bundled up
in this whole movement.
That seems difficult todisentangle and I wonder if you
think that Bernie Sanders andhis message was a better message
(34:38):
and messenger that might haveaverted some of this.
Lainey (34:43):
I think that in hindsight, the answer is yes.
I mean, it's hard.
It's hard to say you know inthe moment without knowing you
know the future.
I think that everyone was soconfident in 2016 that a
Democrat could be any Democrat,could be Donald Trump.
You know that that wasn't that.
(35:06):
It wasn't a question of whetheryou know sort of we were going
to have to stave off this partyof various, you know, isms, I
guess, racism, homophobia, etcetera, um, and and the goal was
, I think, internally, the partywas had this idea of, you know,
the first woman president andall all of these different sort
of markers, including that, youknow, hillary.
(35:27):
It was Hillary's turn, quoteunquote.
I think that you know thepopulist and sort of appeal of
Bernie Sanders can't be ignored.
I mean, he had a vision for theparty.
He, you know, clearly waspopular, was activated people or
galvanized people in a way thatHillary didn't, and so, to the
(35:52):
extent that the party was sortof mingling in the affairs of
sort of, or weighing the outcome, I think that that was wrong.
But you know, that being said,it's hard to think about the
counterfactual.
I do think that that that typeof leadership of someone who who
has a very sort ofstraightforward you know no
(36:16):
bullshit, um, you know, you knowtalks to the people type of
attitude that that people senseis genuine.
I think that that's a hugething.
Um, whether you know apolitician comes across as
two-faced or duplicitous orwhatever um is, is personality
really an appeal is just huge.
And so I think that you knowthe Democrats should think,
(36:40):
should, should remember thatlesson of of who's getting
people excited.
Um, and, and you know, even ifit's not the first choice of the
of the quote unquote core party, and you know, even if it's not
the first choice of the quoteunquote core party, you know
it's really important, movingforward, that we listen to
what's getting people excited,what's galvanizing people.
Shawn (36:58):
So we've talked about the types of things that have
contributed to the decline ofunions and how that brought us
to today.
But there's another directionto that relationship to the
decline of unions and how thatbrought us to today.
But there's another directionto that relationship, which is
that the decline of unions alsoimpacts other things, and so
these are things that you'vewritten about, and you've talked
about things like civicengagement in communities, which
, in turn, influences or canweaken our institutions, which,
(37:20):
in turn, can threaten ourdemocracy.
So I'm wondering if you couldtalk a little bit about how the
decline of unions hascontributed to that and what
that relationship has lookedlike.
Lainey (37:28):
Sure, yeah, absolutely so.
I think that unions were partYMCAs, uh, et cetera, churches,
(37:57):
religious institutions, um had a, had sort of had a much larger
role in people's lives.
And this goes back to the workof, you know, bob Putnam with
Bowling Alone, um in in the in,I guess, the late nineties, that
that was Um, but so, yeah, Imean there's.
So unions were part of thatwhole fabric of civic engagement
(38:17):
and all of those, all of thoseinstitutions and organizations
sort of built on one another.
And that's the thing aboutgrassroots community
organizations is, you know,people here, people are in one
and then you know there'scrossover between one and the
other.
I was just talking to someonewho was saying that the
(38:38):
pensioners of the local I thinkit was the, I can't remember
which local, it was for thesteelworkers, but some
pensioners affiliation of alocal union, would meet at the
Elks Lodge every month orwhatever, and they would hold
their meetings there, whereasthe union meetings themselves
(38:59):
would be at the union hall andthere was all this sort of
crossover and we talk a lotabout that in the book is
documenting crossover betweenthese organizations.
And so I think that one thingthat the decline of unions has
done one thing that the declineof unions has done and this goes
along with simply, you knowgood paying jobs and you know
(39:21):
people being sort of co-locatedin one area, you know decline of
manufacturing as well Peopleare no longer sort of part of
those interconnected communitiesin the way that they once were.
I think unions had the benefitof being sort of workplace
mandatory, I suppose.
I mean you could obviously haveopt-outs for various reasons,
(39:43):
but it was one organization orcivic group that all people who
worked at a certain place werepart of.
It wasn't based on, you know,race or ethnicity or religion or
whatever it was.
It was based on workplace.
And so it it created all.
It created relationships and anetwork, um, amongst a lot of
(40:04):
different you know people whohad very different backgrounds,
um, and who maybe wouldn't behanging out at the Slovak club
but went there because their youknow, buddy was, you know was a
member, and then they ended uphanging out there every Sunday
to drink beers, which issomething that I was told by one
of the retirees that you know,everyone would just go to one
(40:25):
another's sort of groups becauseit was just a place to go and
hang out.
And so I think that that's that, that initial, that those
initial connections that werebred by unions, when those no
longer exist, that reallyimpacts the ripple effect of
(40:47):
civic organizations and howcivic organizations can build on
one another.
So, in addition to all theeconomic losses that have
happened and democratic erosionfrom the decline of unions and
all that, it's absolutely, Ithink, the case that civic life
has suffered as a result.
Shawn (41:09):
I think there's generally been in the lexicon of
explanations of why democracycan collapse or may.
Backslide is the story of adecline of civic engagement writ
large irrespective of unions.
The rise of social media, theability for people to kind of
(41:30):
engage with each other only inways that they want and to do it
anonymously, that this all hascontributed to a chipping away
at democracy.
And then you know that was kindof kickstarted under the
pandemic when everybody was athome, required to be at home.
And I can see where that alsowould apply to union members as
well.
Right, that same kind ofnarrative.
But if we buy that narrative, Iwonder if there's a proactive
(41:55):
argument to be made here thatrobust, strong and robust unions
actually contribute to thehealth of a democracy.
Lainey (42:02):
Yeah, yeah, I mean I think that there is One thing
that unions taught were you knowsort of democratic norms.
You know the unions were likeother organizations, like
paternal groups and and others.
Unions were federatedstructures so that actually in a
lot of ways like mirrored sortof a governing structure.
(42:22):
And so there was, there wassort of, so there was education
about the democratic you knowsort of processes on multiple
levels.
Processes on multiple levels.
The first was, you know, viathe structure of the union and
participating in union meetings,or at least you know elections
or whatnot, so that you knowthat has a democratic component.
(42:44):
And then the other is thatunions would educate members
purposefully and veryintentionally about democracy.
And so in some of these oldunion publications that we
looked at, there's long, longform articles about you know how
the United States Department ofTreasury works, or you know
what the Attorney General of theUnited States does and how to
(43:07):
file, and not only those, youknow sort of more abstract
concepts, but also you know verysort of particular concepts
about you know how to file forSocial Security benefits and
what to do if you know sort ofmore abstract concepts, but also
you know very sort ofparticular concepts about you
know how to file for socialsecurity benefits and what to do
if you know a claim gets deniedby an insurer or something like
that, like things to helpmembers navigate the landscape
(43:28):
of you know democratic and otherpolitical sort of institutions.
And so you know even and onething that we talk about in the
book is just knowledge that was,I guess, spread by unions about
completely unrelated things.
Just that was, you know, usefulto members.
So a lot of people in WesternPennsylvania hunt and you know
(43:49):
then and now.
But you know so what are thewhen does the season start?
When you know what types of youknow shotguns can you use at
this time of the month versusthat time of the month.
You know what's the limit ondeer that you can take or shoot,
so that type of thing.
I mean things that were usefulto people and things that were
(44:09):
more abstract.
So I think that the educationhappened on a lot of different
levels, subconsciously andconsciously.
And then there's also, of course, you know just the sort of
integration of all differenttypes of people that you get in
a union, and I don't only meanyou know racially, but I also
mean you know once women startedbeing accepted into workplaces
(44:32):
and you know people of differentbackgrounds.
I mean it used to be a big bigdifference ifplaces and you know
people of different backgrounds.
I mean it used to be a big bigdifference if you were, you know
, irish, catholic, catholic,versus you know someone who
German, or whatever, um and so,or Italian, you know, and so I
think that what you had in theseplaces were a unification, you
know, unification of interestsbetween very different people,
(44:53):
and and that that went a longway in terms of, you know,
uniting of interests betweenvery different people, and that
that went a long way in terms of, you know, uniting people and
making them sort of feel liketheir fellow American, was, you
know, their friend, and thatthey, you know, had common
interests with them despitetheir differences.
Shawn (45:11):
One of the things that I found particularly I want to say
striking, but I'm going to usethe word striking as an action
in a minute.
So what I found particularlyinteresting in this past
election was the schism thatseemed to emerge between union
leadership and the rank and file, with rank and file being
(45:31):
largely supportive of Trump andI'm just painting with a broad
brush here and union leadershipeither being torn or
pro-democratic.
And I live in, I live inSeattle, the Seattle area, and
so I you know we had the Boeingstrike right before the election
and I was really again, I wantto, I want to say the word.
I was struck by the fact thatso many of the striking workers
(45:55):
were fervently pro Trump and theunion leadership was not on the
same page at least some of themwere not on the same page and I
almost feel like, to somedegree, what might be happening
here is a bit of a microcosm ofwhat's happening at the larger
level in our politics, which isjust a backlash against the
elite.
But I'm wondering if there isan emerging schism between union
(46:17):
leadership and rank and filethat's having an impact on the
effectiveness of unions.
Lainey (46:24):
Yeah, absolutely so.
I think that there is anincreasing schism, though I
think that there always has beensort of a separation between
the leadership and the rank andfile.
But I think now the leadershipis not as trusted as it once was
.
There's always sort of beenthis sense of we don't want, you
know, the union leaders tellingus who to vote for, and we
(46:47):
found in a 1955 survey of UnitedSteelworkers members that they
didn't really think that it wasnecessary for the union to
endorse anyone, that they wantedjust sort of information
instead of a directive.
But I think that now thedifference is there has become a
sense that amongst many unionmembers that the union
(47:10):
leadership on the executivelevel out in DC is just another,
just a wing of the DemocraticParty.
They don't even think about theRepublicans, they don't, they
don't consider it, they're justin the back, they're in the
pocket of the Democratic Partyand they don't care about what
the members think either.
That that chasm has emerged inrecent years, and particularly
(47:35):
accelerated with Trump, and hasresulted in people feeling that
the leadership isn't listeningto the membership and that poses
a really significant problemfor unions themselves how unions
run union structure, becausethe whole idea is to sort of
adhere to the members' interests.
(47:55):
So what happens when themembers you know I guess I was
told by one person that you knowover two thirds of the UMW
workers.
So United Mine workers supportTrump, and I'm sure that that
was 2020.
I don't know what it was 2024,but it probably was similar.
You know what happens when avast majority of because you
(48:16):
know the membership would haveessentially discredited that
(48:38):
endorsement.
Do I think that that is theright decision to make?
I'm not.
It's, you know.
It's not clear to me thatthat's the right decision to
make.
I heard from a lot of peoplethat the role of the union is to
, you know, advise their memberson what's best for them and
that type of argument.
But I do see why a leader woulddecide to not go against the
(49:01):
sort of broad-based wishes ofthe membership so directly.
And so I do think that thatemerging difference between
unions, union leadership,difference between unions, union
leadership, often in DC and themembers out across the country,
sort of builds on itself andhas in recent years become even
(49:22):
more apparent.
Shawn (49:29):
You know, what it kind of strikes me is that it's almost
as if so there were exogenousthreats to unionization.
You've kind of explained thatevolution, but now it almost
feels like the wolf is in thehouse, in that you know, if the
members are turning againstleadership, that is, that feels
like a potential existentialthreat to unionization in and of
itself.
So it's almost like not to laythis all at the feet of the
Republican Party.
(49:49):
But at this point themembership, the rank and file,
could finish the job.
Lainey (49:54):
Yeah, I mean that's really tough because I think a
lot of people feel that.
You know, unfortunately, a lotof people feel workers that I
spoke to in my research don'tfeel like the union was
benefiting them too much and Ithink in their minds, you know,
separate the job from the union.
(50:16):
What I mean by that is folks whohave, you know, union jobs
understand that those jobs aregood jobs.
You know there's protection,you know there's often much
better benefits, higher wages,than a non-union job.
But there's often anattribution error that emerges
between sort of you know whypeople see that as a good job,
(50:40):
which is something thatfrustrates, I think, a lot of
union leadership.
But people see the union assort of extraneous, as
unnecessary, and I even hadsomeone tell me well, now we
have OSHA and now we have, youknow, we have these laws that
protect us.
Why do we need, you know, whydo we need the unions to take
(51:01):
money out of our pocket?
And so I think that that senseof you know the disaggregation
between what unions you knowbring to the table and you know
sort of the on the face, on thesurface, you know job that's
offered by an employer is reallyproblematic and that's
something that you know unionleadership is concerned about, I
(51:23):
think, moving forward.
Shawn (51:25):
So earlier I asked you to kind of look back and pose a
counterfactual and imagine howthat would play out.
And I guess now, just quickly,I want to ask you, looking
forward, to prognosticate andI'm a pessimist, I'll just admit
that up front.
But given what you've studiedin the history that you, that
you're aware of, as it relatesto union building and union
(51:46):
busting in the United States,and the current moment and where
we are and the behavior ofunion both at leadership and
rank and file levels, what kindof hope do you have that unions
can play, you know, a democracybuilding role in the next decade
or so?
Lainey (52:02):
Yeah, yeah, well, it's, you know, it's, it's.
It's hard to be optimistic, Ithink, having done this research
, and I try to be optimistic butI probably am, more naturally
also a pessimist, but I mean, Ithink that there's.
I think, you know, one of ourgoals in this project was to try
(52:25):
to figure out what gave unionssuch power over and such you
know sort of loyalty amongstmembers, amongst you know
Americans, and why, for so long,being a union member was a core
part of people's identity.
You know, there's, I think,about one article in a union
(52:47):
publication that I read thatquoted a member who had passed
away recently who said you know,my most important possession is
my union card, and that type ofthing.
We saw a lot, I mean not youknow, in various iterations that
the pride in being a union manand at the time it really was
(53:08):
men for the most part, but thepride in being a union man was
really important to people andthat gave unions a lot of power
politically, socially, etc.
And when something is so coreto one's identity, the political
calculus is very different thanjust sort of pulling on
(53:32):
marginal issue stances of aparticular candidate, like
whether they're going to supportfuture, you know, sort of
pro-union legislation orsomething like that.
I mean, in other words, it's,you know, it's a lot more
powerful when a union is reallycore to one's identity than if
(53:53):
the union is just saying, well,this person is going to in the
future, probably, if it comesdown to it, would vote in a way
that would benefit you If thathas nothing to do with you know
who you are and your communityand your family life, et cetera.
And so I think that you knowone thing that we want out of
the project that we did and thatwe are hoping for, is that
(54:16):
unions can, you know, build backthe sort of power that they had
in communities and amongstpeople, not only in the
(54:41):
workplace but outside theworkplace, partnering with other
organizations and having moreof a presence in people's lives
than just, you know, in theemployer-employee relationship
in terms of collectivebargaining.
So I think that's one thingthat we saw, as you know,
something that wasn't reallyfocused on but was such an
important part of what madeunions so powerful was this
(55:05):
sense of loyalty and identity.
So I do think that there's alot of potential and I think
that you see in some unions thatreally you know that being more
effective and working to acertain extent.
I mean, we talked to somemembers of the IBEW who talked
(55:25):
about how, you know, the tradeshave maintained more of a sense
of identity because the tradeunions so you know very, when
you think about the AFL and CIOCIO was industrial unions mainly
and the AFL was the tradeunions.
So the trade unions, like IBEW,you know, brick masons there's,
(55:49):
you know you know, lots ofplumbers, pipefitters etc.
That they've maintained more ofa sense of identity because
they've been it's sort of moreof a skillset based organization
and and and there hasn't beenas much expansion into into
other realms.
So the steel workers I mean soI'm now a member of the United
(56:09):
Auto Workers as a, as a teacherhere at Harvard University,
whereas you know when you thinkof an autoworker you don't think
of a graduate student atHarvard University but that a
lot of industrial unions haveexpanded in that sense and have
expanded beyond their initialsort of realm, whereas the craft
(56:29):
unions haven't.
And so there's.
So I heard from one some peoplethat you know they think that
that's a real strength and thatthere's a lot more sort of
buy-in because it's seen, as youknow, this is our group that
represents us, and and um, youknow that there's a lot of
tattoos, even that, um, peopleget tattoos with their, with
their union logo, from the, fromthe craft unions and that type
(56:50):
of thing.
And, um, you know, to the extentthat you can sort of compare,
how various unions have fared interms of, you know, maintaining
a sense of identity andmaintaining a presence in
people's lives apart from theworkplace, and that type of
thing.
You can see where there's, youknow, benefits and what has
worked and what hasn't, and sothat is one thing that I think
(57:12):
can give us hope is that, youknow, maybe in the future we can
see how some more unions can,can build, build back in this
way and become more integral topeople's lives, using some of
the techniques that have beeneffective.
You know, for some of theseother unions, um, and techniques
that you know currently aren'tin play, but maybe you know that
are that people innovate, um,because there's a lot of, you
(57:34):
know, incredibly talented peoplein in labor and um, and it's,
you know, I, I, I never want tobe sort of um, just I guess you
know nagging on labor or or, orcritiquing them or whatever.
I mean, people are workingincredibly hard.
Um, and so you know, I do thinkthat there is a lot of
potential there and there's some, there's excitement.
(57:55):
I mean, there's a lot of publicsupport right now, so there's
there's definitely some hope.
Shawn (58:00):
Okay, final question.
You ready for it?
Lainey (58:03):
Yes, I am.
Shawn (58:04):
What's something interesting you've been reading,
watching, listening to or doinglately, and it doesn't have to
be related to this topic, but itcan be this topic, but it can
be Well, let's see.
Lainey (58:19):
I feel, like my, my life as a student has been taking up
most of my most of my time, but, um, one thing that I that I
listened to is the podcaststrict scrutiny.
Um, I, I recommend that one.
Um, I I think that it'simportant.
You know, legal rules seem veryabstract and are very abstract,
but are often incrediblyimportant, and one of the things
that I'm working on in thefuture is looking at how
(58:43):
changing legal how changing youknow legal rules because of
Supreme Court decisions haveimpacted how unions are able to
spend money on communitybuilding initiatives, and so you
know some things that you don'tthink that you know courts
should have anything to do with.
Or you know, or do haveanything to do with, they have
something to do with, and so Ithink that it's important to
(59:05):
know about.
You know what's going on in thelegal landscape, and so that's
a good one landscape, and sothat's that's a good one.
Let's see if I can give another.
I do a lot of.
I really like reading fiction,so right now I am reading a, the
book called the Friend bySigrid Nunez, which was
(59:30):
recommended to me by my mom andit's really good so far.
So I'll also recommend that one.
And I don't really watch muchTV, but I follow the Pittsburgh
Steelers a great deal.
So it hasn't been too greatover the last couple of games,
but we're hoping for aturnaround come the playoffs.
(59:50):
So, but yeah, those are acouple of things I'd say.
Shawn (59:53):
You know, I love strict scrutiny and I think those folks
are so smart and they're sowitty and they're so funny.
But I think I sometimes get socaught up in how witty and funny
they are that I forget they'relike they're talking about some
really weighty stuff and I'mlike am I just like g my way
(01:00:14):
into authoritarianism?
Lainey (01:00:16):
I know, I know, but you, I mean, at a certain point
there has to be humor.
You know, it's, there's.
Yeah, I, I agree, I they're,they're fantastic, um, and I was
lucky to work with Kate Shaw abit um for a while, so she's,
she's lovely, um, but they'reall, they're all great, and
sometimes we do have to laugh.
Shawn (01:00:35):
Yeah, yeah, Lainey, thanks for taking the time.
I think it's a complicatedtopic and I think it's one
that's going to play out inserious ways over the next
decade or so.
So thanks for explaining it tome.
Lainey (01:00:46):
For sure, thanks for having me.
Shawn (01:00:54):
Unions have historically played a vital role in fostering
civic engagement, communityties and a political voice for
working-class Americans, andtheir decline has left a void,
one that's been filled by forcesthat often prioritize division
and cultural resentment oversolidarity and progress.
In the absence of strong unions, the working class has become
(01:01:17):
increasingly vulnerable topolitical manipulation and
disinformation.
Under a second Trump presidency, the erosion of labor rights
and democratic norms couldprobably will accelerate,
creating fertile ground forfurther polarization and
authoritarianism.
Creating fertile ground forfurther polarization and
authoritarianism.
Unions don't just supportworkers.
They sustain democracy itselfby fostering participation and
(01:01:41):
equity and accountability.
We talk a lot on this podcastabout how to preserve democracy,
how to identify when it's underthreat and what needs to be
done to rebuild an erodingdemocratic system.
One of the focuses of ourattention needs to be on
revitalizing unions and makingtheir role in our society a
priority.
Once again, All right, checkback next week for another
(01:02:04):
episode of Deep Dive Chat soon,folks.
Thank you, Thank you, you.
Popular Podcasts
On Purpose with Jay Shetty
I’m Jay Shetty host of On Purpose the worlds #1 Mental Health podcast and I’m so grateful you found us. I started this podcast 5 years ago to invite you into conversations and workshops that are designed to help make you happier, healthier and more healed. I believe that when you (yes you) feel seen, heard and understood you’re able to deal with relationship struggles, work challenges and life’s ups and downs with more ease and grace. I interview experts, celebrities, thought leaders and athletes so that we can grow our mindset, build better habits and uncover a side of them we’ve never seen before. New episodes every Monday and Friday. Your support means the world to me and I don’t take it for granted — click the follow button and leave a review to help us spread the love with On Purpose. I can’t wait for you to listen to your first or 500th episode!
24/7 News: The Latest
The latest news in 4 minutes updated every hour, every day.
Crime Junkie
Does hearing about a true crime case always leave you scouring the internet for the truth behind the story? Dive into your next mystery with Crime Junkie. Every Monday, join your host Ashley Flowers as she unravels all the details of infamous and underreported true crime cases with her best friend Brit Prawat. From cold cases to missing persons and heroes in our community who seek justice, Crime Junkie is your destination for theories and stories you won’t hear anywhere else. Whether you're a seasoned true crime enthusiast or new to the genre, you'll find yourself on the edge of your seat awaiting a new episode every Monday. If you can never get enough true crime... Congratulations, you’ve found your people. Follow to join a community of Crime Junkies! Crime Junkie is presented by audiochuck Media Company.