American auto workers and the UAW have been struggling – and even striking – to try to save their members' jobs. In the last round of negotiations with GM and Chrysler the union won job guarantees for a segment of its shrinking membership. But tragically, most of the jobs it saved are jobs of the past, not jobs the future.
The UAW rescued jobs that will soon evaporate as the US transitions into a green economy. Most are for building inferior gas guzzlers that not enough people want to buy. GM did announce during the negotiations that it would produce a new electric car called the Volt at a Michigan plant beginning in 2010. But according to some, the technology and the production plans are still very tentative. (It should also be noted that GM announced this week that it would open a major new research facility to develop green technologies—in China. GM’s US and Australian engineers who currently do this kind of work are worried.) By failing to mount a full scale challenge to GM’s product decisions and by joining GM in opposing stricter mileage standards, the UAW has helped make it likely that whatever jobs it “saved” under the new contract will soon be eliminated by environmental regulation – and global competition from vehicles with a smaller carbon footprint.
Job security for autoworkers no longer means simply limiting outsourcing, it requires shifting to cleaner, more energy efficient vehicles that offer genuine anchor for future job security. The UAW could have used this contract to demand that GM produce quality cars that address global warming concerns and that people want to buy. Instead, it let the automakers cast it in the role of “junior dinosaur.”
There is an alternative. Labor should actively promote the transition to a green economy. By doing so it can help create and retain decent union jobs with a future. The good news is that some parts of the labor movement are already hard at work on new strategies.
New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman, rarely a friend of labor, recently described the labor-backed Oakland Apollo Alliance’s successful creation of a "green-collar" union jobs program to train young low-income workers to install solar panels and weatherize buildings. A campaign by unions and allies persuaded the Oakland city government to kick in $250,000. The effort has recently gone national, launching the "Green for All" campaign designed to pressure Congress to allocate $125 million to train 30,000 young people a year in green trades.
Friedman writes: “It’s about jobs. The more government requires buildings to be more energy efficient, the more work there will be retrofitting buildings all across America with solar panels, insulation and other weatherizing materials. Those are manual-labor jobs that can’t be outsourced.”
According to Van Jones, one of the leaders of the campaign: “You can’t take a building you want to weatherize, put it on a ship to China and then have them do it and send it back…So we are going to have to put people to work in this country — weatherizing millions of buildings, putting up solar panels, constructing wind farms. Those green-collar jobs can provide a pathway out of poverty for someone who has not gone to college…[A] big chunk of the African-American community is economically stranded. The blue-collar, stepping-stone, manufacturing jobs are leaving. And they’re not being replaced by anything. So you have this whole generation of young blacks who are basically in economic free fall.”
Friedman thinks that “Green-collar retrofitting jobs are a great way to catch them." We agree.
But will it catch on with organized labor?
As we’ve written before, American labor is caught in an internal stalemate among those who fear job loss from efforts to deal with global warming, those who have not considered global warming an important union issue, and those who see the climate crisis as a call for immediate action and an opportunity for sustainable economic development.
Often the public face of labor has been its official policy positions. Those positions have included opposing the Kyoto Protocols, blocking high standards for auto energy efficiency, and supporting new proposals for coal gasification—estimated to double the rate of greenhouse gas production.
But as we travel around and talk to various segments of the labor movement, it is increasingly clear that large numbers of trade unionists and their allies are deeply worried about the environmental crisis. When labor adopts environmentally unfriendly policies, it is often responding to a small group of unions who –- understandably -- desperately hope they will preserve threatened jobs for their members in energy, auto, and related industries.
We know that a few unions like the Steelworkers are aggressively supporting policies to reduce greenhouse gases. But there’s been little research on how many union leaders and rank-and-file members share the growing concern of Americans in all walks of life about global warming and the conviction that more needs to be done to combat it.
We think it’s a lot. At least one study supports this view. According to a series of in-depth interviews conducted by Good Jobs First of fifty union federation leaders in 2003:
- 80% believe that air pollution is a bigger public health problem today than it was 5-10 years ago;
- 72% believe that their health or the health of someone in their family has been harmed by environmental pollution;
- 62% report they have participated in coalitions with environmental groups on environmental issues within the last 5 years;
- 18% said they personally belong to an environmental organization—that’s higher than the national average (in 2000 5% of Americans belonged to a national or international environmental organization; 9% belonged to a local or regional environmental group.)
These figures are stunning, especially considering how much has changed in the global warming debate since 2003—this was before Hurricane Katrina ravaged New Orleans, before President George Bush publicly acknowledged that global warming as a major concern, and before the 2000 Democratic nominee won the Nobel Peace Prize.
If organized labor, following the course path pioneered by the Steelworkers, decides to fight for good jobs that fight global warming, it will find a strong resonance in labor’s own ranks. And so will environmental groups who appeal to labor’s rank and file leadership to join the fight against global warming.
Great post, a really nuanced and progressive take on the multi-directional pressures of globalisation and global climate change. In fact, I would be really interested to republish this (perhaps as a slightly edited version) in English and Chinese on the website where I am an editor: http://www.chinadialogue.net. If the author could contact me on the email address supplied, I'd be happy to discuss this further.
Posted by: Sam Geall | November 01, 2007 at 09:18 AM