Unions as nonprofits
Here is a bit of a confession: one of the most challenging aspects of planning this course has been finding works which discuss labor unions as part of the nonprofit sector. I knew coming into the semester that I wanted us to cover this important aspect of the nonprofit world.
However, the texts I have selected have very little to say about labor unions as nonprofits. And yet, they clearly are, simply because they are not organized to distribute profit to any shareholders and they are decidedly enmeshed in civil society as we have come to understand it. Moreover, the history of the United States is in large part a history of laboring people and their struggles: from slavery to immigration to sit-down strikes in Flint to the Poor People's Campaign of MLK to Chavez to today's campaign for the Employee Free Choice Act.
I'm not quite sure how to explain this big oversight in our texts. The cynic in me relates it to the weakness of labor unions in America (as described in the Lichtenstein chapter). But it might be something more benign: when we think of nonprofits, we tend to think of charities. I'm sure by now you realize that the sector is broader than that.
Without any theory-heavy readings about labor unions, I offer instead two histories. The first is a chapter on the 1930s/ WWII from Nicholson. This time was a time of great successes for unions in the United States. The second chapter is a history of the contemporary moment, appropriately titled "What is to be done?" It catalogs the current crisis that labor finds itself in. Maura Pond, who is coming to speak on Monday, suggested you familiarize yourself with the Wagner Act and the Employee Free Choice Act.
It's up to you to connect these histories and these legislative acts to the broader theories we have read. In addition, feel free to connect these histories to anything you're seeing in your experience. Since I'm getting this up late in the week (a symptom of working on getting speakers), you only must comment once - but comment more if you like.
posted by Robert W. Gehl @ 7:44 AM
24 Comments:
Based upon what I read in the readings, labor unions could be related to nonprofits and be nonprofits as well. Upon looking at both legislative bills in Congress, there are a lot of laws backing both labor unions and their employers. Labor Unions surely have politics involved in them just like nonprofits do. 1930’s/WWII era had a great need of labor unions since the New Deal was prolonging the recovery till 1945. Labor Unions have clearly existed for some time since some governmental laws dealing with labor had to have support from labor unions. Labor Unions are needed for fair and equal treatment in the work place. Nonprofits have a certain place in today's society, so do labor unions to represent the working middle class. Beliefs and ideas are a part of human nature and thus unions and nonprofits have a meaning to create change. Change will always exist and come when it is needed the most in today's society.
I agree that there is a misconception in our society that all non-profits are somehow charitable in there nature. Today, there are a multitude of business friendly 501c organizations existing for the sole purpose of preserving and advocating on behalf of the narrow and sometimes selfish interests of their donor constituents. This type of constricted focus might help explain why labor unions seem isolated within the context of non profits organizations today.
I always feel the need to walk a fine line when discussing my views on labor unions because I hold no hard and fast position on the subject. That is to say, I am both a strong supporter of the rights of individuals to organize; but apprehensive of the power that organization naturally entails. I am a fierce proponent of capitalism; but recognize that businesses are motivated principally by profit and therefore must be curtailed. I don’t believe anyone should be forced to join a union; nor do I believe anyone should be dissuaded from forming one. To the extent these extremes exist, they should be addressed.
Union membership has hit the floor in recent years and the consequences of this can be seen from the halls of Congress to the check-out lines at Wal-Mart. Unbridled capitalism at the expense of the workers is no solution whatsoever as far as I am concerned. In the end, I hope for a balance approach, and recognize that we are not there yet.
I believe that labor unions hold a significant place in our society but many private sector companies as well as non-profit organization do not want employees to create unions. Basically, I think that labor unions not only provide the appropriate support for workers but also ensure that the private sector companies provide their employees fair wages for the time they work and a safe work environment. I agree with David that part of the reason we see a drop in labor unions is the result of “unbridled capitalism”, where companies, such as Wal-Mart, can limit the power of unions by lobbying for legislation that supports the company’s interest and deterring the formation of unions by instilling fear in its workforce that even simple discussions of labor unions may result in losing one’s job. Additionally, some large non-profit organizations are responsible for treating workers unfairly, thus creating a need for unions to protect the rights of its workers.
While working at Inova VNA Homehealth, I was told that physical therapists had to form a union due to the unfairness of compensation they were receiving from Inova. The physical therapists came together and threatened to strike, thus forcing Inova management to fairly compensate its physical therapists. Additionally, due to the labor union’s involvement Inova signed a contract with the physical therapists establishing a fair work environment.
The readings for this week provided some wonderful insight into how labor unions, as well as similar not-for-profit groups, developed. Knowing the histories of such groups allows us to see just how far we have come. I have always found the establishment of labor unions to be interesting. For some it may be inconceivable that workers had to ban together in order to have their interests heard by their employers, considering the pieces of legislation that have been passed in order to protect workers’ rights. However, without the determination of those who started to unionize, bills like the Employee Free Choice Act would not be debated on the floor of Congress in present times.
Although it may be difficult to find connections between nonprofit organizations and labor unions, they have some similar characteristics. Members of these groups come together for a common cause. Not in order to benefit or make a profit for themselves individually, but rather to make a bigger difference in the lives of others. They are willing to make sacrifices for the greater good. Even though I do not see labor unions and nonprofits on the same level, I can understand why some connections are necessary to identify. Sharing similar characteristics shows what kind of determination people have to make a change in the lives of others. These groups are outlets for individuals to collectively have their issues and interests represented. Although they focus on different issues in different ways, they exist in today to help members of society.
I agree with Alissa that this was a great history lesson; since I didn't grow in US, the "Nicholson" was a great background for the War and New Deal era. Ever since I have lived in U.S., I have only heard about the fall of the unions. In India, unions and strikes are very common, so it was interesting to know that once in US history i.e. during NEW DEAL AND WARTIME,unions were powerful and succesful in their goals. However, I had never thought about unions as part of the non-profit sector.
Nevertheless, when I read "What is to Done?" I saw some connections between our non-profit theories and the unions. By far, the most important lesson I have learned from my volunteer experience and speeches in class that in order to survive as a non-profit you have to be flexible. Flexibilty is needs to adapt to the changing circumstances. This is precisely what the author was saying under "Organizing in a New World" Section... for instance,he said now we need to organize the entire labor market for the industry we are in and not just organize the labor force of one company in that industry. Also, this reading made it evident that non-profits cannot exist independent of the political sphere.
There is not a concrete connection between labor unions and non-profits. While a professional association such as the American Medical Student Association or American Society of Women CPAs is a non-profit, unions resemble another catgory based on propensity to lobby and engage in social activism.
If a union endorses specific poltical candidates (in the common case of police and teachers' unions), the organization by law changes to a 501c4. I place unions in a separate category from non-profits because 990 forms highlight lobbying efforts separate from charity. 501c3 charities promote values behind a political idea or legislation. However, once dues finance activities influencing the outcome of specific propositions, or campaign for or against specific officials at the grassroots or nationally, the line changes.
Unions represent a collective identity from a snapshot of American history. While collective identity is a trait among non-profits, this does not define a union as a non-profit.
The non-profit type associations highlighed by deTocqueville are voluntary. Depending on the state, membership in a union may or may not be voluntary as a job condition.
In addition, non-profits assume a smaller subset of individuals farm its mission and niche. While non-profits may compete or disagree with government actions, their influence is outwardly focused as a smaller dissenter within a larger picture. The mentality of a union runs contrary to this picture when it divides an internal workplace between union and non-union members.
Rather than using outward influence to dissent, union organizers can usurp employee choice by insisting employee advocacy even when certain employees prefer to opt out. These behaviors contradict the notion that unions are non-profits based on voluntary association.
I didn't know much of the history about unions which was very interesting to learn.
I agree with Laura B when she says there is not a concrete connection between labor unions and non-profits. While they share similarities there are differences especially when a union membership is not voluntary.
When the reading discussed reforming labor unions I felt myself leaning toward the idea of organizing across the board instead of "shop by shop". The reading made a point about employers not wanting to pay union wage because other places are not. I also agree with the idea that there will always be someone willing to take the place of a union worker. This rings true to me especially in today's economy. There are so many people without a job and they are at the point where they would take anything.
I should also point out at the end of all of this that I know very little about unions so I hesitate to say anything more definite about them based on so little knowledge.
Like Alyssa and Ashima, I very much enjoyed the historical aspect of this week’s readings. I was very much unaware of the history of the labor movement, even though I do vaguely remember talking about worker’s rights in history during the industrialization era. Whether one personally agrees with unionization or not, it is inarguable that the founders of the labor movement are deserving of respect.
I must admit that I not only neglected to think of unions in the context of nonprofits, but that like some of my fellow classmates I do not really know very much about unions at all. I’m also taking a class on human resource management right now, and the readings for our non-profit sector class this week actually related to that class. The Nicholson reading mentioned some of the same acts that affect workplace relations in modern society (like the Fair Labor Standards Act for example). It was nice all in one week to learn about organized labor in the context of the non-profit sector, but then also see how the ramifications of the movement have impacted everyday personnel management.
Along with what previous people have mentioned, I also, was not as familiar with the history of unions in America until these readings. I have not studied much about economics, business or policy so the readings have brought me a lot of insight. I never realized that America was so prone to volunteer and geared toward community service -- also noting that volunteerism is quite different than philanthropy and charity. Being the humanitarian that I am, I was reminded that many people enjoy the act of giving back. The overview of management was also of interest about the change from scientific management to the principles technique to the now future-oriented management styles. Another thing that was reinforced by the readings was an important point that Karen Klaverkemp emphasized THE MISSION OF NONPROFITS. From the tax exempt status to the management, it all depends on the mission of the organization.
Reiterating what I think a few of my classmates have touched on...at first it was hard for me to decipher exactly how unions fit into the nonprofit sector. they are fundamentally selfish, it seems, aimed to provide services for themselves rather than a service to others, and the way Nicholson describes them, "worker's battled each other endlessly...union leaders fought ferocious ideological and political battles among themselves, just as they contended for the dues of millions of new members," it almost made unions sound just as bad as the businesses themselves as far as cuthtroat competition goes. But the more I read and understand about unions, I tend to want to lump them in with nonprofits. They are an association of an oppressed minority, with a common cause, or mission that work together to acheive a common goal. THis holds true with the general description of the nonprofit sector, and associations in general (as we read in toqueville).
ILANA EPSTEIN
I also found these articles very interesting becuase i did not know much about labor unions. I think that labor unions are extremely important in providing equal rights to workers. They also provide better distribution of wealth which promotes a strong middle class which is very important in our nation and something many nations lack.
I actually have a friend that works for seiu so I was aware that labor unions are nonprofits and it makes sense because their purpose is to improve the lives of workers. The actually labor union does not profit from this. I actually disagree with most of my classmates because I view the two as being very strongly connected.
Nya J
The Lichtenstein piece brought up a good point that any “20th century America any substantial social reform must also contain a functional advance for a strategic sector of capitalist enterprise. I have found this to be incredibly true through my experience in working on social issues and advocating for social reform”. Politicians and Congressmen are not going to vote on legislation merely because they “want to save the world” or undertake massive social reform. This does not mean that they are heartless or don’t care about pressing social issues, they are just thinking in pragmatic terms and as realist. They want to see objective facts and figures that are not subjective to taking action or passing laws because “it is the right thing to do”. I worked with Amnesty International and we pressured the Virginia legislature to pass a bill to prevent the government from investing pension funds in companies that funded genocide in Darfur and required them to remove their current investments with these countries. The legislation did not pass because we didn’t present the legislature with statistical facts or data. We just gave them subjective data about genocide being wrong and the millions of dead and displaced persons. Needless to say the government was not going to make a substantial social reform like that where billions of dollars in state pension funds were at stake. I was upset at first but then I was happy to realize that my government wasn’t making decisions based on subjective information. Legislatures have a commitment not to pass laws based on social fads that are subject to change with the time. If the profit sector and civil society can agree on a substantial social reform it is probably a good idea because it is seldom that these two sectors agree on a plan of action and when they do agree that most likely means the plan is economically sound and beneficial socially.
Nya J
I think Karen Klaverkamp, the speaker with the Princeton Symphony Orchestra spoke to the non-inclusiveness of the variety of organizations that are not considered a part of the non-profit sector. The general consensus is that the majority of the non-profit sector is comprised of charitable organizations or organizations that work to advance social issues or undertake substantial social reform. I have mixed feelings about labor unions and their classification as non-profits. At times I believe they should be classified as non-profits because their mission is to improve the conditions of workers but at the same time I think they should be classified as for profits because they act like corporations and fight among themselves for members and collaborate with employers when they are supposed to representing the interest of employees. This gets at the other notion that many people have that non-profits are exempt from the politics that are characteristic of the for-profit sector.Even though civil society is not organized to distribute profit they still have to operate as a business and not only deal, but participate in politics if they plan on their organization being around and effective.
With so many companies thinking profit first, employees second, unions are a huge contributer to to fairness in the work place. It is sad to see that union membership has gone down in recent years, and as a form union member myself, I can attest to the integral role they play in our society.
Reading about the Taft-Hartley Act was very interesting. I must say that the most important part of the legislation was the "Right to Work" laws. Not only do these laws provide employees with a choice but it also makes the unions work harder to become more marketable. With these laws in place , the union must sell itself to the individual employee. This makes the union more active and more sensitive to members' comments because they can lose a member at any moment
Danielle S.
I agree. I think that businesses always think money first and employees second. The union plays a very important part in society as far as fairness in the workplace. The purpose of non-profits are to serve the society and community. Labor unions have the same mission for the most part and could also be considered non-profits.
Ooh. Laura B. brings up an interesting argument; are unions really nonprofits? Unfortunately I don't understand unions enough to really have a good opinion on the topic.
As someone that doesn't understand politics at all (you may as well be speaking in math problems), I honestly can't wrap my mind around how unions really work. I understand the basic concept of crappy work conditions that won't be addressed and then the banning together of workers to influence those at the company to meet their demands. I understand that strikes and sit-ins are a last resort. I guess I don't really understand why unions are permanent and why they're such big political affiliates. Once a problem is resolved, why would people still be united? Couldn't they just threaten to re-unite and if there was another problem, do that...?
To join a union, you have to pay dues. Where do they go? Do they exist solely for the purpose of keeping the people united? If so, then why bother joining if there's not a problem? When a problem arises, that's when people should come together and pool their resources.
I've never been involved in a job that would be typically associated with unions. I know it's mostly skilled workers; how much do those people get paid? I feel like in this day and age (sans economic crisis), if you're a skilled worker and your demands aren't being met you quit. If you've been there a while and know what you're doing, you find a job with another company. If you're new and don't have that much experience you can maybe get a job with another company in the same field or perhaps do something else. That's what I would do. There's a lot to be said for quitters; quitters don't want to work for a bunch of jerks that treat them like crap or won't give them the proper benefits and quitters know the value of time. The amount of time I would be spending on this unionization thing could instead be used to find a new job.
I guess a lot of it depends on how you value time and fairness. I worked an auditing job with a ridiculously high turn-over rate. The job paid well enough for a "crap job" that few people complained about the way they were treated or the unfair conditions people worked in. Eventually, those crappy conditions out-weighed the money and I quit without notice. Shortly thereafter, I began to get letters in the mail about lawsuits filed against the company. There was a list of questions asking if I had certain things occur and if I had, then I should come testify against the company. Uh....yeah, I could totally testify but I'm in school and I work and I don't have the time to get involved in something like this. Quitting and lawsuits have taken the place of unionization today....but that's just my narrow view of things as an unskilled worker. If I ever happen to acquire skills and a job to go along with it, I would prefer to not pay money to a union unless they can give me a piece of paper listing a ton of benefits on there for me.
Just some random thoughts.
I believe that unions have the potential to be an important and positive aspect of our society; however, I believe that they have become something that many people do not even think about. I also believe that employees all too often become part of a union, but have no idea what benefits it actually offers them. I worked for a large company that had a union, however, all I was told about the union was that they would get a small portion of my paycheck each week as my union fees. I never had any idea what the benefits of joining the union would be. I had coworkers who complained about their union fees and how the union had never been of any use to them. To me, it seemed like the union was more similar to the company we worked for than an actual union; it was controlled by a small group of people, and everyone else did what they were told. I believe that if unions are to remain an important aspect of the US workplace, then they need to review their own history and re-examine their goals and intents. Employees should know why they are in a union, or why they should be part of a union, and they should be able to contribute their opinions and ideas and have them listened to.
Also, in response to Katie T, from my experience with unions, the workers were mostly people with a high school diploma or GED who may not have had many more job options, which is why unions would be important to them, in regards to job security. A lot of the people that I worked with had worked for the company for over twenty years and their wages had increased over that time period. If they were to go and get another job at another company, they would have had to start all over again at low wages and work their way up within the company...so these people's jobs were very important to them...just something I learned from my experience working for a company that had a union.
Joary C.
I agree with Nya. It is difficult to define labor unions as non-profits, as it is hard not to. Labor unions work towards better working conditions, wages, and employee rights which could classify them as a non-profit. At the same time, when we bring up the term non-profit we do think charities and we do think of helping those who might not necessarily have a job (homeless, hungry, cancer patients, children). The people who work for non-profits, as the speaker from last week mentioned, have to love their job because there are long hours and extra work that you do not necessarily get paid for. I guess you could say that labor unions would possess these qualities and it would be fine to consider them as non-profits. It might also seem that labor unions are operating on a larger scale than say a non-profit might. I think that labor unions might serve more fortunate people in a sense, but could still be considered a non-profit. The Nicholas piece highlights laws such as the New Deal and the Economy Act that have been passed in the name of the labor union and their movement. I think that most people would not think of labor unions as a non-profit because they operate on a higher level and it also involves the government.
All - Interesting discussion. Just to clarify (I wish I had done this sooner), unions are decidedly in the nonprofit sector. The tax rules are here:
http://www.irs.gov/irm/part4/ch52s13.html
They are exempt from income tax because they do not exist for profit:
"IRC section 501(c)(5) provides for the exemption of organizations:
1.Whose purpose is the betterment of the conditions of those engaged in the pursuits of labor, agriculture or horticulture, the improvement of the grade of their products and the development of a higher degree of efficiency in their respective occupations;
2. Having no net earnings inuring to the benefit of any member; and
3. Whose principal activity, with certain exceptions, is not to receive, hold, invest or disburse or otherwise manage funds associated with savings or investment plans or programs, including pension or other retirement savings plans or programs."
Moreover, as I think is clear from the discussion here and the histories you've read, unions are a significant part of civil society. That is, they are engaged in the struggles that de Tocqueville and Gramsci discussed.
Actually, I should revise the above to say that the link is to _guidelines for the IRS to determine whether or not an organization is a 501(c)5_, rather than to the actual tax code. It's still interesting, though... as interesting as IRS documents get :)
Nonprofits within the anti-war movement raise quesitons about whether Americans can achieve objectives through a minority or majority.
A.N.S.W.E.R.'s webiste appeals to the logic that mass consensus generates urgency for officials and citizens to act. However, holding an opinion or being right philosophically is not sufficient to win. The strength of A.N.S.W.E.R.'s mission lies in how strongly the group furthers its beliefs and acts on its principles even when members are all alone.
If everyone understood A.N.S.W.E.R., wouldn't their platform be done and executed by now? And even if everybody acted and believed, how would we assess whether mass action was effective and represented something worth fighting for?
Causes cannot be effective in the long-term if they revolve around immediate, short-term events,ascribing meaning by mass logic. Even the removal of American service members from Iraq represents a short-term event.
DeTocqueville notes how associations are culturally successful when they recognize members have initiative to act as a minority within a majority. Inviting thousands of young people to attend a march creates an event. But in the long-term, how are these young people retained if mass logic is the only reason they know that they are there?
Their attendance proves deTocqueville's point about the uniqueness of American society creating a space for free association. The men and women in America's military fight for their right to voluntarily associate.
Furthermore, the fact that a particular ethnic group is outraged on A.N.S.W.E.R.'s website doesn't compel me when I look at deTocqueville's model and understand that like other outspoken Americans, the Jewish people are instilled with a cultural understanding to survive and operate as a minority citizen within a majority. Human beings were wired to individually seek after values, rather than dismissing their beliefs through mass logic.
A glance at A.N.S.W.E.R.'s website draws attention to the nature and assumptions of coalition-building. A.N.S.W.E.R. prides itself in grassroots representation, but in the midst of mass mobilization, how can it assume members' beliefs are the same?
Members who join an anti-war group may personally dislike the military, or they may hold standing documentation in which they classify themselves as pacifists. Both members hold an attraction, but mass logic assumes their beliefs are the same.
Similarly, A.N.S.W.E.R. lists "Pastors for Peace" as a coalition member. If peace is a religious motivation for building a collective, the categorization of 'peace' can be deceptive.
Cindy Sheehan's son Casey, served in Iraq as a chaplain's assistant because he felt a connection between his military duties and personal mission as a Catholic. The book "American Mourning" discusses how Casey volunteered to fight a military mission even when he held divergent beliefs from his mother.
If 'peace' is the criteria for joining an anti-war coalition, the logic of using the term is deceptive. Soldiers often join the military for the sake of bringing and maintaining peace. Coalition-building the anti-war movement should assume fair terms, instead of blending terms that do not wholeheartedly describe individuals' motivations.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home