What does 'good faith' mean in a strike?
The Tidings
October 24, 2003
As negotiations between the MTA, grocers and their employees continue to sputter and stall on the key issue of health care coverage and costs, the common good for the larger Southern California community fades further from view. But does it have to?
That workers have a principled right to organize is established church doctrine. Since Pope Leo XIII's 1891 encyclical Rerum Novarum ("On Capital and Labor") the papacy has articulated and reiterated the right of workers to organize and to seek work that offers dignity, adequate working conditions and fair wages.
But the specifics of how to achieve these principled goals are left to people of faith to ponder. As employers and employees angle for the best advantage, the needs of the consumer, the common community good and the local economy are often forgotten.
Cardinal Roger Mahony appealed to employers and employees Oct. 18 to resume negotiations by urging them to consider the impact of the strikes on the economic well being of all Southern Californians. The impasse, he said, "is plunging our overall economic recovery into greater jeopardy."
"Both sides have a serious obligation to enter into full discussion, compromise and creative strategies to share the costs of adequate health care coverage," said the cardinal.
As MTA authorities and grocers fight to control health care costs and as workers battle to preserve the best deal they can, some 400,000 affected transit riders and millions of grocery shoppers struggle to negotiate the next day.
Who has control?
Given their impact on the larger community, do employers and employees have a moral and ethical obligation from a Christian perspective to bargain in good faith?
Negotiating in good faith becomes more difficult the less control unions and employers have on the external forces shaping the marketplace, said Mara Marks, Ph.D. and director of the Center for the Study of Los Angeles at Loyola Marymount University in Los Angeles.
The rising cost of health care is a national issue and in question is whether the country's health care system even is sustainable. Costs are projected to continue going up this year another 12 to 15 percent, she said.
With vast increases in technology, patients that used to have an X-ray procedure now want the much more expensive MRI. The costs of prescriptions continues to spiral upwards as pharmaceuticals companies seek to recoup research, development and marketing costs. And as the number of uninsured increases, doctors and hospitals raise fees on paying customers to make up for non-paying customers.
Companies deal with this by passing the increase onto employees or offering fewer benefits, leading some to question the entire American patchwork system of employer-provided coverage.
"Neither labor or management have control over health care costs. This makes it difficult to bargain in good faith," said Marks. "How many large employers can sustain double digit health care costs year after year?"
All these factors will put pressure on presidential political candidates to address the issue. Only when federal politicians take a real interest and begin to propose and vote on solutions will American employers and employees begin to see some relief, said Marks.
Social contract unraveling
Gary Smith, chair of the Justice and Peace Commission of the Archdiocese of Los Angeles, expressed concern that the contract between American companies and their workers is unraveling.
"The social contract has been ruptured for a while now," he said, referring to increased work hours, fewer benefits and inadequate wages.
With companies like Wal-Mart gaining a strong foothold in the American marketplace and setting a new low standard in providing benefits, there's a "race to the bottom" to stay competitive, said Smith. "The capitalism we're seeing now almost as ruthless as in 19th century," he added.
In the struggle for corporate or employee survival the common good often gets sacrificed, said Smith.
"It's so foreign to most people's public discourse to think about the poor, to think about the 'collateral damage' of these strikes. Obviously bus riders and people buying the food are making a lot of sacrifices," said Smith.
Power re-defined
Given the larger political and economic context shaping local labor disputes, what are people of faith to do when involved in protracted and stalled negotiations? Who makes the first move?
Conventional marketplace thinking, suggests Smith, would have the weaker negotiating entity capitulate and have to talk first. But from a Christian perspective, he says, the entity with greater power and resources is the one to get the bargaining re-started.
The more powerful entity could "use that power to keep the negotiation going," said Smith. "Power is the ability to maintain a relationship. It's not unilateral force. It's a more nuanced view of power."
Those with a larger share of resources --- and arguably more creative potential --- are in a better position to think about their needs and the needs of the other party and propose a new solution.
In general, said Smith, corporations have more power and unions have only a few cards to play such as withholding labor by striking.
In the meantime, citizens --- even poor citizens --- also have to hold elected officials accountable, said Smith, referring to county officials involved in the MTA dispute. In the absence of an organized constituency, officials don't feel the pressure to seriously work towards the common good, he said.
But as last week's revolt in Bolivia and California's recent governor's election demonstrated, an organized citizenry --- either on the streets or at the ballot box --- can still make their voices heard.