Whose Recovery?

"The depressing fact is that real poverty in the United States has been increasing at the same time as unprecedented prosperity is increasing for the upper half of society."

AMID ALL THE glowing reports of an economic recovery over the past two years, this comment by former Boston Globe editor Thomas Winship seems to be a bit out of place. The majority of news about the American economy centers on the positive effects that supply-side policies and Paul Volcker's tinkering with the money supply have had on big business. What the public doesn't hear about is the bitter aftertaste the "recovery" has left with larger numbers of people in the country who are just now beginning to realize the sham of the so-called economic boom.

As Winship told a group of journalists last weekend in Baltimore--only the "upper half of society" benefits from a revitalized national economy. While the public hears stories of an American economy growing at an unprecedented rate, this much-touted prosperity contains within it crucial contradictions.

Only a few people own the businesses swooped into the wave of profit, so only a few reap its rewards. At the same time, those on the bottom rungs are not only excluded from the "national" gains, but suffer further from government cuts in social spending and private cuts in wages.

Recently, one of the groups most hard hit by the flip side of the recovery, the American manufacturing workers, are beginning to strike back--literally. The first signs of this awakening appeared at the beginning of the summer when clothing employees walked out of several factories in the heartland of the Massachusetts textile industry. Some of the New Bedford and Fall River clothing workers were out for six weeks to block a management attempt to take unilateral control over wage setting. The workers were successful, and as they returned to work, shipbuilders in Maine followed the lead of Bay State manufacturing employees.

OF COURSE THESE strikes are mere ripples on the pond of U.S. capitalism, compared to the days of high surf in the 1940s and 1950s. Today, the American labor movement (if you can even call it that) is practically at a standstill. Unions have taken on bad names through corrupt leadership practices and their lack of accountability to members. Union membership dropped steadily over recent years and continues to do so today. Nevertheless, while unions currently can be as mean-and-nasty as the businesses they struggle to gain concessions from, they constitute the worker's sole voice in the face of management and set the foundation for democracy among working people.

Recent labor action in Pittsburgh suggests that unions may be regaining some of their lost vitality. The targeted industry, which any football fan would be quick to identify, is steel. More than 8000 Pittsburgh steelworkers walked out of their jobs two weeks ago after the financially shaky Wheeling-Pittsburgh Steel Corporation threatened to cut wages by 18 percent. This is the first steel walk-out since 1959--a time when American business was experiencing an economic boom.

The workers--who work in several factories owned by Wheeling-Pittsburgh--are still out, despite the fact that only half have unemployment compensation. The strike, which workers say could last for another month, will serve as a test of union strength, and the results could indicate the future credibility of unions as a viable bargaining tool for workers. Pittsburgh serves as a good model for the movement as a whole because the problems plaguing American labor in general also apply to the United Steelworkers union. Union membership has declined by one half in the last five years. Add this to the depressed American steel industry and you've got a pretty low-spirted bunch of steelworkers.

Wheeling-Pittsburgh owners will undoubtedly argue that by walking out of work, the workers are contributing to the economic malaise of the steel mill-dominated area. But to gain the greatest prosperity for their numbers and to send a positive signal to other malcontent workers, the strikers would do best to wait it out. Patient picketing during the next few weeks will lessen the blow to Pittsburgh wages, and also signal to other American steelworkers that good contracts are possible through a little solidarity.

The Pittsburgh strike could send a jolt of energy to other sluggish branches of the labor movement. If the strikers make some gains, and the company doesn't fold, others--especially in the growing service sector--will realize the importance of union organization. Rather than a resurgence of the labor movement, Pittsburgh and other recent strikes serve as tests for the future. Just about every worker sometime in his or her lifetime will have to confront an unfair management move, whether it be during an economic revovery or a recession. But whatever the time, workers can never hope to succeed as isolated individuals voicing discontent with the status quo. Rather, success will only come through the efforts of a unified organization that serves as a formidable challenge to the institutions that decide how people will spend their working lives.