Friday Interview: Changing Strategies For Labor Unions | Eastern North Carolina Now

    Publisher's note: This article was originally created by the CJ Staff for the Carolina Journal, John Hood Publisher.

CAI president discusses history, recent trends in North Carolina

    RALEIGH — North Carolina is a right-to-work state, but that hasn't stopped labor unions from trying to find new ways to boost their membership. Bruce Clarke, president and CEO of Capital Associated Industries, addressed the John Locke Foundation's Shaftesbury Society in 2014 on the topic "Labor Unions Battle for Members in North Carolina: Historical and Recent Strategies." Clarke also discussed unions with Mitch Kokai for Carolina Journal Radio. (Click here to find a station near you or to learn about the weekly CJ Radio podcast.)

    Kokai: People who think much about unions in North Carolina probably have thought about the fact that, oh, we're a right-to-work state — we don't really have to think much about unions. But based on the title [of your presentation], it sounds like unions have really sort of changed the way they've tried to operate here.

    Clarke: Yeah, I'd say so. We talked about the historical approach of labor unions — the industrial approach primarily. And they seem to be taking a little different approach now, which is to go a couple of ways. One is toward a social message, a sort of an economic message to the citizenry, and the second is to really work hard to change the law around public employee unions.

    Kokai: That is one thing that union discussions have often focused on: the fact that unions, among the private-sector industry, seem to have had some problems in recent years. But there's been a lot of growth in the public sector. Is that right?

    Clarke: Yes, nationally that's true. Nationally about 35 percent of the public employees, federal and state, belong to a union of some kind. And in North Carolina, certainly there are federal employees that are in unions, but state employees are not allowed to collectively bargain per state statute.

    Kokai: You mentioned the historical strategy. Let's get back to that, and then we'll get back to the recent trends. North Carolina unionization efforts — were they ever successful, or has this always been a tough state to have a union?

    Clarke: Well, yes, they have been successful — relatively successful. We used an example of a slide of the Loray Mill back in Gastonia in 1929. That was one of the largest strikes in the nation really up to that point, in an industrial setting — right here in North Carolina. They also had a string during the, I'd say, the late '70s — '78, '79 — where the International Brotherhood of Teamsters were very successful in organizing industrial facilities throughout central North Carolina. So there've been times, there've been places, there've been settings, but it's hard to find an extended period of time in North Carolina where unions have been on an upswing.

    Kokai: Has there been any particular incident or change in North Carolina that led to this sort of change of approach that you mentioned earlier?

    Clarke:Yeah, I think a couple of things are going on. One is North Carolina demographically is a very different state than it was even 10 years ago, especially in the urban areas. If you look at the states that our citizens come from, New York is the major contributor outside of North Carolina. So more people have come here from New York than from South Carolina or Virginia.

    So you get a demographic change in that sense. You get just other kinds of demographic changes around age and the baby boomers and all these sorts of things. You get social issues that fly in from different points of view, and it gives the labor unions a new message, a new way to talk about a different future for workers.

    Kokai: You mentioned the people coming into this state from New York and other states that have probably stronger labor union presence. Do you see that that has had much of an impact in North Carolina? Are the messages resonating more with these folks who say, "Oh yeah, they did this that way back home; I'm used to this"?

    Clarke: Yes, I think so, because if the labor union's current strategy is mostly about social issues and about public employee unions, then they have more and more people in your state — in this state — who are open to that, who grew up around public employee unions, let's say. Or [who] grew up around a union member in the household. They're less resistant to the idea that a labor union might bring something good to them. And so, yes, it does — it changes quite a bit. So if you've got, you know — in our state, the percentage of people who are not from here is about 50/50.

    Kokai: Let's go back now to the change in strategy. You mentioned both the social message and the focus on the public sector rather than the private sector. On the social message, when did we start seeing that become a major piece of the union organizing effort?

    Clarke: It certainly would be true that the social message has always been part of the labor union message. I think what's happened in this state is, most recently and most dramatically, is around the Republican revolution that we had in 2010. And then how the General Assembly has governed since then, and some of the public relations issues that have occurred since then.

    And so there are some that say that the Republican majority handed the labor unions the ability to amplify their social message. And that certainly has happened with the "Moral Monday" events and other related things. And then you've got the national unions bringing people into many states — not just North Carolina — but many states around the $15 an hour fast food wage issue. So, you know, social issues have always been a part of the labor union message; it simply intensified here of late.

    Kokai: Also you mentioned the increased focus on the public-sector unions rather than the private-sector unions. Why is that seen as sort of fertile ground for unionization?

    Clarke: Nationally, the public employers have been easier to organize. The public employees, for whatever set of reasons, have been more susceptible to the union message. And management — the government, that is — has been less effective or ... really cared less about arguing against a union coming into a facility or into a department. So that combination of things, as well as political money.

    So when political money comes from the labor unions to the politicians and the politicians hire the agency heads and agency chiefs, that's a whole different scenario than private business. So just a number of factors have made it easier for unions to organize public employees, except where there's a statute like we have that prevents that collective bargaining in that issue.

    Kokai: You mentioned the statute, but are there other things that people who have concerns about labor unions ought to keep in mind as they think about ways to get the other side of the story out?

    Clarke: Yeah, two things really. On the private sector side, the unions have, I think, failed so miserably in the South, and in this state in particular, because they failed to deliver on their promises. So when they go to a group of employees and argue, "Vote for me, and this will happen," those things don't typically happen. So they failed in their message — overpromised and underdelivered.

    On the public side, you know, we don't have a history of that here in this state. But the reason that it's such a bad idea — and even Franklin Roosevelt was against public employee unions for this reason — the owner of capital, the entity that should be at the table bargaining with the owner of labor, is actually sitting at home in a Barcalounger watching television. Really, who the unions are negotiating with is an agency chief that the union perhaps financed through political contributions. So that's not real bargaining. That's a money circle or something such as that, but it's not real bargaining.