The dearth of black construction workers is not the result of some minor slight or oversight, but a systemic denial of economic opportunity for black workers that has at its root the inherent racism of America’s white working class. The Koch brothers may provide the money, but the white working class supplies the votes.
Employment opportunities are usually a function of employers – once hired, everyone is in the union. While black workers experience on-the-job bigotry, it’s still in the interest of white workers to maintain a united front to management.
The construction trades represent a different dynamic. You cannot apply for a job at a union contractor unless you’re a member of the respective trade the contractor employs. You can’t be hired first and then join the union. In addition, you cannot work for a non-union contractor because construction unions will shut down the job.
So, in the case of the lucrative construction trades, solving the union issue is the key to black advancement. The optimum way to achieve that is within the existing arrangement, but it’s here that the inherent racism of the white working class represents an unmovable object that’s resistant to any amount of black pressure.
In fact, the construction trades have another characteristic that may be more pernicious than racism: They are dominated by nepotism and cronyism. Because white people tend to be related to white people and (in St. Louis) have mostly white friends, the cronyism and nepotism that is so pervasive in these unions consistently undermine any attempt at meaningful reform.
In spite of the inherent racism of working-class whites, the short- and long-term interest of the black community will always be aligned with Labor (writ large) – but our support of (white) labor cannot be unconditional. We have historically provided unconditional support, and that is what brought us to this point with the construction trades. It is here where black people must make a clear distinction between the construction trades and the industrial and service unions.
While it’s not in our interest to solve the construction trades problem at the expense of larger labor interests, it would be nice if the larger labor movement regarded racial diversity strategically as an issue that is critical to the long-term interest of labor. They have not done so.
Therefore, we can no longer allow recalcitrant construction unions to hide behind the larger labor movement. We also cannot put the interests of the labor movement ahead of our interests as a community when the unions have been so absent from the fight to enlarge our opportunities. We can’t be part of one-for-all when the “all” are never for the “one” that is us!
I deeply respect historic black labor leaders, such as Ted McNeal, and A. Phillip Randolph, both locally and nationally. But let’s not give white labor leadership more credit than the historical record will show they deserve. While they were an important part of the civil rights coalition, they were very reluctant warriors at best, particularly at the beginning. Walter Reuther was the only national labor leader at the 1963 March on Washington – and it was titled a “March for Jobs and Justice.”
I would argue that the unions are no longer a labor movement, but rather operators in the labor business. The drive for economic and social justice is what created and drove the labor movement. But what is the raison d’être of today’s organized labor? And does it include the well being of African Americans, who lag behind their white counterparts – particularly in the St. Louis region – by every economic indicator?
Mike Jones is a former senior staffer in St. Louis city and county government, current vice president of the Missouri State Board of Education, and member of The St. Louis American editorial board.
