FDR, Trade Unions, and the Public Interest
The hero of the American left assumed the role of defender of workers’ association rights, but his opposition to the unionization of public service employees was firm and constant.
Franklin Delano Roosevelt was without a doubt the most progressive of all American presidents. Elected on the Democratic ticket in 1933, he inherited the socio-economic disaster of the Great Depression and commenced the reconstruction of a country very harshly affected by the crisis.
He attacked the reform of the financial markets head-on. He spent years contending with a conservative Supreme Court that invalidated many of his reforms. He put in place the policies of the New Deal — including social security and minimum wage — that formed the basis of the American social safety net.
Franklin Roosevelt is a hero of the American left and a major figure in the history of the United States. In the rankings of the most admired American presidents, he comes in second place, behind Abraham Lincoln and ahead of Washington and Jefferson. For that matter, many also hoped that President Obama, himself also elected in a difficult socio-economic context, would be inspired by FDR.
Not surprisingly, Roosevelt also assumed the role of defender of workers’ association rights. He believed that the recognition of this right transcended even "partisan controversy." Repeatedly, he insisted on "the necessity and the legitimacy of the principle of collective bargaining between workers and employers."
In times like today, public interest has advanced — in theory, at least — via research on a compromise between the private interest of workers (better salaries and working conditions) and the private interest of the employer and investors (better profitability and competitiveness of the business).
By the bargaining and competition game, the two parties can, in principle, reach reasonable agreements for all. If the employers are too grasping, they risk a revolt or exodus of their workforce to the competition. If the unions go too far, they could harm the competitiveness of the business and incite its bankruptcy — in which case everyone loses. In an ideal world, everyone wins when employers and workers are each free to seek their own interests, go against the will of the other, and get a compromise out of each other.
That said, this logic does not apply to employees of the government.
First, in the absence of competition — the government has a monopoly — nothing guarantees that the agreements are reasonable, or that they are not producing a ruinous or unfair regime. Rather, particularly in contrast to that of the workers and employer, the interest of the government is not private but public.
This is why Franklin Roosevelt — champion of the left and untiring defender of the common good — opposed the unionization of public service employees. His opposition was firm and constant. In a well-known letter on the subject, Roosevelt outlined his thoughts as follows:
"All government employees should realize that the process of collective bargaining, as usually understood, cannot be transplanted into the public service. It has its distinct and insurmountable limitations when applied to public personnel management. The very nature and purposes of government make it impossible for administrative officials to represent fully or to bind the employer in mutual discussions with government employee organizations. The employer is the whole people, who speak by means of laws enacted by their representatives in Congress. Accordingly, administrative officials and employees alike are governed and guided, and in many instances restricted, by laws which establish policies, procedures or rules in personnel matters.
"Particularly, I want to emphasize my conviction that militant tactics have no place in the functions of any organization of government employees."
It goes without saying that these ideas would have well occupied some minds [the week before last], when certain municipal employees lit fires to defend retirement conditions unimaginable for ordinary workers. And we are told that this is only the beginning.
Contrary to others who walk and shout, Franklin Roosevelt had a reassuring rhetoric, and he spent half of his adult life with his legs paralyzed, in a wheelchair. It remains to be seen who spoke the truth the most, and who really was standing up.
Franklin Delano Roosevelt was without a doubt the most progressive of all American presidents. Elected on the Democratic ticket in 1933, he inherited the socio-economic disaster of the Great Depression and commenced the reconstruction of a country very harshly affected by the crisis.
He attacked the reform of the financial markets head-on. He spent years contending with a conservative Supreme Court that invalidated many of his reforms. He put in place the policies of the New Deal — including social security and minimum wage — that formed the basis of the American social safety net.
Franklin Roosevelt is a hero of the American left and a major figure in the history of the United States. In the rankings of the most admired American presidents, he comes in second place, behind Abraham Lincoln and ahead of Washington and Jefferson. For that matter, many also hoped that President Obama, himself also elected in a difficult socio-economic context, would be inspired by FDR.
Not surprisingly, Roosevelt also assumed the role of defender of workers’ association rights. He believed that the recognition of this right transcended even "partisan controversy." Repeatedly, he insisted on "the necessity and the legitimacy of the principle of collective bargaining between workers and employers."
In times like today, public interest has advanced — in theory, at least — via research on a compromise between the private interest of workers (better salaries and working conditions) and the private interest of the employer and investors (better profitability and competitiveness of the business).
By the bargaining and competition game, the two parties can, in principle, reach reasonable agreements for all. If the employers are too grasping, they risk a revolt or exodus of their workforce to the competition. If the unions go too far, they could harm the competitiveness of the business and incite its bankruptcy — in which case everyone loses. In an ideal world, everyone wins when employers and workers are each free to seek their own interests, go against the will of the other, and get a compromise out of each other.
That said, this logic does not apply to employees of the government.
First, in the absence of competition — the government has a monopoly — nothing guarantees that the agreements are reasonable, or that they are not producing a ruinous or unfair regime. Rather, particularly in contrast to that of the workers and employer, the interest of the government is not private but public.
This is why Franklin Roosevelt — champion of the left and untiring defender of the common good — opposed the unionization of public service employees. His opposition was firm and constant. In a well-known letter on the subject, Roosevelt outlined his thoughts as follows:
"All government employees should realize that the process of collective bargaining, as usually understood, cannot be transplanted into the public service. It has its distinct and insurmountable limitations when applied to public personnel management. The very nature and purposes of government make it impossible for administrative officials to represent fully or to bind the employer in mutual discussions with government employee organizations. The employer is the whole people, who speak by means of laws enacted by their representatives in Congress. Accordingly, administrative officials and employees alike are governed and guided, and in many instances restricted, by laws which establish policies, procedures or rules in personnel matters.
"Particularly, I want to emphasize my conviction that militant tactics have no place in the functions of any organization of government employees."
It goes without saying that these ideas would have well occupied some minds [the week before last], when certain municipal employees lit fires to defend retirement conditions unimaginable for ordinary workers. And we are told that this is only the beginning.
Contrary to others who walk and shout, Franklin Roosevelt had a reassuring rhetoric, and he spent half of his adult life with his legs paralyzed, in a wheelchair. It remains to be seen who spoke the truth the most, and who really was standing up.
Next article![]( "A Slap in the Face for Transatlantic Ties")
