Blue Collar, Red Lines: How Union Decline Has Reshaped American Democracy (Featuring Lainey Newman)

Lainey Newman, co-author of Rust Belt Union Blues, joins the pod to shed light on how deindustrialization and globalization have weakened organized labor, particularly in regions like the Rust Belt. We discuss how these changes have left a void filled by conservative organizations and cultural movements, leading to a significant realignment of working-class voters towards the Republican Party. 

Lainey traces the peak of union influence in the 1950s to its gradual decline from the 1970s onward. We discuss the evolving relationship between unions and political parties, examining how cultural and identity-based issues have impacted voting behaviors and party alignments. From the friction within the Democratic Party's coalition over cultural issues to the unintended consequences of political strategies - were these dynamics inevitable or could have been foreseen and mitigated?

From the fallout of not bailing out the steel industry in the 1970s to the perceived cultural and ideological challenges associated with figures like Kamala Harris, we discuss the long-term implications of these decisions on union and working class voters, and what the Democratic Party needs to do to win these voters back.

-------------------------
Follow Deep Dive:
Bluesky
YouTube

Email: deepdivewithshawn@gmail.com

Music:
Majestic Earth - Joystock

Chapters

• 0:00 Union Decline and Political Realignment
• 4:52 Unions, Politics, and Economic Trends
• 21:02 Labor Unions, Democrats, and Working Class
• 29:58 Democratic Party Leadership and Vision

Transcript

Lainey: 0:00

I think what often gets discounted in this conversation about union decline is how all of these efforts to break unions and to break the power of collective bargaining, to stall contract negotiations and whatnot, all of that has this underlying effect of breaking what it actually means to be a union which is to be on one another's side, what it actually means to be a union which is to be on one another's side. And so that you know, I think, that that, dating back, you know, to the mid 20th century, early 20th century, was always, always in the background and something that employers were trying to do. And also, you know, the Right to Work Committee, for instance, which has been bankrolled by, you know, the Koch brothers and whomever else really prioritizing, you know, activating those tensions.

Shawn: 0:58

Welcome to Deep Dive with me, s C Fettig. Unions and union membership have been in decline in critical places in the United States for the past couple of decades, and this has had electoral implications with shifting allegiances of the working class and, further down the line, implications for American democracy itself. Labor unions were once the cornerstone of a working class life, especially in Rust Belt communities like western Pennsylvania. Unions were more than just advocates for fair wages and workplace protections. They were a kind of glue that bound communities together, creating a sense of shared purpose and connection. But over the past several decades, the power of unions has diminished significantly. Deindustrialization, globalization and concerted efforts to weaken organized labor have eroded the institution, leaving a vacuum in both economic and civic life. In their absence, new forces have emerged to shape the political identities of working-class voters. Forces like conservative organizations. Identities of working-class voters. Forces like conservative organizations, evangelical megachurches and cultural movements that emphasize issues like gun rights and patriotism over bread-and-butter issues and civic engagement. This shift has contributed to the growing realignment of many working-class voters away from Democrats and toward the Republican Party, a realignment that's reshaping electoral politics in America and may have played a significant sleeper role in the election of Trump to a second term. So did the decline of unions tip the scales? Could a stronger labor movement have helped Democrats reconnect with disaffected working-class voters, and what does this shift mean for the long-term health of American democracy?

Shawn: 2:47

I discuss all of this with my guest today, lainey Newman, co-author of the book Rust Belt Union Blues, which examines the political shift among working-class voters, particularly in western Pennsylvania, and how the decline of unions as both economic and social institutions has contributed to a growing alignment of working class voters with conservative politics and the Republican Party. All right, if you like this episode or any episode, please give it a like, share and follow on your favorite podcast platform and or subscribe to the podcast on YouTube. And, as always, if you have any thoughts, questions or comments, please feel free to email me at deepdivewithshawn at gmailcom. Let's do a deep dive. Lainey Newman, thanks for being here. How are you?

Lainey: 3:39

I'm doing great. How are you, Shawn?

Shawn: 3:41

I'm doing great as well and I'm glad to have you here to talk about something that I think one I don't know that I in my I guess quote unquote analysis of contemporary politics give a lot of attention to. You know, I'm going to forgive myself for that, because I also think you know some of the work that you do, and particularly some of the stuff that you've written about, is stuff that doesn't get a lot of attention by the media in discussing kind of the evolution of our politics and also an explanation of why we are where we are right now.

Lainey: 4:13

Yeah.

Shawn: 4:13

So I'm glad to have you here to talk a little bit about it.

Lainey: 4:17

Definitely yeah.

Shawn: 4:18

I think I told you in advance that you know I grew up in Wisconsin and I was living there when Scott Walker was the governor. And you know I grew up in Wisconsin and I was living there when Scott Walker was the governor and you know he kind of made union busting his mission Right and I think in retrospect he probably he largely succeeded and this was really just part of a larger push, especially in the Midwest, to break the backs of unions. I think yeah.

Shawn: 4:41

At that time I didn't really grasp the importance of it or the potential implications of it. I do think we're seeing it now, though, but I'm not the person that quite can quite explain what it is. And before we get to how it might have impacted this past November election or the the shape of the electorate today, I guess I'd like a bit of a better understanding of how we even got here in the first place, bit of a better understanding of how we even got here in the first place. So I'm wondering if you could help me understand, you know, a little bit of the history of the decline of unions, how it's kind of shaped electoral politics over time, in what ways, and then how we got to where we are today, and then we can dig in a little bit into where we are today.

Lainey: 5:19

Sure, yeah. So things have changed a lot over the last couple of decades, as we talk a bit about in the book. So I guess I'll start by talking about kind of the peak of union membership and union density in the United States, which was in the 1950s, when over a third of private sector employees were union members At that time. Private sector employees so what I mean by that is, you know, people working in coal mines, you know steel mills, textile factories, any type of corporation, really not teachers and sort of the public sector union union members we think of today that were historically pretty unregulated and had been pressured by unions and in part by the federal government coming out of the Great Depression, to create regulations to protect workplaces. And so there was this big push in the 40s, in the 30s and the 40s to unionize and the 30s and the 40s to unionize, and that was really sort of at its peak towards the 50s and the 60s as well. Things were still pretty strong.

Lainey: 6:33

To me, in our research we document the decline of American labor and the power of American labor, which had been building, building, building, and even though there wasn't sort of the NLRA or National Labor Relations Act before, you know the Great Depression and that type of thing, there were still, you know, movements of unionists and strikes and picket lines and that type of thing. So really it was building all throughout this, all throughout American history. And we point to the 1970s and or I guess at the highest level at the White House, but then also in the private sector and down throughout, even unions themselves. And so I would say strength in the 1950s at its highest and then sort of downhill from there, especially in the 70s and beyond.

Shawn: 7:51

So in my preamble I think I kind of prefaced this idea that the blame for the decline lies at the feet of the Republican Party. But I think that's an overgeneralization. You can correct me if you think I'm wrong. But there's also regional implications to the evolution of unions and unionization you know, I think about. You know North versus South, which is a common, common cleave, right I think about, like Bill Clinton when he was the governor of Arkansas, while he paid lip service, you know he wasn't particularly friendly to unions. So that's like that's something else that I think perhaps has influenced the decline of unions.

Shawn: 8:23

But another is, like I said, I grew up in a small town in Wisconsin and I come from a working class family. I was raised by a single parent who was not in a union. So that was wasn't part of my life, sure, but I was kind of an outsider and I was gonna say I grew up gay but I didn't. I realized that I was in my late teens and the reason I even mentioned that is because I always knew that I was voting the same way, that unions were right and that was pro-democratic or for Democrats. But I always felt like it was kind of strange bedfellows that we were voting for the same party but for very different reasons, and I'm wondering if there's something culturally here that was at play for division at some point.

Lainey: 9:19

Yeah, absolutely sort of alignment between unions and union members and the Democratic Party, particularly happening in the 1960s with cultural issues, and by that I mean, you know, racial issues.

Lainey: 9:32

Really, that came between the Democratic Party and unions as early as when Kennedy was in office, really, when there were riots and protests in Philadelphia because contractors weren't hiring anyone any of the you know companies that had Black members and unions were sort of blacklisting anyone who wasn't white, not allowing them into membership.

Lainey: 10:01

I mean, this was going on for a long time and the Democratic Party as the party of civil rights in the 1960s, you know, I think that a lot of people view that as the point at which there was this, you know, momentous division, and I do think that that had something to do with the sort of ongoing fragmentation of sort of the union base in the Democratic Party.

Lainey: 10:28

I don't think that that's the entire answer, but I do think that you know the cultural issues. Today, we see, you know not so much racial issues, but you know it's certainly for a long time. You know LGBTQ issues and today, you know, with the trans issues that were at the center of this past election for sure, abortion and gay marriage back in the 2010s and 2000s. So yeah, absolutely. I think that you know people in unions were voting based on. This is the party that supports a working class coalition. And then you have a whole other segment of the Democratic Party, which really, I think in recent history has taken over the Democratic Party, that is more focused on sort of, I guess, identity-based issues.

Shawn: 11:21

It's almost hard, I think, to look back in the context of the way that you're explaining this, and this makes absolute sense. But it's almost difficult to look back and imagine, given our understanding of human nature, and then the coalitions that the Democratic Party was building and trying to maintain 40s, 50s, 60s and forward. It's almost like, in hindsight, we could predict that there was going to be some friction at some point. But do you think this is to some degree a failure of imagination, where we are on the part of Democrats, or some type of ingenuity I would say nefarious ingenuity on the part of Republicans to kind of irritate that friction?

Lainey: 12:02

Oh yeah, I mean.

Lainey: 12:03

So there's, there's a lot of evidence, I think, that I've seen and we don't talk about this that much in the book but just in doing additional research and potentially, you know, for future sort of publications but that you know that Republicans were conservative entities during this time, were, and corporate entities as well, were activating these tensions very purposefully.

Lainey: 12:29

We do touch on that a little bit in the book, but racial conflict benefited the employer in the mid-20th century and so I do think that that was something that was very intentionally recognized by Republicans. I think what often gets discounted in this conversation about union decline is how all of these efforts to break unions and to break the power of collective bargaining, to stall contract negotiations and whatnot, all of that has this underlying effect of breaking the what it actually means to be a union, which is to be on one another's side. And so that you know, I think that that dating back, you know, to to the mid 20th century, early 20th century, was always, always in the background and something that employers were trying to do, and and and also you know the Right to Work Committee, for instance, which has been bankrolled by, you know, the Koch brothers and whomever else really prioritizing, you know, activating those tensions.

Shawn: 13:37

So if we take this a little bit outside of the realm of solely politics because you know it takes a number of factors probably to explain the decline of unions and unionization in the United States so if we remove politics a little bit and we look at this through the lens of the economy and the evolution of society, is there something about the way that these have changed and the ways in which they impact working class folks' lives such that they also would have or could have contributed to the decline of unions, irrespective of the political realm.

Lainey: 14:12

Yeah, I mean.

Lainey: 14:13

So there's definitely, you know, as you said, there's tons of factors that went into the decline of unions and I think a huge one was, you know, just the decline of manufacturing itself and the decline of the US as sort of the producer of a lot of you know, raw materials and steel and energy and coal.

Lainey: 14:46

That's often what what people point to in in terms of, you know, pinpointing a a economic factors that that contributed to the decline of organized labor. Obviously, as you mentioned, the, the South um has historically and continues to have very low rates of of unionization, um, and the North has had much higher rates comparatively, um, there was, you know, a lot of effort by companies internally and from, you know, and foreign investment that you know went to the South, from the North, in order to avoid union labor and union wages. And so you know the economic factors that allowed, I guess the invisible hand that allowed that those types of changes to happen. You know, foreign investment and globalization and offshoring and that type of thing all sort of, is part and parcel of union decline happening in the 70s and 80s.

Shawn: 15:43

I want to try this question out on you and it's really oversimplified. So I want to admit that up front. I want to pivot a little bit to this election and the impact that the evolution of unionization has had and how that played out. But to get there, I guess I'm wondering is it again? This is oversimplification. No-transcript.

Lainey: 16:24

Yeah. So it's a good question. I think it's a question at the top of top of mind for a lot of people and and I think I think that in a certain sense, the answer is yes, but I think that it's more than just economic and cultural. So I'm going to complicate the question a bit. Um, I I think that you know, one of the things that we we talk about a bit in Rust Belt, union Blues, is this idea that people have have said about how union members who vote for Republicans are voting against, quote unquote, voting against their own best interest. Democrats support unions and you know unions pay better wages and any worker who sees a union contract and a non-union contract, if they don't know which is which, they're going to always pick the union contract, and so you know. Or even if they do know which is which, essentially just because of how much better those jobs are, pay and benefits wise. So I think that you know that's that's a line of thinking that that I understand, but that we sort of push back on um, because we don't see voting as sort of a calculation of um, sort of a metric based calculation of of um. You know, I guess, pluses and minuses based on the parties and the candidates. We, we more see, you know, voting as something that is, you know, informed by one's networks, by the groups of which one is part, the environment. You know social factors and relationships, family, you know everything that goes into someone's identity also goes into, you know how they vote.

Lainey: 18:06

And so one thing that, um, that I that I think of is a steel worker, for instance, could say well, you know, trump really helped us because he put on, you, put into place these steel tariffs.

Lainey: 18:18

Um, you know which, which you know Senator, some Democrats that supported and that Biden, some of which Biden maintained. Or that same steelworker could say I'm not going to vote for Trump because you know he's anti-union labor. So the way that we evaluate I think you know the pros and cons and the economic pros and cons and I guess I suppose the cultural pros and cons as well is all sort of informed by what we're listening to, right, what types of, I guess, which track we're adhering to. You know whether we're adhering to that track of saying, oh, the tariffs you know really helped the steel industry, versus, you know where, I'm not going to vote for someone who's anti-union labor. And so our theory is that because unions don't occupy a space in people's minds anymore or in their communities and their family life. That puts, you know, those issues at the top of mind, essentially, as those issues are prioritized in that way. That underlies these decisions that people make.

Shawn: 19:38

So you're kind of complicating my next question and I appreciate you for it, but it is making me wonder how to frame this question. Essentially, what I want to get at is if it's true that there are other factors in people's lives that are playing a much more salient kind of role in influencing, perhaps, the relationships that they have, the types of groups and people that they engage with, the things that they care about, that are perhaps lending themselves to making it easier to vote for a Republican candidate or align with a Republican candidate more so than a Democratic candidate. And, in the light of this election and the unique character of Trump, I wonder if, if irrespective of whether or not unions are present, that there's something about these types of voters or these types of folks that the you know landscape has shifted so much that, if they're in a union or not, they are attracted to these types of politics.

Lainey: 20:42

Yeah, yeah, I agree with you there. I think that there has been a shift, you know, in sort of the understanding of who's on the average person's side. If we put ourselves into that position, we're talking about this subset of voters. You know who's on our side and I think that you know whether, whether people in the mid 20 or mid to late 20th century were members of unions or not, there wasn't the same sort of um, I think, paradigm about sort of us versus them that there is now. I think now the the them is the elite, like the sort of, I guess, cultural elite that is represented by the elite, universities, the, you know people, successful, you know, highly educated, I guess wealthy, you know liberal, coastal elites versus, you know, the average American who's, you know, concerned about how, you know what they're going to be able to buy their kids for Christmas and the prices of eggs going up at Walmart and that type of thing.

Lainey: 21:50

I think that there's a real sort of sense of just a chasm, really, that that people sense between themselves and what is represented as the democratic party or what they see as the democratic party. And I think that you know, if we think back to this era of union power, labor power, really, it was the, the, the them, uh, was the corporate elite. You know, it was more or that that that unions were trying to activate and what they sort of tapped into was, you know, the bosses. Um, those guys are the ones who are the other. It's us workers versus the bosses, and who's going to help the bosses and who's going to help the workers? And so I do think that that whole paradigm has definitely shifted, as you said. I do think that that has shifted and I think that in part, it shifted because unions aren't occupying that space anymore, that's informing how people are seeing you know themselves relative to the rest of society.

Shawn: 22:54

Okay, so that's, I guess, where I'd like to go. Next, then, is, if we focus on that the decline of unions as being a significant factor, in kind, of the morass we're in, how much do you attribute that decline to this political moment, to the election of Trump this year?

Lainey: 23:12

Yeah, I think it's contributed hugely. I do. I think that when you look at the electoral map and think about the key swing states right now and, of course, this election there were several, including North Carolina, arizona, et cetera, but the key swing states I mean everyone was focused on Pennsylvania, wisconsin and Michigan, and that has been the case for the past several elections those were the states that were the epicenter of union power, I mean really that were the union the epicenter of union power. I mean really Western Pennsylvania, michigan, detroit, outside of Detroit, you know Wisconsin, with going back all the way to La Follette and La Follette, I think you know union leader, storied union leader, and so I do think that you know that you can't, it's impossible, to ignore the importance of this transition and this transformation in terms of you know the electoral outcomes.

Shawn: 24:20

So one of the things that, in all honesty, reading Rust Belt Union Blues, there was a kind of chilling feeling that came over me when I was reading this, in that there, I think there's something missed in how we think about this current moment in our politics and how often we attribute this to or simply being a Trump phenomenon, and I think there's something in reading the book that really got me thinking that this is not solely a Trump phenomenon.

Shawn: 24:51

Now he's clearly tapping into something, and Biden was able to kind of chip away at that in 2020. But I am starting to have this concern that, especially following this election and the returns suggesting that to these critical voters, these working class voters in the Rust Belt states or in the blue wall, that the Democratic Party is just not speaking to them, and my fear is that we've turned a corner in such a way because there's nothing on deck, the Democrats aren't really proposing anything, and I want to get to Bernie Sanders a little bit later and that, to me, suggests that we're looking at probably a protracted period of time to which these voters, these working class voters, may be lost to the progressive cause or to the Democratic Party.

Lainey: 25:40

Yeah, I mean, I think that working class people have, you know, feel, and this is what we talk about in the book, but you know that Democrats have just abandoned them and have prioritized other other issues. I guess economic liberalization in the laissez faire way, you know meaning of liberalization, you know starting with really starting with Clinton and through the Obama era, biden sort of went a different direction, I think, than that. But I do think that you know the sentiment is that you know these areas have really struggled and the election of Democrats, either on the local level or on the federal level, hasn't saved the communities and hasn't saved the good paying jobs. I saw that all the time when I was doing this research. It's really sad that you know what some of these communities look like and you know, you can tell that there was a lot of life once there and that there was a lot lost. And so I think that there is a sentiment that you know what was going on for so long voting for Democrats. You know unions, you know the union member and union family, union communities aligning themselves purely, you know, completely with the Democratic Party and essentially then not getting any what, what, what people have seen as anything in return.

Lainey: 27:16

I do think that the Democratic Party has, you know, done some things for, for, for working class people, but clearly it's not felt by by a lot of people. So I I do agree that I think that it's a lot broader than just, you know, just just Trump and this decline. I mean we, we document it back to the seventies. Jimmy Carter, you know, didn't bail out the, the steel industry. Obama did bail out the, you know, the auto industry after the 2008 financial crisis. But I think that you know, the choice to not bail out the steel industry back in the 70s that would have then, you know, would have now been seen as a drop in the federal budget still has ramifications.

Lainey: 28:02

I mean, you think about the US steel and Nippon steel deal, that that was recently rejected, but and how essentially that some people are, a lot of union members are saying that that's the end of, you know, the US, us steel's presence in western Pennsylvania, because there's sort of no feasible way to come out of that. Whether that's true or not, I don't know. Basically, I mean, yeah, I think that this goes way back and and that that it isn't just Trump, that it's much, much larger, and that we have, you know, we, have a lot to rebuild in these areas if we, if we want to earn back these voters.

Shawn: 28:47

So I'm taking kind of a circuitous route to where I want to go.

Shawn: 28:49

So that explains this next question, which is I feel like the Democratic Party as much as the Republican Party, but in a very different way has gone through quite an evolution on its platform in the last decade or so. And we can blame, you know, republicans for the us versus them narrative, especially as it relates to queer folks and trans folks. But we can also blame the Democratic Party, I think, for kind of flailing a little bit in how to maintain their big tent. You know, I forgive the Democratic Party for having to do that, but at the same time it feels like they're flailing and I feel like we are at a moment in time where, in order for the Democratic Party to kind of rebuild that coalition, they have to somehow find a tentative balance between appeasing I'm just saying broadly the working class vote, the union vote and those that make cultural issues, progressive cultural issues, their top priority. And I feel like that's an incredibly difficult task, if not impossible, and I wonder if you think there's a way to thread that needle.

Lainey: 29:54

Yeah, it's a really good question. So I think that it is a big problem. I think that you know the cultural sort of baggage that Kamala Harris carried on some of the sort of progressive issues was a huge reason why, or a significant reason why, you know, the election went the way that it did, her seen, as you know too quote unquote leftist by a lot of people, even though she was pretty moderate on most of the issues you know in reality. So I think that you know, I think that there there's a couple issues with how the party is set up right now, or sort of the state of the party right now. I would first say that I don't think that there's been, like you know, there hasn't been sort of a clear sense of direction and leadership in a soul you know, based on, or a leader you know him or herself, um, since the Obama era and it, um, and so I think that that sort of you know, since since 2012, I think that the party has sort of been trying to find itself, um, and we have, you know, biden, who I think was really great for the moment but wasn't, you know, at a place where he could continue the sort of mission because of age. So I think that that's one thing. I also think that and I remember sort of reading about this with Clinton, with Bill Clinton who had sort of a reckoning moment when he was approached by some African-American activists where he basically, you know, said I'm on your side, but we also have to recognize that you know, we're, you know I have to run a campaign so I can't talk about all these issues or whatever. I think that one thing that's happened is there's been sort of this or whatever.

Lainey: 31:47

I think that one thing that's happened is there's been sort of this a closure of the gap or of the space between the activists and advocates for certain progressive issues and the party itself, and there's become sort of litmus tests on candidates, whereas, you know, in previous times I suppose, the activists advocate and sort of activate about a certain issue, activism and you know what would be electorally feasible.

Lainey: 32:26

Because it's just, you know, not true right now that you know the broad population supports certain measures. So you know, politicians can't necessarily come out in support of those measures, even if the progressive community is really sort of passionate about them, and I think that the space between those two sort of groups, you know, has has just kind of collapsed and they're sort of now one, I mean now, you know, intermingled, and so there's, there's, there's this sort of sense that they're, you know, everyone who's a Democrat has to be a hundred percent on on meet, all of these sort of checks in terms of cultural issues. So I think that one way to strike that balance and so I could touch on a couple of things here, but one is leadership. Who's the leader of the party? What's the direction of the party? How do we sort of have a vision for the party moving forward? And then, second, how do we say the party needs to focus on electoral success, you know we and differentiate that from some of the activism on the left.

Shawn: 33:33

So I guess, that brings me to if we keep in mind that the message could be at fault, but also the messenger can be a problem, or lack thereof, I suppose. So that brings me to Bernie Sanders, because he was pitching a very populist but working class message, pro-union message, when he was running against Hillary Clinton in 2015, 2016. And I've been mulling this idea and I'm not the, I'm sure I'm not the only one but that, had Bernie Sanders won that, there was a very real possibility at that moment to have cobbled back together kind of that union vote under the Democratic Party without what I think under Trump has evolved to include what I consider to be really homophobic, misogynistic, racist, nativist language and rhetoric that is now just seems to be bundled up in this whole movement. That seems difficult to disentangle and I wonder if you think that Bernie Sanders and his message was a better message and messenger that might have averted some of this.

Lainey: 34:43

I think that in hindsight, the answer is yes. I mean, it's hard. It's hard to say you know in the moment without knowing you know the future.

Lainey: 34:55

I think that everyone was so confident in 2016 that a Democrat could be any Democrat, could be Donald Trump. You know that that wasn't that. It wasn't a question of whether you know sort of we were going to have to stave off this party of various, you know, isms, I guess, racism, homophobia, et cetera, um, and and the goal was, I think, internally, the party was had this idea of, you know, the first woman president and all all of these different sort of markers, including that, you know, hillary. It was Hillary's turn, quote unquote. I think that you know the populist and sort of appeal of Bernie Sanders can't be ignored. I mean, he had a vision for the party. He, you know, clearly was popular, was activated people or galvanized people in a way that Hillary didn't, and so, to the extent that the party was sort of mingling in the affairs of sort of, or weighing the outcome, I think that that was wrong. But you know, that being said, it's hard to think about the counterfactual.

Lainey: 36:08

I do think that that that type of leadership of someone who who has a very sort of straightforward you know no bullshit, um, you know, you know talks to the people type of attitude that that people sense is genuine. I think that that's a huge thing. Um, whether you know a politician comes across as two-faced or duplicitous or whatever um is, is personality really an appeal is just huge. And so I think that you know the Democrats should think, should, should remember that lesson of of who's getting people excited. Um, and, and you know, even if it's not the first choice of the of the quote unquote core party, and you know, even if it's not the first choice of the quote unquote core party, you know it's really important, moving forward, that we listen to what's getting people excited, what's galvanizing people.

Shawn: 36:58

So we've talked about the types of things that have contributed to the decline of unions and how that brought us to today. But there's another direction to that relationship to the decline of unions and how that brought us to today. But there's another direction to that relationship, which is that the decline of unions also impacts other things, and so these are things that you've written about, and you've talked about things like civic engagement in communities, which, in turn, influences or can weaken our institutions, which, in turn, can threaten our democracy. So I'm wondering if you could talk a little bit about how the decline of unions has contributed to that and what that relationship has looked like.

Lainey: 37:28

Sure, yeah, absolutely so.

Lainey: 37:32

I think that unions were part YMCAs, uh, et cetera, churches, religious institutions, um had a, had sort of had a much larger role in people's lives.

Lainey: 38:03

And this goes back to the work of, you know, bob Putnam with Bowling Alone, um in in the in, I guess, the late nineties, that that was Um, but so, yeah, I mean there's. So unions were part of that whole fabric of civic engagement and all of those, all of those institutions and organizations sort of built on one another. And that's the thing about grassroots community organizations is, you know, people here, people are in one and then you know there's crossover between one and the other. I was just talking to someone who was saying that the pensioners of the local I think it was the, I can't remember which local, it was for the steelworkers, but some pensioners affiliation of a local union, would meet at the Elks Lodge every month or whatever, and they would hold their meetings there, whereas the union meetings themselves would be at the union hall and there was all this sort of crossover and we talk a lot about that in the book is documenting crossover between these organizations.

Lainey: 39:07

And so I think that one thing that the decline of unions has done one thing that the decline of unions has done and this goes along with simply, you know good paying jobs and you know people being sort of co-located in one area, you know decline of manufacturing as well People are no longer sort of part of those interconnected communities in the way that they once were. I think unions had the benefit of being sort of workplace mandatory, I suppose. I mean you could obviously have opt-outs for various reasons, but it was one organization or civic group that all people who worked at a certain place were part of. It wasn't based on, you know, race or ethnicity or religion or whatever it was. It was based on workplace.

Lainey: 39:59

And so it it created all. It created relationships and a network, um, amongst a lot of different you know people who had very different backgrounds, um, and who maybe wouldn't be hanging out at the Slovak club but went there because their you know, buddy was, you know was a member, and then they ended up hanging out there every Sunday to drink beers, which is something that I was told by one of the retirees that you know, everyone would just go to one another's sort of groups because it was just a place to go and hang out. And so I think that that's that, that initial, that those initial connections that were bred by unions, when those no longer exist, that really impacts the ripple effect of civic organizations and how civic organizations can build on one another. So, in addition to all the economic losses that have happened and democratic erosion from the decline of unions and all that, it's absolutely, I think, the case that civic life has suffered as a result.

Shawn: 41:09

I think there's generally been in the lexicon of explanations of why democracy can collapse or may. Backslide is the story of a decline of civic engagement writ large irrespective of unions. The rise of social media, the ability for people to kind of engage with each other only in ways that they want and to do it anonymously, that this all has contributed to a chipping away at democracy. And then you know that was kind of kickstarted under the pandemic when everybody was at home, required to be at home.

Shawn: 41:44

And I can see where that also would apply to union members as well. Right, that same kind of narrative. But if we buy that narrative, I wonder if there's a proactive argument to be made here that robust, strong and robust unions actually contribute to the health of a democracy.

Lainey: 42:02

Yeah, yeah, I mean I think that there is One thing that unions taught were you know sort of democratic norms. You know the unions were like other organizations, like paternal groups and and others. Unions were federated structures so that actually in a lot of ways like mirrored sort of a governing structure. And so there was, there was sort of, so there was education about the democratic you know sort of processes on multiple levels. Processes on multiple levels. The first was, you know, via the structure of the union and participating in union meetings, or at least you know elections or whatnot, so that you know that has a democratic component. And then the other is that unions would educate members purposefully and very intentionally about democracy. And so in some of these old union publications that we looked at, there's long, long form articles about you know how the United States Department of Treasury works, or you know what the Attorney General of the United States does and how to file, and not only those, you know sort of more abstract concepts, but also you know very sort of particular concepts about you know how to file for Social Security benefits and what to do if you know sort of more abstract concepts, but also you know very sort of particular concepts about you know how to file for social security benefits and what to do if you know a claim gets denied by an insurer or something like that, like things to help members navigate the landscape of you know democratic and other political sort of institutions. And so you know even and one thing that we talk about in the book is just knowledge that was, I guess, spread by unions about completely unrelated things. Just that was, you know, useful to members.

Lainey: 43:45

So a lot of people in Western Pennsylvania hunt and you know then and now. But you know so what are the when does the season start? When you know what types of you know shotguns can you use at this time of the month versus that time of the month. You know what's the limit on deer that you can take or shoot, so that type of thing. I mean things that were useful to people and things that were more abstract.

Lainey: 44:10

So I think that the education happened on a lot of different levels, subconsciously and consciously.

Lainey: 44:16

And then there's also, of course, you know just the sort of integration of all different types of people that you get in a union, and I don't only mean you know racially, but I also mean you know once women started being accepted into workplaces and you know people of different backgrounds. I mean it used to be a big big difference ifplaces and you know people of different backgrounds. I mean it used to be a big big difference if you were, you know, irish, catholic, catholic, versus you know someone who German, or whatever, um and so, or Italian, you know, and so I think that what you had in these places were a unification, you know, unification of interests between very different people, and and that that went a long way in terms of, you know, uniting of interests between very different people, and that that went a long way in terms of, you know, uniting people and making them sort of feel like their fellow American, was, you know, their friend, and that they, you know, had common interests with them despite their differences.

Shawn: 45:11

One of the things that I found particularly I want to say striking, but I'm going to use the word striking as an action in a minute.

Shawn: 45:19

So what I found particularly interesting in this past election was the schism that seemed to emerge between union leadership and the rank and file, with rank and file being largely supportive of Trump and I'm just painting with a broad brush here and union leadership either being torn or pro-democratic. And I live in, I live in Seattle, the Seattle area, and so I you know we had the Boeing strike right before the election and I was really again, I want to, I want to say the word. I was struck by the fact that so many of the striking workers were fervently pro Trump and the union leadership was not on the same page at least some of them were not on the same page and I almost feel like, to some degree, what might be happening here is a bit of a microcosm of what's happening at the larger level in our politics, which is just a backlash against the elite. But I'm wondering if there is an emerging schism between union leadership and rank and file that's having an impact on the effectiveness of unions.

Lainey: 46:24

Yeah, absolutely so. I think that there is an increasing schism, though I think that there always has been sort of a separation between the leadership and the rank and file. But I think now the leadership is not as trusted as it once was. There's always sort of been this sense of we don't want, you know, the union leaders telling us who to vote for, and we found in a 1955 survey of United Steelworkers members that they didn't really think that it was necessary for the union to endorse anyone, that they wanted just sort of information instead of a directive. But I think that now the difference is there has become a sense that amongst many union members that the union leadership on the executive level out in DC is just another, just a wing of the Democratic Party. They don't even think about the Republicans, they don't, they don't consider it, they're just in the back, they're in the pocket of the Democratic Party and they don't care about what the members think either. That that chasm has emerged in recent years, and particularly accelerated with Trump, and has resulted in people feeling that the leadership isn't listening to the membership and that poses a really significant problem for unions themselves how unions run union structure, because the whole idea is to sort of adhere to the members' interests. So what happens when the members you know I guess I was told by one person that you know over two thirds of the UMW workers. So United Mine workers support Trump, and I'm sure that that was 2020. I don't know what it was 2024, but it probably was similar.

Lainey: 48:14

You know what happens when a vast majority of because you know the membership would have essentially discredited that endorsement. Do I think that that is the right decision to make? I'm not. It's, you know. It's not clear to me that that's the right decision to make. I heard from a lot of people that the role of the union is to, you know, advise their members on what's best for them and that type of argument. But I do see why a leader would decide to not go against the sort of broad-based wishes of the membership so directly. And so I do think that that emerging difference between unions, union leadership, difference between unions, union leadership, often in DC and the members out across the country, sort of builds on itself and has in recent years become even more apparent.

Shawn: 49:29

You know, what it kind of strikes me is that it's almost as if so there were exogenous threats to unionization. You've kind of explained that evolution, but now it almost feels like the wolf is in the house, in that you know, if the members are turning against leadership, that is, that feels like a potential existential threat to unionization in and of itself. So it's almost like not to lay this all at the feet of the Republican Party. But at this point the membership, the rank and file, could finish the job.

Lainey: 49:54

Yeah, I mean that's really tough because I think a lot of people feel that. You know, unfortunately, a lot of people feel workers that I spoke to in my research don't feel like the union was benefiting them too much and I think in their minds, you know, separate the job from the union.

Lainey: 50:16

What I mean by that is folks who have, you know, union jobs understand that those jobs are good jobs. You know there's protection, you know there's often much better benefits, higher wages, than a non-union job. But there's often an attribution error that emerges between sort of you know why people see that as a good job, which is something that frustrates, I think, a lot of union leadership. But people see the union as sort of extraneous, as unnecessary, and I even had someone tell me well, now we have OSHA and now we have, you know, we have these laws that protect us. Why do we need, you know, why do we need the unions to take money out of our pocket? And so I think that that sense of you know the disaggregation between what unions you know bring to the table and you know sort of the on the face, on the surface, you know job that's offered by an employer is really problematic and that's something that you know union leadership is concerned about, I think, moving forward.

Shawn: 51:25

So earlier I asked you to kind of look back and pose a counterfactual and imagine how that would play out. And I guess now, just quickly, I want to ask you, looking forward, to prognosticate and I'm a pessimist, I'll just admit that up front. But given what you've studied in the history that you, that you're aware of, as it relates to union building and union busting in the United States, and the current moment and where we are and the behavior of union both at leadership and rank and file levels, what kind of hope do you have that unions can play, you know, a democracy building role in the next decade or so?

Lainey: 52:02

Yeah, yeah, well, it's, you know, it's, it's. It's hard to be optimistic, I think, having done this research, and I try to be optimistic but I probably am, more naturally also a pessimist, but I mean, I think that there's. I think, you know, one of our goals in this project was to try to figure out what gave unions such power over and such you know sort of loyalty amongst members, amongst you know Americans, and why, for so long, being a union member was a core part of people's identity. You know, there's, I think, about one article in a union publication that I read that quoted a member who had passed away recently who said you know, my most important possession is my union card, and that type of thing.

Lainey: 52:58

We saw a lot, I mean not you know, in various iterations that the pride in being a union man and at the time it really was men for the most part, but the pride in being a union man was really important to people and that gave unions a lot of power politically, socially, etc. And when something is so core to one's identity, the political calculus is very different than just sort of pulling on marginal issue stances of a particular candidate, like whether they're going to support future, you know, sort of pro-union legislation or something like that. I mean, in other words, it's, you know, it's a lot more powerful when a union is really core to one's identity than if the union is just saying, well, this person is going to in the future, probably, if it comes down to it, would vote in a way that would benefit you If that has nothing to do with you know who you are and your community and your family life, et cetera. And so I think that you know one thing that we want out of the project that we did and that we are hoping for, is that unions can, you know, build back the sort of power that they had in communities and amongst people, not only in the workplace but outside the workplace, partnering with other organizations and having more of a presence in people's lives than just, you know, in the employer-employee relationship in terms of collective bargaining. So I think that's one thing that we saw, as you know, something that wasn't really focused on but was such an important part of what made unions so powerful was this sense of loyalty and identity. So I do think that there's a lot of potential and I think that you see in some unions that really you know that being more effective and working to a certain extent.

Lainey: 55:18

I mean, we talked to some members of the IBEW who talked about how, you know, the trades have maintained more of a sense of identity because the trade unions so you know very, when you think about the AFL and CIO CIO was industrial unions mainly and the AFL was the trade unions. So the trade unions, like IBEW, you know, brick masons there's, you know you know, lots of plumbers, pipefitters etc. That they've maintained more of a sense of identity because they've been it's sort of more of a skillset based organization and and and there hasn't been as much expansion into into other realms. So the steel workers I mean so I'm now a member of the United Auto Workers as a, as a teacher here at Harvard University, whereas you know when you think of an autoworker you don't think of a graduate student at Harvard University but that a lot of industrial unions have expanded in that sense and have expanded beyond their initial sort of realm, whereas the craft unions haven't. And so there's.

Lainey: 56:31

So I heard from one some people that you know they think that that's a real strength and that there's a lot more sort of buy-in because it's seen, as you know, this is our group that represents us, and and um, you know that there's a lot of tattoos, even that, um, people get tattoos with their, with their union logo, from the, from the craft unions and that type of thing.

Lainey: 56:50

And, um, you know, to the extent that you can sort of compare, how various unions have fared in terms of, you know, maintaining a sense of identity and maintaining a presence in people's lives apart from the workplace, and that type of thing.

Lainey: 57:04

You can see where there's, you know, benefits and what has worked and what hasn't, and so that is one thing that I think can give us hope is that, you know, maybe in the future we can see how some more unions can, can build, build back in this way and become more integral to people's lives, using some of the techniques that have been effective. You know, for some of these other unions, um, and techniques that you know currently aren't in play, but maybe you know that are that people innovate, um, because there's a lot of, you know, incredibly talented people in in labor and um, and it's, you know, I, I, I never want to be sort of um, just I guess you know nagging on labor or or, or critiquing them or whatever. I mean, people are working incredibly hard. Um, and so you know, I do think that there is a lot of potential there and there's some, there's excitement. I mean, there's a lot of public support right now, so there's there's definitely some hope.

Shawn: 58:00

Okay, final question. You ready for it?

Lainey: 58:03

Yes, I am.

Shawn: 58:04

What's something interesting you've been reading, watching, listening to or doing lately, and it doesn't have to be related to this topic, but it can be this topic, but it can be Well, let's see.

Lainey: 58:19

I feel, like my, my life as a student has been taking up most of my most of my time, but, um, one thing that I that I listened to is the podcast strict scrutiny. Um, I, I recommend that one. Um, I I think that it's important. You know, legal rules seem very abstract and are very abstract, but are often incredibly important, and one of the things that I'm working on in the future is looking at how changing legal how changing you know legal rules because of Supreme Court decisions have impacted how unions are able to spend money on community building initiatives, and so you know some things that you don't think that you know courts should have anything to do with. Or you know, or do have anything to do with, they have something to do with, and so I think that it's important to know about. You know what's going on in the legal landscape, and so that's a good one landscape, and so that's that's a good one. Let's see if I can give another.

Lainey: 59:20

I do a lot of. I really like reading fiction, so right now I am reading a, the book called the Friend by Sigrid Nunez, which was recommended to me by my mom and it's really good so far. So I'll also recommend that one. And I don't really watch much TV, but I follow the Pittsburgh Steelers a great deal. So it hasn't been too great over the last couple of games, but we're hoping for a turnaround come the playoffs. So, but yeah, those are a couple of things I'd say.

Shawn: 59:53

You know, I love strict scrutiny and I think those folks are so smart and they're so witty and they're so funny. But I think I sometimes get so caught up in how witty and funny they are that I forget they're like they're talking about some really weighty stuff and I'm like am I just like g my way into authoritarianism?

Lainey: 1:00:16

I know, I know, but you, I mean, at a certain point there has to be humor. You know, it's, there's. Yeah, I, I agree, I they're, they're fantastic, um, and I was lucky to work with Kate Shaw a bit um for a while, so she's, she's lovely, um, but they're all, they're all great, and sometimes we do have to laugh.

Shawn: 1:00:35

Yeah, yeah, Lainey, thanks for taking the time. I think it's a complicated topic and I think it's one that's going to play out in serious ways over the next decade or so. So thanks for explaining it to me.

Lainey: 1:00:46

For sure, thanks for having me.

Shawn: 1:00:54

Unions have historically played a vital role in fostering civic engagement, community ties and a political voice for working-class Americans, and their decline has left a void, one that's been filled by forces that often prioritize division and cultural resentment over solidarity and progress. In the absence of strong unions, the working class has become increasingly vulnerable to political manipulation and disinformation. Under a second Trump presidency, the erosion of labor rights and democratic norms could probably will accelerate, creating fertile ground for further polarization and authoritarianism. Creating fertile ground for further polarization and authoritarianism. Unions don't just support workers. They sustain democracy itself by fostering participation and equity and accountability. We talk a lot on this podcast about how to preserve democracy, how to identify when it's under threat and what needs to be done to rebuild an eroding democratic system. One of the focuses of our attention needs to be on revitalizing unions and making their role in our society a priority. Once again, All right, check back next week for another episode of Deep Dive Chat soon, folks. Thank you, Thank you, you.