Of New Things: A Perspective on Unions and Catholic Social Thought
By Max Rosner
Tonight, the Kalmanovitz Institute for Labor and the Working Poor is hosting an event on "Rerum Novarum: Worker Justice in the Church and On Campus." To gain some insight, I spoke with Georgetown professor Dr. Kerry Danner in the Theology Department and the Justice and Peace program. She is a member of the part-time faculty executive committee and was part of the bargaining team for their first union contract. This is an excerpt from our conversation.
When Rerum Novarum was written in 1891, workers who were unable to unionize faced grievous conditions: poor wages, unsafe working conditions, long strenuous hours. What are the similarities between these original union movements and what you are doing now at Georgetown?
The similarities relate to the lost dignity of workers and concerns over a living wage. We constantly have to ask ourselves, “What is the wage to support the full flourishing of the worker and his or her family, if applicable?” Many of the same things still exist: fear of organizing, threat of job loss. We are lucky Georgetown has a neutral stance on organizing, unlike many other Catholic universities. Here we have a significant difference between professional people with high education with low-paying contingent positions. That’s a real challenge.
Clearly, the part-time union movement checks the box on a number of Catholic Social Thought (CST) principles: dignity of work, the rights of workers, dignity of the human person, solidarity. How do you see the principle of call to family, community, and participation fitting in?
One of the differences is that in Rerum Novarum, there was still a sense that the owners and managers had an obligation to care for the poor. There was a paternalistic sense in Rerum Novarum, but since then Catholic social teaching has embraced the idea that workers must have more input into the decisions that affect them as they will know their needs best—best found in the principle of subsidiarity. Today we are in a situation where we truly need to promote the dignity of each person and their ability to control their work environment. In terms of participation, it’s not just participating in the life of the economy, but rather making one’s work meaningful. In terms of the family, there are significant issues. The living wage notion crafted in Rerum Novarum hinged on the idea that a man needed to earn money to care for his whole family. Ideally, the children would be protected from working, and the wife was at home taking care of the children. That’s a far different context today. If there are two-parent households, unfortunately, women’s work is viewed as supplemental income.
The question of a wage that supports the fullness of the person is a very different question. The living wage calculations are often wrong because they factor in a household of 1.5 or 1.8 people, which doesn’t support a family. In terms of community, the principle of subsidiarity is still relevant. If people cannot exercise some amount of influence over their work, then it’s going to be hard for them to engage the wider community. Part of CST is not just dignity of work, but also the obligation to participate in civic life. If you are able to practice engagement in work or the community, then they will be mutually life-giving and not mutually life-stifling. The other piece that is relevant to the life of an adjunct is that civic life is truncated if you work multiple jobs.
What has surprised you most since taking on this role?
One is that people are very mixed about advocating for themselves, particularly if they have a lot of social and educational capital. What does it mean to advocate for one’s self when advocating for others is more commonly acceptable?
Max Rosner (C'18) is an undergraduate studying government and theology at Georgetown.