More and
more American unions are now taking sexual diversity seriously. The AFL-CIO’s 1997 recognition of Pride at
Work as a constituency group, for
example, represented an important milestone in the creation of openings for
lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender activists within the labor
movement. Nevertheless, there has been
more far-reaching progress in other countries, and developments in American
unions have trailed behind those found in countries such as Canada and the Netherlands. In those two countries, union
engagement with sexual orientation issues is now very widespread in the public
sector, has significantly reached beyond that into private sector unions, has
included workplaces generally thought to be very conservative, and has helped
shift government policy.[1]
The
Canadian and Dutch experiences illustrate the kinds of alliances and overlap
between the labor movement and the lesbian/gay movement that occurs only rarely
beyond the level of rhetoric in the United States. Unions in those countries are
still uneven in their commitments, but as a group they have moved more than
their American counterparts in broadening their agendas to take issues related
to sexuality into account. U.S. unions have been more likely to respond cautiously and are more likely
to face concerted opposition to the recognition of sexual diversity, both
inside and outside their own ranks.
The American Case
As early as
the 1930s, the Marine Cooks and Stewards Union was not only defending gay men
from harassment and violence but was elevating openly gay men to leadership
positions.[2] But postwar McCarthyism reversed even these
isolated gains, reinforcing caution and moral conservatism within the labor
movement. In the 1970s there were small breakthroughs in, for example, San Francisco, where gay activists substantially bolstered a boycott of the
notoriously anti-union and antigay Coors Brewing Company.
The 1980s
witnessed the rise of lesbian/gay caucuses, especially in unions representing
teachers, health-care workers, and municipal and state government workers.[3] In the face of considerable backlash,
municipal workers were able to make gains, especially in cities with gay rights
ordinances, and so were some teachers unions and locals of the SEIU. In the private sector, an important exception
to the general pattern of avoidance is the Union of Needletrades,
Industrial, and Textile Employees (UNITE), one of the first U.S. unions to adopt a nondiscrimination clause for gays and lesbians. More recently the UAW, after years of
divisive debate, accepted same-sex benefit coverage as a legitimate bargaining
issue, winning major concessions from the Big Three auto makers in August
2000. Overall, gains have been most
pronounced in union locals in urban areas in the Northeast and the West Coast,
but much less so in otherwise progressive cities of the Midwest and South.
As the
twenty-first century begins, the American labor movement is exhibiting a
growing—though,
highly uneven—commitment to sexual diversity issues, which remain hotly
contested. While Pride at Work is now
successfully generating resolutions for labor conventions and in other ways
increasing the visibility of sexual diversity issues, including those related
to gender identity, its activities are also a marker of what still needs to be
done within the American labor movement.
It is also an indicator of the lag between progress in the United States compared to that in Canada and the Netherlands.
Canada
Unions have
been important players in pushing Canada into the small league of countries that have relatively inclusive
policies and institutional practices recognizing the rights of sexual
minorities. Since the 1980s, many unions
have negotiated same-sex benefit packages in collective agreements, developed
educational initiatives, lobbied governments for legislative change, and
supported successful legal challenges in favor of equity. As a result, the overwhelming majority of
unionized workplaces have institutional policies and practices that go at least
some distance toward recognizing sexual diversity in general and same-sex
relationships in particular.
The highly
unionized public sector has been at the forefront of such developments. Although most private sector unions have been
slower to act, unions representing auto, steel, communications, and energy
workers have now moved significantly. With more than 250,000 members, the Canadian
Auto Workers (CAW) is the largest of them, and it has been actively engaged in
sexual orientation issues since the late 1980s.
It is now one of the most progressive private sector unions in the world
for lesbians and gays. All of its
collective agreements now cover same-sex benefits, it has financially supported
precedent-setting court challenges, it has developed impressive training
programs to combat antigay shop floor behavior, and it has supported regional
lesbian/gay groups within the union. The Canadian wing of the United
Steelworkers of America was slower off the mark than the CAW, but it has now
made equal benefit coverage for same-sex couples a priority in collective
bargaining and has recognized a “Steel Pride” group, which has launched a number
of educational initiatives aimed at union members.
Most of Canada’s union federations have played a prominent role in the development of
progressive union initiatives. At the
provincial level, union federations in Quebec, Ontario, and British
Columbia stand out
in having supported alliances with lesbian/gay movement activists in lobbying
governments for equitable policies since the 1980s. The Ontario Federation of Labour,
as well as the Canadian Labour Congress, now have
vice-presidential positions designated for openly lesbian or gay persons. To
our knowledge, this makes them the only labor organizations in the world to
have adopted such measures.
The
Canadian Labour Congress was passing
antidiscrimination resolutions and pressuring governments on the issue in the
mid-1980s, and in its 1990 convention passed resolutions affirming the priority
for same-sex benefit coverage for all Canadian unions. In 1997, it organized the first national
conference on labor and lesbian/gay rights.
There remain important variations in commitment across unions, regions,
locals, and employment sectors. But
opposition to fully inclusive policies within the labor movement has now become
a minority phenomenon increasingly marginalized within the larger union
movement.
The Netherlands
The Dutch
trade union movement also stands out as an international leader in confronting
discrimination based on sexual orientation.
Unions representing civil servants, teachers, and even the police and
the armed forces have stood out in fighting for and winning inclusive
collective bargaining provisions, and they have supported working groups
focusing on sexual orientation issues.
Union
federations play more important roles in the Dutch labor movement than they do
in North America, and the two largest of them have had a relatively progressive profile
on sexual diversity since the early 1980s.
The Netherlands Trade Union Conferderation
(FNV), the largest of the Dutch federations, with 60 percent of all union
members as affiliates, actively lobbied for more inclusive national legislation
throughout the 1980s and 1990s.
Teachers, having had their own lesbian/gay working group since 1979,
were an important source of internal pressure from the beginning. In recent times, the FNV has focused on
improving the organizational culture of its member organizations, in part
because so much legislative change in the Netherlands has effectively imposed equitable workplace policies across the
country, reducing the scope for labor union action on the collective bargaining
front.
The
National Federation of Christian Trade Unions (CNV) was slower to take up
sexual orientation issues, and more likely to face internal opposition. On the other hand, there have been vocal
proponents of equity within its ranks for some years. As well, some of its member unions—most
strikingly, the Christian Police Union—have actively fought for workplace
protections and recognition.
Among
individual unions, the most advanced on these issues is AbvaKabo,
the largest public sector union (with 250,000 members) and a core member of
FNV. In the 1980s, an internal
controversy over prison workers' response to HIV spawned a committee to deal
with sexuality issues in prison work and, ultimately, a lesbian/gay committee
for the union as a whole. Since then, AbvaKabo has become a leading advocate both inside and
beyond the union movement. One of its
major constituent unions, the country's largest police union, has been even
more proactive than its Christian counterpart. It has established a secretariat
with a mandate to improve the working climate for lesbian and gay police
officers by undertaking surveys to identify problem areas, followed by
educational programs to address areas identified as needing reform. It now also has a transgender support group
that is pressing employers and the national government to recognize the
distinctive interests of transgendered people in
general and of transgendered police officers in
particular.
As in the
Canadian case, Dutch labor activists have been at the forefront of
international networks raising the profile of sexual orientation issues. AbvaKabo, along
with its parent FNV, has, for example, been an important source of activist
pressure within the institutions of the European Union, and it helped sponsor
the first international labor conference on sexual diversity, in 1998 in
Amsterdam.
Why the Shift to Inclusiveness?
Organized
labor in all three countries has become more sensitive to sexual minority
issues, particularly through out the 1990s, in part because of changes in the
strength and demographics of the union movement that were occurring much
earlier. Decreasing membership,
increasing proportions of women and visible
minorities in union ranks, and the increasing importance of public sector union
members helped to push the labor movement toward a recognition of
diversity. The weakening of unions since
the 1970s, both in membership and power, eventually forced many to consider
strategies to organize new constituencies.
The proportion of the U.S. labor force that is unionized fell from a postwar high of more than 30
percent to around 14 percent by the late 1990s.
In Netherlands, union “density” fell from a high of about 44 percent to 28
percent. Canadian unions have suffered
only a slight decline in numbers, staying at about 33 percent density, but like
the other labor movements have suffered a decline in leverage in relation to
both management and the state. In some
cases these patterns led to greater caution and conservatism among unions, but
by the 1990s a significant number of unions in all three countries were
recognizing that the challenges facing them required more expansive thinking.
This shift
has been aided by shifts in the sectoral makeup of
the labor force. Over time, the traditional
labor strongholds in manufacturing, transportation, and mining have been in
decline, while white-collar unions in such fields as public service, teaching,
and health care have been on the rise.
This shift has reduced the importance within the labor movement of those
unions most likely to represent traditional views of gender and sexuality, and
it has increased the importance of those most likely to represent more flexible
views. As we have pointed out, public sector
unions in all three countries have been much more likely to take up sexual
diversity issues. It is therefore
significant for sexual diversity activists that such unions have come to loom
larger and larger in the labor mosaic.
The
increasing number of women in the labor force and the labor movement (many of
them in the public sector) has been especially important in the creation of
openings for sexual orientation issues.
Since the 1970s, women activists have been raising questions that
challenge union traditions in terms of bargaining priorities and internal
organization, and their efforts have helped provide leverage for other
equity-seeking groups. In addition,
women’s caucuses and ad hoc groups often have been at the forefront of
demanding attention to questions of sexual diversity.
A shift in
lesbian/gay movement priorities also has raised the profile of lesbians' and
gays' workplace issues. The 1990s saw a
much greater emphasis on relationship recognition, and therefore on the
exclusion of same-sex couples from workplace benefit programs available to
heterosexual couples. This transparent
discrimination became a natural rallying cry for workers who could, without too
much difficulty, understand this issue as one of unequal pay for the same work.
In many
cases, the pressure of activists has been bolstered by court decisions, as was
true on a number of gender-related fronts in earlier years. Court judgments have at times pushed unions
into action and, in some cases, have helped unions press their case to
management. In still other cases, unions have supported court judgments to
effect change at the level of government policy.
In all
three countries, shifts in public opinion have been important in encouraging a
change in union treatment of sexual diversity.
Gradual and uneven across issues though the shift in popular attitudes
may be, it has led to an increase in the number of voices inside the labor
movement prepared to actively support, or at least acquiesce in providing,
equitable policy. Such shifts are
related to equally important changes in media coverage of issues related to
sexual diversity. Such coverage is by no
means uniformly positive, for there are still prominent media voices rejecting
any recognition of sexual diversity, but there has been a pronounced shift in
overall coverage, particularly from the late 1980s onward.
Why the Differences?
These
influences operate differently across the three countries. Some of the
demographic shifts in the labor force and union movement have been more
powerful elsewhere than in the United States. The importance of public sector
unions, for example, is greater in both Canada and the Netherlands, in part because the state sector in general is larger than in the United States and in part because it is more highly unionized. Almost three-quarters of public sector
workers in Canada are unionized, and even more are in the Netherlands, in contrast to about 37 percent in the United States. This degree of unionization has
increased the overall leverage within the labor movement of those unions most
likely to have proactive positions on sexual diversity.
The
importance of the public sector in both Canada and the Netherlands has also led to overall union membership being almost 50 percent
female, in contrast to 40 percent in the American case. This fact has resulted in greater challenges
to traditional trade union norms in Canada and the Netherlands. In Canada especially, women activists were able to make significant gains in the
1980s, and that progress created a platform on which to make demands related to
sexual orientation.
Activist
demands for same-sex relationship recognition in both Canada and the Netherlands were also supported by legal and political gains. In Canada, for example, the discrimination against lesbians and gays was in some
ways more evident than in the United States because workplace benefits and family law in general in Canada accorded significant recognition to heterosexual common law
couples. (U.S. laws and employment practices are much more restrictive toward such couples.) This also meant that the achievement of
same-sex relationship recognition did not constitute as big a step as in the United States, and it did not need to raise the hot-button issue of marriage.
The legal
and constitutional environment in Canada has helped in other ways. By the
end of the 1990s, Canadian courts were leaning very strongly in the direction
of interpreting the constitutionally entrenched Charter of Rights and Freedoms
as prohibiting discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. By the late 1990s, the Supreme Court of
Canada had pronounced on the issue unequivocally, arguing for the
unconstitutionality of discrimination not only against individuals but also
against same-sex couples. Some of the
most important of these cases were supported by unions. Judgments were also seized upon by union
members to launch grievances against discriminatory employee benefit
programs. By the end of 1999, the three
largest provinces in Canada had enacted altered scores of statutes discriminating against same-sex
couples, and there was no question that other provinces would have to follow
suit. The issue of "gay" marriage is still unresolved, although there
are several cases challenging the exclusively heterosexual definition of marriage
before the lower courts.
Dutch law
has prohibited discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation since 1983 and
has more extensively done so since the 1994 General Equal Treatment Act. Through out the 1990s and into the present
decade, a series of legislative steps has granted virtually complete
recognition of same-sex relationships, including marriage, thus placing the
country at the vanguard of granting lesbians and gays full citizenship.
The
American legal and legislative environment is much less favorable. The modest national legislative advances
have been constantly threatened by setback—not least because of the influence
of the religious right on most Republicans in Congress and on a minority of
Democrats. Gays and lesbians have won
gains at the state and local levels, but still in only a minority of settings
and only after great struggle. Many
states still have sodomy laws that were eliminated decades ago (or more) in Canada and Western Europe. Only about a dozen states have
even elementary protections against discrimination based on sexual orientation,
and only Vermont has moved comprehensively to recognize same-sex relationships.
U.S. court judgments reflect the same unevenness. Constitutional “equal protection” guarantees
are not yet being uniformly applied to sexual orientation cases, as evident in
the Supreme Court’s judgment on the Boy Scouts case, even though arguments
based on the right to privacy and the right to free speech have fared
better. In respect to both legislative
and courtroom debates, substantial progress is inevitably complicated by the
intertwining of issues related to same-sex relationship recognition and
marriage, and by the costs associated with the dysfunctional American
health-care system.
In both the
Netherlands and Canada, the greater state involvement in providing or guaranteeing access to
health care and social services has also eased the need for union engagement
with issues of relationship recognition.
The costs of health care mean that granting any new constituency of
employees access to benefits represents significant costs, especially if the
inclusion of same-sex couples increases the pressure of heterosexual employees
in common law relationships for equivalent treatment. The especially elaborate set of health and
social programs in the Netherlands, in contrast, has in fact reduced employee reliance on workplace
benefits and has therefore reduced the need for union action on that
front. That helps explain the labor
movement’s preoccupation with educational programing
rather than benefits.
If shifts
in public opinion have generally favored lesbian and gay activists in raising
issues inside the labor movement, there are important cross-country variations
that help explain the U.S. lag. In a 1991 survey, for example,
random samples of Dutch and Canadian respondents were more likely to react
positively to homosexuality (in the Dutch case, significantly more) than were
Americans. On a 10-point scale with 10
indicating a belief that homosexuality is “always justified,” the Dutch scored,
on average, 7.2; Canadians, 4.1; and Americans, 3.1.[4] In that same year, a full 95 percent of a
Dutch sample responded favorably to the suggestions that homosexuals should be
able to live in whatever way they wanted.
Such attitudes are accompanied by a general reluctance to see the state
regulate morality.
Canadian
attitudes are not as inclusive as the Dutch ones, but they have moved more
significantly in that direction than attitudes in most other countries,
including the United
States. By the mid-1990s, there was relatively high
support for same-sex relationship recognition: in one survey, adoption rights
were supported by 42 percent; and in another survey, marriage rights were
supported by more than 50 percent.[5]
American
public opinion has moved in favorable directions, as have opinion patterns
elsewhere, but there remain stronger pockets of resistance than in Canada and the Netherlands. Public opinion about equal
rights for gays and lesbians in the U.S. has been creeping in a positive direction since 1992. But as Wilcox and
Wolpert point out, "there remains significant
negative affect towards gays and lesbians in the general public, with a
substantial minority voicing strongly negative reactions." [6]
Closely
related to the state of public opinion is the extent of organized opposition to
progressive positions on sexual orientation.
Here, the contrast between the United States and both Canada and the Netherlands is at its starkest. Dutch
history is not without its moral crusades, but today social conservatism is
relatively weak, and those who hold conservative views shy away from imposing their views on others. Moral conservatism is more of a force in Canada, but prominently so only in parts of western Canada.
In both
countries, religious practice has declined significantly in recent
decades. Less than a quarter of the
Dutch attend church regularly, and right-wing fundamentalism is a weak
force. Church attendance is not much
different in Canada, though some estimates suggest that just over 10 percent of the
population is fundamentalist. Right-wing
Canadian religious activists and their followers have easy access to American
religious broadcasting, and thus they can mobilize in response to political
advances for lesbians and gays. But they
still have only modest resources compared to their American counterparts, and
they are much more likely to be dismissed by the media and most politicians as
extremist.
The U.S. religious right represents a formidable opposition to lesbian and gay
activists within and beyond the labor movement.
Among Western democracies, the U.S. now ranks at or near the top in levels of religious belief and
practice, with at least a quarter of the population categorized as conservative
Christian.[7] Organized opposition to equity has slowed or
reversed political progress, but it also has bolstered opposition within union
membership.
There are
characteristics internal to each labor movement that explain differences in
commitment to sexual diversity causes.
Long after the McCarthy period, most U.S. unions are still politically cautious—still concerned about appearing
to be respectable organizations within the American mainstream. That caution reflects conformist pressures in
the American political culture and the historic weakness of organized labor in
that country, and it produces a labor agenda that is more restricted to a
narrow band of economic issues than is true of labor movement agendas in most
other countries. This pattern is now
being actively challenged by new organizing initiatives at the grassroots and
by leadership changes in UNITE, the SEIU, and the AFL-CIO. These changes have created openings for
lesbian and gay activists, though later than for their counterparts in the Netherlands and Canada.
The
Canadian union movement was probably always a more diverse one than its
American counterpart. Despite close
organizational links and strong parallels between the two, the Canadian
movement has long had more widespread social unionism than the American one has
had, providing more space for the introduction of diversity issues. The Canadian labor movement has also retained
stronger radical pockets than its American counterpart, most notably in British Columbia and Quebec. The Dutch labor movement has probably not had as wide-ranging an
agenda as some of its counterparts in continental Europe, and its weakened position
since the 1970s may well have made it more cautious than before. However, the
kind of social unionism that is widespread in Canada is still treated as relatively commonplace there.
Conclusion
The broader
context in which labor movement activists in Canada have worked is not quite as favorable as that supporting gay-positive
initiatives in the Netherlands, but it is much more favorable than in the United States. In fact, labor’s engagement
with sexual diversity issues in the Netherlands has been largely a product of overall change in Dutch society, rather
than a story of unions taking up these issues at a relatively early stage and
forming part of a vanguard. By the
mid-1980s, Dutch gay and lesbian activists had secured very substantial access
to state
policy-making
processes on their own, without the same need for allies as activists
elsewhere. That said, the work of AbvaKabo and of the FNV to create more inclusive workplaces
and to press the national government to more fully recognize same-sex
relationships has been very important—and significant, by comparative
standards.
The Canadian legal, political, and social setting has
provided fertile soil for union intervention at strategic locations, helping
the broader lesbian and gay movement secure major gains through the 1990s. A number of large unions have been active in
taking advantage of opportunities in the political system and the courts, and
in securing major gains at the bargaining table.
In this
period of significant change in the U.S. labor movement, the enormous energy of lesbian and gay activists and
their allies is acquiring visibility that would have been unimaginable just a few
years ago. But such activists work
inside a union movement that has powerful conservative currents. They also face a broader political context in
which there is not only powerful opposition to any recognition of sexual
diversity but also antipathy to unions.
The organizing dynamism of a new generation of union activists will move
the American labor movement significantly ahead in the paths taken by the
Canadian and Dutch movements, but there should be no illusions about the
challenges ahead.
Notes
