Unions and the "S" Word

[No, I am not referring to the word "strike".]
I am very happy to be employed at a job that gives me the opportunity to join a labor union and work under a collective bargaining contract. Although nothing is certain in this world, it does add a little to my sense of security to know that, by contract at least, I cannot be laid off from my job ("no-layoff" provision for six continuous years of employment). I have excellent benefits, including low-cost health insurance for myself and my family, life insurance, a great retirement plan, and a generous paid leave benefit. My union representatives are also available on the workroom floor to insure that workers are being treated fairly, according to contractual provisions. And they are very good at keeping working conditions safe.

I joined my union back in 1987, before I had even received my first paycheck. I didn't have to do this. I could have worked for these past twenty-one years here without ever having joined the union and would have received all of the benefits of the contracts it has negotiated with management over the years. And I would have saved a tidy accumulated sum as well, not having paid union dues. But I recognized from the beginning the union's role in making this, my job, desirable in the first place. So I felt quite honored to be able to be a dues paying union member.

Of course, many of my colleagues are very happy working here as well, and they know that collective bargaining was a crucial factor in that. There are a few, though, that have chosen not to join the union. Personally, I think that they should, for the reason I have already given. My union officers and stewards, like me, also believe that everyone working under the contract and enjoying its benefits should join up. And most have an encouraging, positive attitude toward those non-members. But not all is positive.

I recently read in my union local's newspaper an article by a union steward in which he referred to non-members as "scabs". I understand that referring to workers who don't pay dues or who cross picket lines as "scabs" is a time-honored tradition in the labor movement. I agree with this steward that enjoying the labors of others without helping to pay for it is a little less than honorable, but I shudder at the use of this epithet.

The American labor movement has experienced difficult times in the past few decades, with much of this country's manufacturing base being outsourced to foreign, non-unionized companies, and with our own government's blessings. Unions also suffer a bad, only partially-deserved reputation as being heavy-handed and coercive when it comes to trying to unionize companies. We finally have a friendly congress and president who are willing to make it easier for workers to form unions in their workplaces, if that is what they desire. But tossing around hurtful words like "scab" only feeds into the perception that workers are being intimidated by unions, when it is often management that presents to them the most problems.

Because of this, I strongly wish for anyone who loves the labor movement and wants to promote it among the general population to avoid calling people scabs. This isn't self-censorship: you can express anything you want without using loaded epithets. And by "loaded", I mean this: epithets like "scab" have a strong connotation of condemnation about the one so called and strong connotations of anger, hate, and aggression about the one doing the calling. Not a very good way to practice positive persuasion, would you agree?