 |
|
|
| Unions and Evvironmental Sustainability By Louis Erlichman Canadian Research Director |
| Is there common ground between unions and environmental groups? On the face of it, there would seem to be a fundamental conflict. For unions, good jobs and better wages and benefits for their members, and for all workers, are basic goals. Unions have in recent years pushed for more rapid economic growth promoting higher employment, and higher worker incomes. For environmentalists, conserving the environment generally means conserving resources – slower (or no) economic growth, getting rid of polluting industries and jobs, and perhaps shrinking consumption. Sometimes this philosophical conflict has turned into well-publicized physical confrontations. In some cases, these confrontations have actually been a part of some environmental groups’ publicity and fund-raising strategy. But are unions and environmentalists necessarily at odds? Union members clearly share many of the concerns of environmentalists (and many are also members of environmental groups). They are concerned about the quality of the air and water consumed by their families, about the health and safety of the broader community, as well as the safety of their workplaces. It is also only common sense that unions should be concerned about "sustainability" – that we live in a way that allows us to keep living in the long run. If we are wasting resources, and polluting our environment, in the long run we are destroying our jobs as well as our communities. While this may make sense in a general abstract way, integrating environmental concerns and a union’s responsibilities can prove to be very difficult to deal with in practice. Even if it is recognized that a particular activity is environmentally harmful, it is the responsibility of a union to protect its members, to try to save their livelihoods. Though society as a whole may gain from shutting down environmentally harmful activities, it is the workers losing their jobs who pay the biggest price. Clearly, shutting down environmentally harmful activities is not always the only alternative. Processes can be changed to reduce or eliminate pollution. Resources can be used in less wasteful ways. Forests can be harvested more carefully and re-planting expanded. But there will still, in many cases, be a price to be paid, and it will usually be the workers involved who will get the biggest bill. In the next couple of decades, our response to global warming has the potential to have a huge impact on our economy and jobs. If we cut back on energy use and particularly fossil fuel use to meet our international commitments to reduce global warning, the effect will be felt in industries and sectors across our economy. Unfortunately, little of the public discussion around the global warming issue focuses on the need to treat affected workers fairly. To protect workers affected by necessary environmental change, whether for global warming or other programs, the Canadian Labour Congress has called for "Just Transition" programs – programs to ensure that a small group of workers do not bear an unfair share of the burden. Just Transition programs would provide for income support, retraining and job creation for affected workers, as well as broader support for affected communities. Obviously, a healthy labour market and a strong demand for workers is a basic necessity for any transition program. Otherwise, the question is "transition to what?" Just Transition is still, however, a defensive policy – how do we protect workers and communities from bearing an unfair share of the burden of environmental change? The Canadian Labour Congress is moving towards a more positive approach, towards more general policies for sustainability in our communities and our economy – creating jobs that are environmentally sound - "Green Jobs". While the idea of Green Jobs is apparently simple, it is not simple to put into practice. In fact, even the name is somewhat controversial, since some of the past tactics of environmental groups have made many trade unionists wary of the "green" label. In addition, the pervasive use of "green" as an advertising device leads to doubts about how meaningful the phrase is. Does it simply mean "environmentally – good"? And if so, are there environmentally – bad jobs? How do you define them? Does it even make sense to try to define them? For example, jobs in areas like training or child care are usually considered "good" jobs environmentally, but are they good if they train people to do polluting work, or care for the children of people doing "bad" jobs? And does a good job become a bad job if the pollution-control devices break down? Accepting that there is no simple definition of green jobs, it is still possible to define factors that make jobs environmentally more positive. l Jobs that reduce the our negative impact on the environment, like cleaning up contaminated soils and water, installing conservation programs, recycling programs, collecting and treating waste, changing and retrofitting systems eliminate pollution or increase energy efficiency. l Jobs to protect or restore damaged environments, both in the wilderness and urban settings. l Jobs that produce what we need in a sustainable way, conserving resources, minimizing waste and pollution. It is argued that a response to global warning can produce a net gain in employment, as jobs lost in some industries are more than replaced by jobs in pollution reduction, energy conservation and alternative energy sources. Unfortunately, there is no guarantee that the workers losing their jobs will be the ones getting the new jobs, so Just Transition is essential. Building sustainability is not a simple task, but it is an important one. It will require action on a community level, government policies including well-enforced regulations, tax policies, direct funding and public sector investment. It will require Just Transition programs. It will require active union involvement to ensure fairness. Sustainability and Green Jobs is the main theme the next CLC national Environment Conference in Vancouver, October 29-31. If you are interested, try to be there. The broadest possible participation is important to work towards reconciling the demands of our environment and needs of workers. |
|
|
|
|
|
