LA Story: Immigrant workers and the Future of the U.S. Labor Movement, written by Ruth Milkman, tells a story of unionism that had led a group of immigrants in Los Angeles into creating a better workplace for all. Milkman took an ardent focus on the role of the resurgence of labor union movements, especially after deindustrialization, work casualization, and employment deregulation, on the US labor systems. In retrospect, it analyzes the role of immigration, globalization, living conditions on facilitating organizational change, not only in Los Angeles but across the country.
The book begs the question, “How did a group of immigrants, mostly undocumented, receiving low pay, and working under poor conditions, actively unionized and fought against workplace injustice in Los Angeles and spark the need to unionize across the country?”(Milkman 2006:25). It also provides a puzzle as to why the American Federal of Labor, long known for its political conservatism and unsuccessful unionism, could be at the center of the postindustrial wave of facilitating unionism. Milkman attempts to precisely answer these questions and many others in four chapters including the Wicked City, Turning the Clock Back, Organizing the ‘Unorganizable’, and Si Se Puede.
The book begins by recognizing the efforts of immigrant janitors in Los Angeles who had unionized to seek “Justice for Janitors” and gained a formal recognition by 1990. Other unions formed by drywallers, garment workers, and trucks were also a significant part of the “uprising.” The four unions were the author’s major focus in explaining the role of immigrant workers in formulating the future of the US labor movement.
In the first chapter, Milkman focuses on developing a profound history of active labor unionism by establishing the different perspectives of the natives as well as immigrants on union membership. The chapter established how different people from dynamic groups actively engaged in redefining the workplace and how such engagements were affected by political and economic conditions. It emphasized intense labor struggles during World War II especially in the 1930s through to 1950s reaching a postwar peak. It also pointed to how and why Los Angeles, then known as the Open Shop, became a citadel of unionism.
The second chapter marked the return of active anti-union reactions and sweatshops. Employers throughout the country became invasive against organized labor unions using internal tactics and emphasizing on public policies to deregulate the protection of labor unions. Therefore, Milkman points out that de-unionization was not a result of the high level of immigration and low living standards as some studies try to portend. The unionized janitors, truckers, garment workers, and drywallers equally suffered due to the employers’ offensive. The natives left the unionized jobs for the high-wage non-unionized ones. New immigrants came in to fill the vacant positions though they were ‘unorganizable’ and highly vulnerable to deportation as the author describes in the third chapter.
In chapter four, Si, Se Puede, translated as “Yes, it can be done!” she focused on developing a strategy for organizing successful unions with reference to the strategies used by each of the four work groups that she studies. She points to bottom up and top down organization approaches, ranking and filing, involving professionalism in unions, selecting activists as leaders, and devoting resources in fostering union efforts as strategies to successful unions. She also recognizes the need to revitalize AFL-CIO and CTW Federation as a way of fostering fair and just employment in the modern and future era.
How External Factors Influenced the U.S Labor Movement: Sources of Support and Role of Other Movements in Guaranteeing Success of the L.A Labor Movement
The labor movement of Los Angeles was influenced by numerous external factors with the support it received from other bodies. Between 1930’s and 1960’s numerous bodies and other movements played a central role in strengthening Los Angeles’ labor Movement. The American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organization (AFL-CIO) had a central role in providing support for L.A Labor Movement. The organization had a mandate of ensuring that employees’ grievances were heeded to by employers across the country. In 1930, the AFL-CIO, in union with BSEIU, launched a major strike especially in New York City and San Francisco. It was their elevated strike that affirmed the enactment of the National Industrial Recovery Act in June 1933.
The act emphasized on the establishment of minimum wages, maximum work hours and granted workers the right to unionize for better work benefits. Before its implementation, only 5% of Los Angeles workers in the four selected work segments were unionized. By 1955, about 22 years after implementation, the union density in Los Angeles had multiplied seven-folds to 37% (Milkman 2006:77). Even women and racial minorities, who were presumed to be ‘unorganizable,’ joined unions thereby strengthening the labor movement.
Additionally, the movement gained support from Teamsters’ Union, which later came to be known as the International Brotherhood of Teamsters (IBT). Teamsters’ Union, which was an organization of truckers, relayed their grievances directly to the employers by disrupting transportation systems between the North and the South. In 1933, Teamsters’ union, which was majorly organization-based, coordinated a grand recruitment in Los Angeles which led to numerous truck drivers joining the union. Previously, the drivers were in no formal union and forcefully worked under low pay and poor working conditions.
The drivers’ conviction to join Teamsters considerably expanded the L.A Labor Movement. However, the truckers relied on Teamsters’ Union leaders to undertake industrial action. The union was purely built on a top-down approach. The union leader, Dave Beck, saw “democratic rank-and-file unionism as an anathema,” (Milkman 2006: 48). Therefore, in as much as the drivers had become part of the labor movement, their actions were constrained. Nonetheless, Teamsters’ action played a crucial role in expanding the L.A Labor Movement.
Further, the Building Service Employees International Union (BSEIU) and other international organizations such as the Service Employee International Union (SEIU), were very successful in supporting the movement in organizing unions. The union assisted L.A Labor Movement, especially in joining the forces of Janitors towards what would later be known as “Justice for Janitors.” The union was highly dynamic in terms of culture, ethnicity, and race and highly benefited its members. For instance, it facilitated the restructuring of janitorial work from part-time to full-time through rank-and-file unionism. Through its dynamic nature, SEIU provided a significant support in ensuring that the L.A Labor Movement is highly diversified and accommodative to all groups of people, irrespective of color, race, gender, ethnicity, or language.
The media was perceptibly at the center of L.A Labor Movement by providing sufficient coverage and winning more laborers to the movement. It was evident that the new Labor Force, especially after the 1950’s 1970’s ‘de-unionization’ and deregulations, required pervasive media coverage as a way of gaining publicity to regenerate the unions’ missions. ‘Justice for Janitors’’ organizers were successful in organizing media-oriented events, which played a significant role in drawing attention to Janitors’ plight (Milkman 2006:157). The strike organizers and their AFL-CIO and CIWA supporters effectively made use of the media in airing out their grievances. As Milkman describes, ‘Justice for Janitors’ organizers were able to win highly through sympathetic media coverage.
There were numerous articles addressing the plight of workers, especially janitors. The same information also appeared in newspaper front-pages and was consistently and widely televised. It was due to this outstanding media support that CIWA (California Immigrants Workers Association) and other human rights bodies filed ULP (Unfair Labor Practices) charges against employers, especially builders and constructors. The U.S Department of Labor also sued drywall contractors for violating the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 (Milkman 2006:173). These two lawsuits were then followed by other numerous lawsuits compelling employers to recede by late 1992.
The final factor that supported the Los Angeles unionism was the upsurge of immigrants within the city. The employers’ offensive of 1950s-1970s incapacitated numerous unions. Numerous natives, especially Latinos left the unionized jobs leaving unfilled vacancies. As a result, the number of new immigrants increased. Though the employers previously assumed that the immigrants would be relaxed from unionizing due to high deportation risks, the outcomes were quite paradoxical. By 1980s, many immigrants were joining existing unions such as ILGWU and UFW. The increasing union densities convinced L.A unionists that the immigrants were indeed organizable which prompted the strengthening of unions. The 1980s-1990s labor force was majorly composed of immigrants who were highly networked, experienced, and stigmatized. It is their effort and belief in “Si, Se Puede” that fostered union success.
Methodology Used by the Author
Milkman develops her study purely on qualitative approaches. She begins by developing questions that her study seeks to answer and uses primary and secondary data sources to uncover her puzzles. She does a qualitative comparative analysis of four different work sectors, including building services, construction, trucking, and garment production. She analyzes how various unions from these industries have performed in Los Angeles for the last 70-80 years. She heavily relies on interviews as a primary source data source by interviewing various people who were leaders or members of the unions during the unionization period. She also reviewed numerous articles, journals, magazines, and web pages as part of her secondary data sources.
Critique of the Major Strengths and Weaknesses of the Book
The Milkman’s L.A Story paints a clear picture on the history of unionism in California and specifically in Los Angeles. Milkman was convinced that occupational unionism can be of significant importance in regenerating U.S labor movements beyond California. She used factual and strong arguments by focusing on both the successes and the failures of the L.A labor movements to prove her point. She also integrated mixed reactions from the union members to reinforce her ideas.
More interestingly, Milkman’s study is built on a scholarly approach where she assesses the implications of immigration, neo-liberalism, and employers on the effectiveness of unions and labor movements. Although her strategies were convincing, she places much concentration on the success of “Justice for Janitors” in making her conclusions and recommendations. Such concentration makes it unclear as to whether her recommendations are for SEIU or the general occupational unionism. Nonetheless, L.A Story remains an important book in understanding the past and future trajectory of labor movements.