The Economics Pastoral and the Rights of Teachers

Origins, NC documentary service, June 4, 1987

"As teachers in Catholic schools it will fall upon us to instruct" students on the importance of the U.S. bishops' 1986 pastoral letter on the economy. But "how can teachers realistically be expected to present this guideline for a just economy when they may not see or experience it as employees?" That question was posed in a March 1987 statement by the National Association of Catholic School Teachers, representing some 5,000 U.S. Catholic school teachers. The statement asked that lines of communication be opened up between representatives of the bishops and the association so that the issue of teacher representation can be fully discussed in all its aspects. It is imperative, the statement said, that the bishops show that steps are being taken to "bring labor-management problems within the institutional church into line with the spirit and intent of the social justice teachings of the church" and with their own pastoral. The statement follows.

We have followed with great interest your efforts as a body to address the need to create a more just U.S. economy, which you so eloquently and rightly charge is the vocation of all. While we applaud your efforts in this endeavor, we remain firmly convinced that until steps are taken by you, as pastors and teachers of the Gospel and, by virtue of your office, employers charged with administering church institutions, to eliminate practices that are so diametrically opposed to what you say in your pastoral, serious questions can be raised about your credibility to speak out before you take the necessary steps to put your own house in order.

It is not our intent to challenge in any way your role as bishop, as pastor and teacher, which we believe is primary to your office, an office that carries an awesome and heavy responsibility. Nor is it our intent to challenge or deny your right to address the issue of a more just U.S. economy, an area that desperately needs to be examined and which you have approached in an exemplary manner. It is our intent, however, to challenge whether your right to speak out to others should take precedence over your failure to address the practices within the institutional church that do not even begin to meet the minimum standards you have outlined for other employers.

Almost all of the practices cited in your pastoral that contribute to an unjust economy can be and oftentimes are conditions with which church employees are faced. To use so effectively and as the basis for your pastoral numerous examples of the social justice teachings of the church while as many examples can be given of these same teachings being ignored in the employment practices of the church has caused deep consternation for those church employees who were and are experiencing unjust and unchristian situations.

As the only national association representing lay teachers in Catholic elementary and secondary schools, we have not only an obligation to speak out on these issues that affect teachers in church-related schools, but also the moral responsibility to do so. We believe that 1987 will stand out as the watershed year for the American bishops' commitment to justice for their employees. The promulgation of the pastoral will also give evidence that the basic rights of representation will once and for all be unequivocally enunciated by the teachers' employers in such a way that the exercise of those rights will never again be subject to challenge or denial.

The record, one that stretches over some 20 years, will show that the relationship between employer, the institutional church, and its employees, in this instance lay teachers, although fair to very good in some cases, is also a sorry and at times scandalous indictment against those who are charged with the responsibility of administering Catholic schools. Whether the actions employed against the teachers have been or are a conscious and deliberate attempt to thwart the efforts of teachers in this area, there can be little doubt that intimidation, coercion, anti-union tactics and denial of due process have all been and continue to be used to frustrate and/or deny the legitimate wishes of teachers who seek to exercise their basic rights to be truly represented by leaders of their own choosing as well as to affiliate with other professional organizations if they so wish.

This is made all the more disturbing by your statement, and true it is, that there is an inherent unequal relationship between employer and employee and that "the way power is distributed frequently gives employers greater bargaining power than employees." How much greater, then, is the power given to employers who by virtue of their office are also the spiritual leaders of their employees. If "justice, not charity, demands certain minimum guarantees," then is not the burden to redress this inherent unequal relationship greater because of your office?

In spite of the overwhelming preponderance of church teaching on the right of employees to organize and bargain collectively, there is a lack of any clearly defined policy and procedure that can be invoked by church employees should the need arise. We cannot forget that it was the church, by going to court however worthy its cause, that removed the only hope and possibility that unfair labor practices could be heard and adjudicated by a neutral third party. What makes the bishops' position and the record all the more condemnatory against the church as employer is that such procedures would greatly enhance the parties' ability to approach collective bargaining in an orderly and less threatening manner while ensuring that the rights of all would be fully protected.

The argument most often raised by church officials is that they cannot allow an outsider to decide those issues that by their very nature are the prerogative of the ordinary under canon law. This would encompass the area of faith and morals, which we agree should not be a matter that falls under contract due process. Many existing labor agreements have addressed this issue and have provided safeguards satisfactory to the parties to the agreement.

The 1979 U.S. Supreme Court Chicago Bishop decision, while denying the protection of federal civil labor law to teachers in church-related elementary and secondary schools, did not take away the right of teachers to form organizations and bargain collectively on conditions of their employment.

The Chicago Bishop decision did two things that continue to plague labor relations in Catholic schools. First, it created a void that can enable church employers if they so wish to, in essence, render useless the very meaning of social justice. The teachers were left with no protection nor any place to go to obtain a fair and neutral hearing when their basic rights are denied. The court's decision in the second instance did afford the opportunity for America's bishops to take the initiative and move in a visible and concrete way to fill the void created by the courts and begin to establish guidelines in this area. This the bishops failed to do. And today, in 1987, the hope for more input into the conditions of employment and for greater participation through freely formed associations remains an elusive and unattainable goal for many lay teachers.

The need for guidelines and a procedure in the area of labor-management relations, along with the availability of a mutually acceptable neutral third party to resolve disputes if they arise, remains a top priority for teachers and should also be a priority of America's bishops. The need for movement in this area can be well documented if it is necessary to do so. The lack of movement, on the other hand, will continue to plague what should otherwise be a model relationship, one that gives evidence that the teachings of our church can and do indeed work and are not mere words for others employers to follow. If teachers and church officials can cite the same social justice teachings as the basis for the positions they take, why has it been or should it be so difficult to dialogue and begin the process of fleshing out acceptable guidelines and procedures in this area?

It might be well to reiterate that leaders in the Catholic teacher movement have long believed in and called for dialogue to discuss fully this most sensitive issue of collective bargaining. While the record is spotty, far too often depending on the personalities of those involved on the local level rather than the merits of the issue being raised, teachers are firmly convinced that unless America's bishops guarantee the right of teachers to seek representations under leaders of their own choosing and to affiliate, if they so wish, with other professional organizations, their rights will remain rights on paper only for many of them. We believe it is imperative if the bishops' pastoral is to carry any weight and have its proper impact in our society, that the bishops take concrete steps to show that their own house, if it is not in order, then is at least in process, and that steps are being taken that will bring labor-management problems within the institutional church into line with the spirit and intent of the social justice teachings of the church and with your own pastoral.

There is another aspect of the labor-management relations in the church which is difficult for those knowledgeable in the field of labor relations to comprehend. The most cursory examination of the role of the church in the labor movement in America will show a high level of involvement through its teachings on this subject and most definitely through the active personal participation and, often, leadership over the years of its religious personnel. That the church was in the forefront of the labor movement's most trying, crucial and formative years is a matter of record. That they played a significant and, we believe, major role in directing labor leaders toward a broad-based and democratic labor movement cannot be denied and should not be forgotten. That the church has continued this tradition of involvement has been seen in their efforts on behalf of farm workers, employees in the textile industry and most recently when church officials addressed the positions taken by the management of Campbell Soup when workers on farms supplying produce to Campbell Soup were being thwarted in their attempts to gain meaningful representation. Yet, in spite of this history, what many teachers have experienced can only be categorized as an anti-union bias on the part of administrators and many religious that so colors and distorts their perspective when the issue of representation is raised by teachers that it makes a meaningful relationship so much more difficult to attain. It is unfortunate that the church's involvement in labor history is not only ignored by church officials but they also fail to utilize the positive aspects of the labor movement as a basis for building a partnership with their own employees, one that takes into account the unique nature of our schools without denying or weakening the rights of either party.

There has been and remains widespread opposition to the collective bargaining concept on the premise that it is not an appropriate model for Catholic schools. Although we cannot know the minds of church school officials or how they perceive the collective bargaining concept, they have often stated their opposition because of what they claim is the adversary approach taken by teacher organizations. This is, indeed, unfortunate, for the collective bargaining concept need not fall into this mold. We would submit that many who raised this point have either never engaged in collective bargaining which is approached in good faith by both parties or have relied on secondhand information which often reflects a somewhat biased viewpoint.

It is our conviction from a rather broad experience that, in reality, an adversary relationship develops more often from initial actions and positions taken by school authorities than from those of teachers. Consider, if you will, the effect on teachers when school officials react to the teachers' request for representation, not with an acceptance of and recognition of the rights of the teachers as enunciated by the church, but rather with negative or delaying tactics - even on occasion attempting to undercut the teachers' organization by appealing directly to the teachers with "just tell us what your problems are and we can work them out without the need for an intermediary, the teachers' organization," An excellent example of the use of "the unequal relationship between employer and employee."

It is not our intention to list or document each case in which we believe the spirit and letter of social justice teachings have been violated. It is enough to state that if there is one violation of the right of teachers to organize or bargain collectively, then the rights of all have been violated or weakened. It is also true that when a right is violated and we refuse to speak out against injustice, then should we not stand accused by our silence of consenting to the injustice?

In conclusion, we believe that the initiative that you have taken with the promulgation of your pastoral was not only proper, but also badly needed to address serious deficiencies in the U.S. economy. We also recognize that the pastoral is but the first step in identifying the problems; now must begin the long and arduous process of implementing the recommendations. We are also deeply cognizant that as teachers in Catholic schools it will fall upon us to instruct the students attending our Catholic schools of the importance of your pastoral and what is expected of them as part of the church community and of their role as a member of society at large.

This charge to educate the students does pose a unique problem for teachers, though. How do teachers approach the teaching of the pastoral when it is evident that a dichotomy exists between what the church says and what it often practices, especially with their own employees? How can teachers realistically be expected to present this guideline for a just economy when they may not see or experience it as employees?

We therefore ask that the lines of communication between the representatives of the authors of the pastoral and the National Association of Catholic School Teachers be opened so that the issue of representation in all its aspects can be fully discussed. If, as is stated in the pastoral, "the church fully supports the rights of workers to form unions or other associations to secure their rights to fair wages and working conditions" and that "no one may deny the right to organize without attacking human dignity itself," then it should not be so difficult to reach a mutually acceptable procedure that will bring church institutions into line with the challenge of your pastoral letter so they not merely think differently but also act differently.

It is, indeed, important for all of us to keep in mind that "our faith is not just a weekend obligation, a mystery to be celebrated around the altar on Sunday. It is a pervasive reality to be practiced every day in homes, offices, factories, schools and businesses across our land. We cannot separate what we believe from how we act in the marketplace and the broader community, for this is where we make our primary contribution to the pursuit of economic justice."