The Pennsylvania State University The Graduate School The Department of Communication Arts and Sciences ENVISIONING DEMOCRATIC CITIZENSHIP: RHETORICAL CONSTRUCTIONS IN THE PUBLIC SECTOR LABOR MOVEMENT A Dissertation in Communication Arts and Sciences by Kristin Summer-Mathe Coletta 2013 Kristin Summer-Mathe Coletta Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy December, 2013 The dissertation of Kristin Summer-Mathe Coletta was reviewed and approved* by the following: Stephen Howard Browne Professor, Communication Arts and Sciences Dissertation Advisor Chair of Committee Jeremy Engels Associate Professor, Communication Arts and Sciences J. Michael Hogan Liberal Arts Research Professor, Communication Arts and Sciences Paul Clark Head and Professor, Labor Studies and Employment Relations and Professor, Health Policy Administration Kirtley Wilson Associate Professor, Communication Arts and Sciences Graduate Director, Department of Communication Arts and Sciences *Signatures are on file in the Graduate School ii ABSTRACT Labor relations in the public sector were originally modeled after those in the private sector, but key differences between the sectors contributed to whether or not policies would transfer well. Debates over whether public employees should have the right to organize, bargain collectively, or strike highlight these differences and complicate our understanding of democratic citizenship. I consider the rhetorical strategies that union leaders, workers, government officials, intellectuals, and other vernacular voices used in these debates. The arguments and characterizations they used shaped and reshaped how we imagine the responsibilities and relationships between government and citizens. Four case studies provide insight into different visions of democratic citizenship. The Boston police strike in 1919 concluded with the understanding that public workers should not be allowed to unionize because that would also require that workers be able to go on strike— something thought to be too dangerous to happen. By 1959 Wisconsin passed the first law that allowed public workers to organize and set up guidelines for collective bargaining. In 1969, Pennsylvania passed Act 195, which gave public workers the limited right to strike. Finally, I consider Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker’s 2011 success at restricting collective bargaining rights for public workers. These four episodes in the public sector labor movement brought challenges to the meaning of power and those in power, shifted definitions of class and exposed different ways of classifying citizens, questioned whose ideas would be included in decision- making processes and how, and created opportunities for different modes of civic participation and contested the validity of those modes. iii I find three visions of citizenship that emerge from these events and provide suggestions for reenvisioning and strengthening our democracy. What I call the powerful government vision of citizenship, in which the government preserves civilization and controls citizens, expects little from citizens. The good citizen vision expects little of government and requires that citizens take responsibility for how everyone behaves. The engaged citizen vision supposes that work and public life reflect one another and imagines citizens engaging in social and political initiatives while the government manages civic action. iv TABLE OF CONTENTS Page Acknowledgements………………………………………………………………………………vii Chapter 1 Introduction…………………………………………………………………………….1 The Rise of Public Sector Unions…………………………………………………………3 Democracy and Unions……………………………………………………………………4 The Labor Movement and Union Rhetoric………………………………………………..8 Research Questions………………………………………………………………………12 Case Preview……………………………………………………………………………..14 Conclusion……………………………………………………………………………….19 Chapter 2 Strike: The Right to Organize and the Policemen…………………………………….23 Organized Labor in the Early 20th Century………………………………………………24 Labor and WWI………………………………………………………………………….27 Boston Leading Up to the Strike…………………………………………………………32 The Boston Players………………………………………………………………………33 Power and Class………………………………………………………………………….37 Exposing Power Relations: Justifying Violence in the Boston Police Strike……………40 Strikes and Violence……………………………………………………………………..42 Police and Violence……………………………………………………………………...44 Power and Citizenship…………………………………………………………………...53 Inclusion……………………………………………………………................................55 Participation……………………………………………………………………………...59 Conclusion……………………………………………………………………………….61 Chapter 3 Democracy at Work: Envisioning First-Class Citizenship for Public Employees……67 State of the Union at the End of the 1950’s……………………………………………...68 Unionizing Public Workers and the Formation of AFSCME……………………………73 Class……………………………………………………………………………………...79 Participation……………………………………………………………………………...83 Power…………………………………………………………………………………….88 Inclusion………………………………………………………………………………….93 Conclusion……………………………………………………………………………….96 Chapter 4 Right to Strike: The Keystone for Collective Bargaining…………………………101 The State of Labor in the 1960’s………………………………………………………102 v Public Argument………………………………………………………………………..112 Scholarly Consideration of the Right to Strike…………………………………………118 The Legislative Road to Act 195……………………………………………………….125 Power…………………………………………………………………………………...127 Inclusion and Participation……………………………………………………………..130 Class…………………………………………………………………………………….132 Conclusion……………………………………………………………………………...136 Chapter 5 This is What democracy Looks Like: Balancing Budgets, Busting Unions………...142 Economic Urgency……………………………………………………………………...144 Walker’s Campaign and the Public……………………………………………………..150 Democracy Revisited…………………………………………………………………...155 Class…………………………………………………………………………………….156 Power…………………………………………………………………………………...161 Participation………………………………………………………………………..…...168 Inclusion………………………………………………………………………………...173 Conclusion……………………………………………………………………………...178 Chapter 6 Conclusion…………………………………………………………………………...185 Appendix A Boston Timeline…………………………………………………………………..193 Appendix B Wisconsin 2009-2013 Timeline…………………………………………………..195 Bibliography……………………………………………………………………………………198 vi ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This project truly would not have been possible without the assistance of those who helped me access the primary documents and texts. Jennifer Humphrey and Robyn Kermes read and recorded countless hours of newspaper articles, miscellaneous primary documents, and union conference proceedings from blurry scans and micro film. Susan Hayya and the staff of the Penn State assistive technology lab turned print library books into accessible electronic copies. I cannot thank you enough for your patience and attention to detail. I appreciate the support and advice given throughout the course of writing this dissertation by my advisor, Dr. Stephen Browne. The simple encouragement to “soldier on” kept me going. Thanks also go to Jeremy Engels, Mike Hogan, and Paul Clark for their roles in my intellectual development and their support of my work. I also would like to thank Dr. John Christman for his contribution to my understanding of political philosophy. Last but not least, I am grateful for my family’s support. My husband helped me to stay sane. My parents let me use their guest house as a writing retreat so I could experience the peace and quiet necessary for finding my way out of mental and writing cul-de-sacs. vii Chapter 1 Introduction Rules related to public sector labor unions bring into focus issues concerning citizen participation and democratic procedures. Public sector labor unions allow lower income workers to be included in decision-making processes and may hold the key to preventing the rich from wielding excessive power. These unions, however, are frequently criticized for unfairly privileging public organized workers over unorganized and private workers. Labor unions of public employees have been portrayed as powerful special interests acting to corrupt the American political process. Public sector labor unions have come under attack as well for contributing to budget deficits and reckless spending by state governments. Governors have responded to such accusations by working to pass laws that make it difficult for such unions to increase and maintain their membership. This back-and-forth between legislative bodies and public sector unions highlights central issues regarding class, citizen participation, inclusion, and democracy itself. Although the current state and future of public sector labor unions are certainly issues of concern for workers and employees in general, such flashpoints reveal more complex dynamics within the democratic process. The governors of New Jersey and North Carolina both signed executive orders that exemplify contrasting visions of the place for democratic procedures within local governments. On the same day that Governor Chris Christie of New Jersey signed an executive order restricting unions from bidding on public contracts under New Jersey’s “Pay-to- Play” statute, Bev Perdue, the governor of North Carolina, signed an executive order establishing 1 procedures for government officials to meet and confer with leaders of the State Employees Association of North Carolina. Both executive orders were immediately challenged on the grounds that they somehow inhibit the processes of democratic government.1 New Jersey’s executive order prevents public sector labor unions from obtaining government contracts, whereas North Carolina’s facilitates