Labor: Organized or Otherwise
Photo by Ant Rozetsky on Unsplash
In the Torah, Moses issues only one commandment concerning work:
You shall not withhold the wages of poor and needy laborers, whether other Israelites or aliens who reside in your land in one of your towns. You shall pay them their wages daily before sunset, because they are poor and their livelihood depends on them; otherwise they might cry to the Lord against you, and you would incur guilt (Deuteronomy 24:14-15).
This Torah provision does not say anything about a fair wage, but that is surely implied in the mandate. This commandment evokes the following from me.
1. In its original tale, the Bible and its community are well connected to “slave labor” in the service of the state. Israel’s normative narrative begins with an account of state enslavement under Pharaoh in Egypt who engaged in building projects for the state (Exodus 5). The matter was not different under Israel’s monarchy. Thus it is reported that a “secretary of forced labor” as among the high officials of King Solomon (I Kings 4:6). Forced labor was, not surprisingly, required for the ambitious building projects of Solomon that included not only his grand temple but a series of other ostentatious, royal buildings as well (I Kings 7:1-12). The textual report has some ambiguity about the make-up of that labor force. On the one hand, it is reported that:
King Solomon conscripted forced labor out of all Israel; the levy numbered thirty thousand men. He sent them to the Lebanon, ten thousand a month in shifts; they would be a month in Lebanon and two months at home; Adoniram was in charge of forced labor (I Kings 5:13-14).
But a second text insists that no Israelite was included in the corps of forced labor:
But of the Israelites Solomon made no slaves; they were the soldiers, they were his officials, commanders, his captains, and the commanders of his chariotry and cavalry (I Kings 9:22).
The matter is left unclear. But the narrative does make clear that the crown learned nothing from the several rebellions noted in I Kings 11. As a result, at Solomon’s death the rebels sought to negotiate with Solomon’s son and heir, Rehoboam:
Your father made our yoke heavy. Now therefore lighten the hard service of your father and his heavy yoke that he placed on us, and we will serve you (I Kings 12:4).
They sought relief from the harsh measures of Solomon. But to no avail. Rehoboam refused the wise advice his older advisors gave him and remained resolved in policy:
The king answered the people harshly. He disregarded the advice that the older men had given him, and spoke to them according to the advice of the young men. “My father made your yoke heavy, but I will add to your yoke; my father disciplined you with whips, but I will discipline you with scorpions (vv. 13-14).
This harsh royal response evoked protest and resistance as the Northern tribes withdrew from the “United Monarchy” and formed a separate state according to their autonomy. More specifically, Rehoboam sent his dutiful secretary of labor, Adoram, to negotiate; but in its angry resistance Israel stoned him to death. Not unlike the French queen who in the famine of bread said, “Let them eat cake,” the king learned nothing and continued his exploitative ways. He evoked prophetic resistance and condemnation that eventuated in the failure of the monarchy. The provision of covenantal/prophetic “justice and righteousness” surely included a viable living wage for the work force that sustained the royal economy. The history of the Western economy is a continuing story of exploitation and resistance, occasionally featuring a tilt toward economic justice but most often featuring top-down decisions about employment and productivity.
2. Of course the great modern emergent that has interrupted top-down exploitation has been the formation of labor unions whereby the labor force has been able (to some extent) to resist in effective ways that exploitation. The nineteenth century featured the violent beginnings of such unions in the United States. But management has been characteristically backed and supported by the government with its all-too-ready propensity to mobilize military force against labor resistance.
Finally, belatedly, The Wagner Act in 1935 made possible and legal the formation of labor unions that could resist exploitation by management and insist on fair wages and bearable conditions for labor. The provisions of the Wagner Act were in part negated by the Taft-Hartley Act of 1947 that seriously curbed the resources and effectiveness of labor unions. These two actions, the Wagner Act and the Taft-Harley Act, indicate the deep and abiding struggle for the establishment of the rights of organized labor that could curb policies of exploitation by capital and management.
The Wagner Act signified the political force of labor unions, most notably unions in steel, automobiles, and coal, the staples of the national economy. A variety of bold and strong union leaders emerged including Samuel Gompers, George Meany, and Walter Reuther. But the union leader who emerged that was the most durable, uncompromising, and imaginative was John L. Lewis who led the coal miners union and was instrumental in the formation of the Congress of Industrial Unions, industry-wide unions that opposed the much narrower craft unions assembled in and by the American Federation of Labor. The formation of craft unions effectively excluded many workers from unions who did not benefit from such union activities and gains.
Lewis was bold, fearless, and single-minded in his commitment to the rights of labor, including both good wages and improved working conditions (See John L. Lewis: An Unauthorized Biography by Saul Alinsky (1949). He represents a sharp and complete contrast to the work of Adoram in the regime of Solomon. Whereas Adoram was a willing tool of royal policies of wealth extraction and exploitation, Lewis was without compromise on the side of labor. Adoram was vilified and eventually murdered by an angry labor force; Lewis by contrast was a great, unparalleled hero to labor folk who appreciated, even adored his reliable, passionate, uncompromising commitment to their status and wellbeing. Thus we notice the sharp contrast:
Adoram who relied on top-down management.
Lewis who appealed to bottom-up needs and resources.
The contrast is complete.
3. And now we may ask, who is to be next as a leader that follows in the succession of Adoram and Lewis who is likewise preoccupied with labor rights and conditions. We might consider Elon Musk for that third place on the roster who, in my opinion, has much more in common with Adoram than with Lewis. Reuters (2023) documented at least 600 previously unreported workplace injuries at Musk’s rocket company: crushed limbs, amputations, electrocutions, head and eye injuries and one death. This is the same Musk who would eliminate government protection and compensation for such injured workers. Musk’s track record on the matter of work safety does not recognize that the labor force on which he relies has its own hopes and fears which eventually must be taken seriously. Thus his identification of “surplus people” who are readily dispensable exhibits an inability to notice any human factors among the work force.
The sequence of notable economic leaders from Adoram to John L. Lewis to Jeff Bezos and Elon Musk is telling indeed. This simple roster exhibits in turn the huge resources of exploitative empire with its top-down capacity, the rise of resources and power from below, and the belated return to monopoly at the expense of cheap labor.
This sequence poses urgent questions concerning the need for labor to perform the inescapable menial tasks of society, the desire to have these tasks performed cheaply, the effective attempt to keep such needed workers invisible and outside any safety net of security, and the insatiable appetites of the “haves” that rely on such workers. The result of such appetite-propelled economics is to create a class-driven society that maximizes the wealth and wellbeing of the haves and that keeps have-nots powerless, unseen, and insecure. It is clear that an unrestrained individualism and an uncurbed economy of acquisition make a viable society and a livable economy an impossibility. We may notice the self-serving, greedy economy produces both the super-rich who become political players only because of their wealth, and the hopelessly left-behind who are abandoned and without resources. The feeble left of our political economy makes an effort to the contrary, but the present distribution of wealth and power makes such efforts both difficult and demanding in the extreme.
It is urgent that the church, in its local practice, should be focused on the great public issues of governance, political will, and social vision. For much too long, the church has made wellbeing (salvation!) a personal, individualistic subject. But of course the truth is quite otherwise. Thus the great creator God cast the future as a mighty contest against the exploitative power of Pharaoh in the Exodus narrative. Jesus of Nazareth found his “natural habitat” among the left behind in society. I reckon that it is the good work of pastoral leadership to reframe the claim of the gospel in clear and radical ways concerning both the wonder of God and of God’s governance in our time. We have for much too long settled for a gospel of private other-worldly possibility. But the covenantal-prophetic tradition of the Bible makes unmistakably clear that the gospel concerns the good news of:
bread for the hungry;
drink for the thirsty; and
new life for those who are fated to a death of despair.
Faithful work is the practice of wellbeing for those without viable resources. It is for good reason that we can sing of the good work entrusted to us:
“Go, labor on; spent, and be spent,
the joys to do the Father’s will;
it is the way the Master went;
should not the servant tread it still?
Go, labor on, ’tis not for naught;
thine earthly loss is heav’nly gain;
men heed thee, love thee, praise thee not;
the Master praises-what are men?
Go, labor on; enough while here
If He shall praise thee, if he deign
Thy willing heart to cheer;
No toil for Him shall be in vain.
Go, labor on while it is day;
The world’s dark night is hast’ning on,
Speed, sped thy work, cast sloth away;
It is not thus that souls are won.
Toil on, faint not, keep watch and pray;
Be wise the erring soul to win;
Go forth into the world’s highway,
Compel the wand’rer to come in.
Toil on, and in thy toil rejoice;
for toil comes rest, for exile home;
Soon shalt thou hear the Bridegroom’s voice,
the midnight peal, ‘Behold, I come.’”
(Horstius Bonar, 1843).
The hymn is an affirmation of good honest work that fulfills God’s will for us. It is work that happily settles for the affirmation of God and hopes for the coming rule of Christ. This is ground from which the church may reflect afresh on the meaning of work in a culture where some are consigned to self-indulgence that may culminate in despair under which are excessive burdens of productivity. We may be glad for good work, and for the good outcome of a life grounded in well-being, security, and hope.
