Which side are you on? Trying to be for labor when it's flat on its back.

by Thomas Geoghegan

The comic, poignant, one-of-a-kind book that "reads like an enthralling novel" (Studs Terkel). When it first appeared in hardcover, Which Side Are You On? received widespread critical accolades, and was nominated for a National Book Critics Circle Award for nonfiction. In this new paperback edition, Thomas Geoghegan has updated his eloquent plea for the relevance of organized labor in America with an afterword covering the labor movement through the 1990s.A funny, sharp, unsentimental career memoir, Which Side Are You On? pairs a compelling history of the rise and near-fall of labor in the United States with an idealist's disgruntled exercise in self-evaluation. Writing with the honesty of an embattled veteran still hoping for the best, Geoghegan offers an entertaining, accessible, and literary introduction to the labor movement, as well as an indispensable touchstone for anyone whose hopes have run up against the unaccommodating facts on the ground. Wry and inspiring, Which Side Are You On? is the ideal book for anyone who has ever woken up and realized, "You must change your life."

Genres: Labor, Politics, Nonfiction, History, Economics, Law, American History

Paperback

First published August 1, 1991

About the author

Thomas Geoghegan received national attention when he ran as a progressive candidate for Rahm Emanuels congressional seat in 2009 (and was endorsed by Barbara Ehrenreich, James Fallows, Thomas Frank, James K. Galbraith, Hendrik Hertzberg, Alex Kotlowitz, Sara Paretsky, Rick Perlstein, Katha Pollitt, David Sirota, Garry Wills, and Naomi Wolf, among others). He is a practicing attorney and the author of several books, including Which Side Are You On?, which was a finalist for the National Book Critics Circle Award and received a special citation from the PEN/Martha Albrand Award judges, In Americas Court, and See You in Court. Geoghegan has written for The Nation, the New York Times, and Harpers. He lives in Chicago."

Reviews

[L · Rating 4 out of 5]

i wish it was more recent, would have liked to hear his thoughts on EFCA + the latest dance between big labor and the Democrats.

p. 42- "A fine labor historian, Irving Bernstein, wrote about this period in his book The Lean Years, and there is an uncanny similarity between labor in the 1920s and labor in the 1980s. Whole passages of the book, which he wrote in the 1950s, by the way, could be lifted verbatim to describe American labor today.
For example:
Union members vote for Hoover then, and Reagan now.
Employers start "work teams" then, or "quality work circles" now, which are supposed to replace unions.
Union membership drops and drops.
There is the same cult worship of the businessmen, of Andrew Mellon then, of Donald Trump today.
And Bernstein quotes one journalist after another saying that unionism is jot only dead but "obsolete" in the new, post-industrial, service-sector economy of... yes, the 1920s. Every thoughtful observer, in The New Republic, etc., seems to agree, by 1928 that organized labor is through and that history has passed it by.
I can read The Lean Years and laugh on every page and say "this is great."
Yes ... but this doesn't prove the Depression will save our necks again. "

I love that on page 49 he writes, "That's my only point."

Taft-Hartley had three effects:
First it ended organizing on the grand 1930s scale. It outlawed mass picketing, secondary strikes of neutral employers, sit-downs: in short, everything that Lewis did in the 1930s.
When people ask me, "Why can't labor organize the way it did in the 1930s?" the answer is simple: everything we did then is now illegal....
The second effect of Taft-Hartley was subtler and slow-working. It was to hold up any new organizing at all, even on a quiet, low-key scale.

P 214 "Formerly, the rich depended in some way on the well-being of the whole nation. Henry Ford paid his autoworkers good wages, Reich says, so they could go out and buy his Model T, and he knew his prosperity was tied to theirs. But now we can let the workers shine our shoes, and it will not hurt "our" prosperity one bit. Other countries will pay the bills we run up at Convito Italiano, because other countries will always need the fancy postgrad services we provide, with our fancy postgrad educations. There is no such thing as a national economy."
Baaahh comparative advantage and out-of-date paradigms of endless growth vs sustainable cycling. We have to buy local.

"Maybe there are paths open to an "upper one-fifth," namely: (1) love your country and build up its economy, or (2) throw in with the world economy and send your own people into Third World hell. This is the choice facing us. And in a way, so little was asked of us, historically, as an elite: simply that we not make America any worse than is was, any more of a class society. And we blew it, we could not even do that."

some great messaging on being 'all-American'

[Aaron Arnold · Rating 4 out of 5]

Not that I've read a lot of books about labor law, but this is the most well-written book about the experience of practicing labor law I've ever read, a sort of ground-level counterpart to the labor-market sections of Krugman's book. I once read an Amazon review for another one of Geoghegan's books that claimed that all of his books were really about citizenship in one form or another, and I agree with that. This one focuses on the damage that conservative policies did to the traditional American understanding of citizenship during the 1980s, specifically that of the Chicagoland union members that were being fired in droves as structural shifts in the economy (both natural and planned) eliminated their jobs and their places in society under the guise of the "invisible hand" while the corporations who cheerfully outsourced their jobs made huge profits. Geoghegan is witty and self-deprecating as he recognizes the futility of reversing or even slowing the massive hemorrhaging of jobs, and he pulls no punches in recounting the resulting ugly fratricide as these desperate unions relentlessly and inscrutably destroyed themselves as they lost everything they had. Somehow I ended up reading a lot of anti-Reagan books this year, and this was the second-most vitriolic out of the lot.

[Carson · Rating 3 out of 5]

I first read this book in college, and in many ways it was as foreign then as it is now. He writes about a labor movement that I don't know - the steelworkers, the mine workers, the "bad" teamsters. There are pieces of it though that are spot-on: the endless and meaningless arbitration grind that unions get caught in, for example. And, is depressing as hell that we are still fighting for the one policy change that he advocates as a fix for working people, the right to join a union by signing a card. At least now there is a name for that fix, the Employee Free Choice Act (EFCA), and a real campaign to win in. (Plus, a real promise by a real presidential candidate to pass it if he wins.)

[Leonard Nakamura · Rating 5 out of 5]

If you are interested in politics, this is a must read. I had heard about this book for years and resisted reading it. A book about the labor unions? How sad. Too depressing. And, frankly, it is depressing. Very. But I learned a ton about what has happened and about the US laws -- many of them supported by good liberals -- that have made union organizing nearly impossible. And the self-inflicted wounds of undemocratic unions.
Also, the writing is wonderful. Geoghegan is one of us -- in the same way that Ali Smith and Jennifer Egan are one of us, but also great sympathetic writers. He admits his errors and doesn't get everything right, and has great empathy for everyone he tells us about.
And, in the afterword, he suggests a political path forward. State by state, we could restore fundamental worker rights. Such as the right not to be fired except for just cause or the rights to paid maternity leave or two weeks vacation. He doesn't mention raising the rate of pay required before you are an exempt worker ( right now you can be called a manager at a McDonald's for $25 thousand a year and have to work 60 hour works without getting overtime pay.)
Are these ideas quixotic? In today's political climate, maybe not. People are clearly willing to try anything!

[Jim Weinstein · Rating 4 out of 5]

delightful

[Public Scott · Rating 5 out of 5]

Wow! No offense to all the labor lawyers out there (har har), but I never expected in a million years that I would enjoy this book as much as I did. Mr. Geoghegan's dry wit had me laughing out loud on many occasions. This volume is an extremely fast read for 350+ pages - not what I expected at all!

I have to say that I can sympathize with some of the other reviewers who were a little bummed out by Geoghehan's downbeat view on the future of the labor movement in the US. It must be hard not to get cynical after so many years of defeat. However, I found reasons for optimism in this book as well - if you read between the lines a little. Here's hoping!

[Dave · Rating 4 out of 5]

A great memoir from a career labor lawyer. I can't imagine about CEO's and union busters being anywhere near as compelling, heartbreaking and, at times, uplifting but if someone wants to recommend one I'm all ears.

[Rio Morales · Rating 4 out of 5]

I liked this book for the history it told and the honesty & depth of the dilemmas experienced by its author. I can’t say I like Geoghegan or want to be his friend (not that that’s the point). But he writes an entertaining, informative, and moving tribute to a struggling labor movement that is sadly as current as could be despite being 30 years old. I didn’t like his assumption that the reader is of the same background as him (Harvard, east-coast, upper class, Democrat) and a lot of his humor is based on this relation so it can be lost if you don’t share these qualities. He assumes that he and I feel exactly the same way about Reagan, the Democrats, Germany, immigration, police, and the national debt. We don’t! It’s a shame because the humor based on this fundamental agreement undercuts the portions of his text that have to do with his internal struggle with the class contradictions of his career. These were eye roll moments for me, but worth reading through because the book is ultimately very intriguing and Geoghegan’s career has been fascinating.

[Aaron Keathley · Rating 5 out of 5]

A memoir of a labor lawyer whose career spanned the near-peak of American union power and begining of it decline. It offers compelling testimonies from windier the movement as well as anecdotes of how every day people are prevented from organizing and making gains like previous generations. Tales of union corruption and the shortcomings of an oligopolistic labor movement (that arises from a hostile state) are interwoven alongside recommendations for public and intra-union reforms that are as relevant today as they were when they were written. A must read for any labor advocate or individual interested in making a career out of fighting for the working class.

[Kyle · Rating 4 out of 5]

Sarcastic, funny, brutal, sad, annoying, depressing, infuriating. Very much a product of its time, and worth it for that.

[Drew Reilly · Rating 3 out of 5]

I'm not sure i like Geoghegan's writing style, it just seemed all over the place. While he has some valuable insight into the topic, the book was hard to read.

[Mephistia · Rating 3 out of 5]

I'm kind of ambivalent about this book. We're reading it for a class, and I really vacillate from one chapter to the next on whether I find this book helpful or not.

Geoghegan is definitely aware of his class privilege, so when starting out, I assumed he was equally aware of his race and gender privilege. He pokes fun at himself regarding the class privilege, and obviously struggles with his apparently conflicting desires to live comfortably while representing those who cannot afford the same comforts. His voice is often wry and sarcastic, which works since he's attempting to appeal to a reader on the same "class" level as him -- he's not trying to convince the union/ labor worker that unions are necessary, he's trying to convince the banker/ lawyer/ white collar worker.

As such, he doesn't really ever outright commit to a view -- as a white collar labor lawyer representing the blue-collar laborer, you'd think he would. But he doesn't. He gets close, then backs away. His ambivalence forces the reader to examine their own preconceptions and determine their own answer to the question: Which side are you on?

Geoghegan refuses to spoon-feed his reader the answer. This strength of his writing is also, unfortunately, it's major failing. His wry, sarcastic, and often self-mocking tone; his refusal to commit to a solid answer -- while both of these do well in forcing a white-collar, middle-class male to assess his the situation, it's a less successful tactic for women and minorities.

I don't think Geoghegan meant to write almost completely to white men, and I don't think he's racist or sexist. I think this is just a textbook (hah!) example of white male privilege, and in this particular book, his lack of awareness about said privileges negatively impacted his very real irony in assessing his class privilege.

It's hard to know when he's joking and when he's serious when he unself-consciously makes a statement about how racism impacted him (he's discussing a black labor leader he supported, and talks about how people would refer to said leader by the "n-word" (he types it out) in his hearing just to "see what his reaction was." By his own accounting, his reaction appeared to be silence.), and then he follows that up with a joke about his reaction to a class difference. It makes it hard to differentiate between when he's joking and when he's seriously just clueless, and (as noted) this negatively impacts the entire tone and voice of the book.

As I said, I do not believe Geoghegan is doing this intentionally. It's just a side affect of privilege, and the concept of race/ gender privilege wasn't as examined when he was writing this book, so he likely wouldn't have really even had the thought to take it into account. It is a good read, though. I'd recommend it, though when recommending it to non-white or female readers, I add a caveat that it's sometimes hard to differentiate his wry voice from his clueless voice.

[Jamie · Rating 3 out of 5]

This book elicited intensely ambivalent emotions in me and I think overall, I came away more irritated than pleased. Of course, I am biased as a labor organizer with my own many critiques of the movement and it seems clear that while we tend to lump together all unions into one storyline, everyone has a different union experience that tints their viewing lens. In terms of his writing style, Geoghegan mostly succeeds in removing shop-talk and jargon from his story and fits his personal narrative into the downward slope of the movement through the 60s into the time of Reaganomics.

I think what may be most fascinating is his tension of being well paid (though, as he says time and time again, not as well paid as his other lawyer friends working for the bosses) and living a bourgeois life while working on behalf of blue collar workers who he wavers between admiring and despising. This mirrors a tension within probably anyone working in labor and his clear decision at a certain point to submerge in a life distanced from the working class while still dealing with economic justice issues at work was honest and intriguing. I wonder if it actually worked psychologically as well as he portrays it.

[Amc · Rating 3 out of 5]

I liked this book because it flowed like a novel and has some nice deadpan comedy (which helps if you like that style of humor). You wouldn't need to be involved in the labor movement to enjoy or understand this book. The text is also ridden with references to Christianity, particularly biblical. If you're the least bit familiar with the Bible and paying attention, you'll pick up on the subtle references and inuendos, which are hilarious because Geoghegan uses them to compare workers and events in the labor movement to characters and situations in the Bible. Just knowing the author a little, made reading the book that much more enjoyable. It left me wondering why he chose to stay with a career that he seems to feel lukewarm about and why he's still involved in a movement that he really has no connection to other than perhaps ideologically. Makes me wonder if he's happy with his choice or if he just felt like he was in too deep to change mid-life.

[Irving Koppel · Rating 3 out of 5]

If one is already depressed about the status of labor in America,he probably shouldn't read this
book. Total union membership,except for government employees and the Service Employees'International
Union(S.E.I.U.)has reached its nadir in America.

There are many reasons for this: outsourcing,rise of information technology,threats to close businesses in the face of union organization,weak and corrupt union leadership,non-democratic union
elections,restrictive,anti-union laws,allowing strikebreakers("scabs"),and,finally,neglecting to edu-
cate the members of unions so that they won't vote against their own best interests.

The middle class has had no increase in real wages in the last thirty years in spite of the fact
that efficiencies in production have created large profits for business.This is not supposed to happen
under labor theory.Nevertheless, without the power inherent in unified action, this situation will only get worse.

[Tracy · Rating 4 out of 5]

I thought this book was a little strange. A lot of it is really interesting and enlightening, but he's doing this weird thing of saying he feels like an outsider in the labor movement because he's an intellectual yuppie from Harvard (his words), and then complaining that the labor movement doesn't live up to his own expectations of what it should be trying to do in the country/world. I know he's calling himself a yuppie in an intentionally self-deprecating way, but it's kind of true. I mean, dude, of course the big labor unions aren't plotting their political strategy around your personal values. It would be pretty sad if they did. So to me that comes off as a lack of self awareness, but I'd still recommend the book.

[Adam · Rating 5 out of 5]

You don't have to be a labor activist to love this book. Really stylistic writing. At times surreal, other times, stream of conscious, while in other instances, lucidly analytical. Intensely sharp, witty, biting, and uncompromisingly critical of everyone: employers, liberals, conservatives, unionists, and most of all, himself! A rocky ride through through the attorney's career, and in the process, the life of organized labor. A flavor of his writing; the opening of the book:

"'Organized labor.' Say those words, and your heart sinks. I am a labor lawyer, and my heart sinks. Dumb, stupid organized labor: this is my cause."

Be sure to read the 2004 that includes an afterword.

[Kiehl Christie · Rating 5 out of 5]

Outstanding modern history of the labor movement, it's challenges, internal struggles, and the structural restrictions place on it.

Geoghegan writes with a nice balance of honesty, sarcasm, and wit. Keeps the history fresh, when it could easily feel stale.

Good for a child of the Reagan generation who doesn't have a context for when and why the actual decline of labor began. The battery of legal, political, and marketing forcers that have hamstrung labor and restricted democracy in government and in the economy are well-explained through Geoghegan's personal narrative as a midwestern labor lawyer.

[Russell · Rating 4 out of 5]

I found this book to be a really enjoyable read. I picked it up because somebody told me it was an approachable introduction to the history of Labor in the US. I don't have much to compare it against but I think it does a pretty good job of that.

But it's also just fun to read all these stories. Don't get me wrong, it's also pretty bleak in a lot of ways and there's no shortage of... well let's say unbounded cynicism, but nonetheless I found it a very entertaining and informative read.

I am sort of curious now to know more about what's happened since and where things are going these days. I wonder if there's much to be optimistic about?

[Johanna · Rating 5 out of 5]

This might be just a 4.5, but it's the kind of 4.5 I mark 5 instead of 4. The author, a labor lawyer in Chicago, captures perfectly some of the misgivings about the labor movement that I have cultivated in the short 2 years I've been intimately acquainted with it. At the same time, he admires all the things I admire about it, and his ultimate lament is that labor has been beaten down both by outside forces and from within. His discussions of class also resonated with me. I need to find the 2004 updated edition to see what he has to say about more recent developments.

[Therese Brink · Rating 4 out of 5]

Published in 1991, this book is about the author's work as a labor lawyer. It makes sad reading. Organized labor's demise in the US has had some very sad consequences for workers.

Towards the end of the book, Thomas Geoghegan ,mentions his work in organizing nurses in Fairbury, IL who worked at St. Francis Hospital. Living so close to St. Francis (now the mega healthcare organization known as OSF), I found his remarks about the Fairbury nurses particularly interesting.

[Steve · Rating 1 out of 5]

I was surprised how poorly written this book was considering it was written by a lawyer. THere was just run-on thought after run-on thought and served more as the author's biography than an actual analysis of what is right or wrong with labor unions. I only could get through half of the book before putting it back on the shelf.

[Bap · Rating 3 out of 5]

This all too glum book is written by a union labor lawyer whose dienchantment with the labor movement but not working people shows as he says the deindustrialization of America and the anemic response of labor unions. But what could they do, the deck was so utterly stacked against them.

[Philip · Rating 4 out of 5]

Autobiographical stories about the corruption of large unions and the calculating dishonesty of the large corporations that deal with them. Thesis is that even though unions need to be cleaned up, they contributed substantially to the size and well-being of the middle class.

[Craig · Rating 5 out of 5]

An incredibly cynical, absolutely honest look at the condition of organized labor in present day America. Many parts read like stream of consciousness. As a lawyer, it is not surprising that the author recommends law reform as a means to reviving unions.

[Pilar · Rating 4 out of 5]

I really liked this book. I haven't mentioned it to my friend who's a labor historian because I'm afraid she'll tell me it was written by the devil and I won't be allowed to like it anymore. But I don't think it was.

[John Morse · Rating 2 out of 5]

Faulkner's stream of consciousness pales in comparison to this author. There are some great insights and opinions in this book, but it badly needs an editor and should be 1/3 of the size that it is in its current form.

[Elizabeth · Rating 5 out of 5]

Terrific basic labor history book for adults. If you don't really know anything about why there were unions, and how they operate, from the viewpoint of a working labor lawyer, this is the book.(less)

[Alice · Rating 4 out of 5]

Sarcastic, self-deprecating, and often hilarious. But also rambling, and not particularly useful as labor history (though it may not be trying to be). The book really picks up in its last few fiery chapters, and you can hear the author's words dripping with righteous indignation. Loved it.

[Adam · Rating 5 out of 5]

Arguably the best and inarguably the funniest book ever written about the American labor movement.