What do you think?
Rate this book
Only One Thing Can Save Us: Why America Needs a New Kind of Labor Movement
Is labor's day over or is labor the only real answer for our time? In his new book, National Book Critics Circle Award finalist and labor lawyer Thomas Geoghegan argues that even as organized labor seems to be crumbling, a revived―but different―labor movement is the only way to stabilize the economy and save the middle class.
But the inequality now reshaping the country goes beyond money and the places we work have become ever more rigid hierarchies. Geoghegan makes his argument for labor with stories, sometimes humorous but more often chilling, about the problems working people like his own clients―from cabdrivers to schoolteachers―now face, increasingly powerless in our union-free economy. He explains why a new kind of labor movement (and not just more higher education) is the real program the Democrats should push―not just to save the middle class from bankruptcy but to revive Keynes's original and sometimes forgotten ideas for getting the rich to invest and reducing our balance of trade, and to promote John Dewey's vision of a “democratic way of life,” one that would start in the schools and continue in our places of work.
A “public policy” book that is compulsively readable, Only One Thing Can Save Us is vintage Geoghegan, blending acerbic, witty commentary with unparalleled insight into the real dynamics (and human experience) of working in America today.
But the inequality now reshaping the country goes beyond money and the places we work have become ever more rigid hierarchies. Geoghegan makes his argument for labor with stories, sometimes humorous but more often chilling, about the problems working people like his own clients―from cabdrivers to schoolteachers―now face, increasingly powerless in our union-free economy. He explains why a new kind of labor movement (and not just more higher education) is the real program the Democrats should push―not just to save the middle class from bankruptcy but to revive Keynes's original and sometimes forgotten ideas for getting the rich to invest and reducing our balance of trade, and to promote John Dewey's vision of a “democratic way of life,” one that would start in the schools and continue in our places of work.
A “public policy” book that is compulsively readable, Only One Thing Can Save Us is vintage Geoghegan, blending acerbic, witty commentary with unparalleled insight into the real dynamics (and human experience) of working in America today.
272 pages, Hardcover
Published December 19, 2014
14 people are currently reading
335 people want to read
About the author
Thomas Geoghegan
14 books21 followersThomas 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."
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 15 of 15 reviews
February 8, 2015
Good stuff on our over-reliance of "get an education" when wages are falling for most workers as labor unions are whittled away. As always with his writing, it is passionate but not always clear and he has a habit of repeating ideas, making a 200+ page book that feels like it could have been half the size with the same takeaway. His arguments for unions giving up exclusive representation in exchange for making joining a union a civil right are pretty interesting, but I don't think even he fully believes them.
February 27, 2015
This is a book for labor junkies. It is almost a stream of consciousness rant Geoghegan is having with himself about the problems with the labor movement, why a strong labor movement is needed to bring back the middle class and how the solution is more democratic workplaces like they have in Germany where elected worker councils run the plants. This book is particularly good for labor lawyers as it poses some legal solutions that might help, like getting rid of the requirement for unions to represent everyone in a workplace and having member-only unions. Also suggested is to make unionization a civil right. Lots of out of the box thinking which will hopefully stimulate discussion and breathe more life into the labor movement.
October 9, 2015
Is the title too apocalyptic? Maybe so, but it’s worth it. Especially because it contains friendly, chatty, easy-to-read directions about how to avoid the apocalypse.
Geoghegan shows how organized labor is essential to a functioning economy. Capital has the money; people have the numbers. But they need to organize to level the playing field and get their fair share.
American labor unions aren’t perfect and Geoghegan criticizes them as only an old friend can. But unions do plenty right, and if we don’t help then we’re all going down together. Please read this in your book group. Collective action can’t be done alone.
Geoghegan shows how organized labor is essential to a functioning economy. Capital has the money; people have the numbers. But they need to organize to level the playing field and get their fair share.
American labor unions aren’t perfect and Geoghegan criticizes them as only an old friend can. But unions do plenty right, and if we don’t help then we’re all going down together. Please read this in your book group. Collective action can’t be done alone.
March 24, 2015
I love Thomas Geoghegan (his Which Side Are You On? is one of the books that has most knocked my socks off), and in my case, this book was certainly preaching to the choir in terms of politics. But it gave me new things to think about in terms of how to go about achieving these goals, so that pushes it past 4 stars for me. It helped that he lives and works in Chicago, so many of his examples were local for me.
July 26, 2016
Leftists praise Geoghegan for thinking out of the box when it involves shaking up organized labor’s establishment, but they get uneasy and defensive when Geoghegan’s outside-of-the-box thinking challenges long-held leftist tenets. To say that organized labor is on the decline is obvious. But Geoghegan’s leftist critics should also acknowledge that the Labor’s Left too, has been in steady decline. Geoghegan’s book demands more serious consideration and engagement from his leftist critics.
Geoghegan’s two arguments here that stir up the most controversy are (1) With so-called “right-to-work laws” steadily on the march through the states, unions’ days of exclusive representation are numbered, so the labor movement might as well start developing alternative strategies to deal with this reality: namely, organizing and bargaining for workplaces with a minority-union membership, and (2) American unions should adapt the practice of “works councils” of its European peers, whereby workers get elected to sit alongside management and have voting power over the decisions that effect the workforce.
Just as we can anticipate traditional unionists protesting Geoghegan’s book (“what! Give up exclusive representation? Why, that’s the backbone of the unionism!), so can we anticipate leftists responding “What! Have workers sit on a works council! Why, that goes against everything we stand for!”). Geoghegan is quick to provoke both labor’s establishment and labor’s left. As a socialist in the labor movement, I’m not sure if Geoghegan is right either, but I think his ideas need to be taken seriously and merit thoughtful critiques.
Only One Thing Can Save Us was reviewed in about as many outlets as we can expect for a book about the labor movement. The most substantial critique I read was Chris Maisano’s in Jacobin (jacobinmag.com/2015/01/bringing-labor...). Maisano may very well be correct in his positions, but he does not always sufficiently prove how. I would love to attend a debate between the two, or read a longer-form response from Maisano, whereby he could further elaborate his points.
But in his article, Maisano is a bit unfair to Geoghegan, equating “co-determination” (the works council arrangement) with other labor-management partnership schemes such as “lean production,” which he himself correctly acknowledges is only a “guise” of partnership:
“Besides, US workers and their unions already have ample experience with imported models based on labor-management partnerships — and it’s been a disaster. The Japanese auto transplants, for example, brought lean production, quality circles, and other practices that have only served to increase the exploitation of workers under the guise of partnership and ‘jointness.’”
It is not contradictory to acknowledge the guise of the Japanese auto strategies and at the same time entertain Geoghegan’s proposal of works councils.
The risk of workers identifying with the interests with the company is certainly real. But I have enough faith in workers that I’m not yet convinced that their participation on works councils automatically means their co-optation and subsequent abandonment of their class consciousness. Geoghegan’s book should prompt an earnest exploration of how works councils could advance workers’ interests in the American context. I don’t know enough about how the German model has functioned in practice, but we can certainly observe the results of the power of German unionism—a significantly higher level of organization and a higher standard of living for the German working class. Works councils in transnational corporations have the potential to transcend national labor movements. Maisano and other critics haven’t paid attention to Geoghegan’s point that federating works councils across countries could form an international works council, something that should catch the attention of socialists.
It also feels unfair when Maisano brushes aside Geoghegan’s concern over American debt to foreign creditors. Again, I don’t know much on this subject, but Maisano seems rash when saying that it implies some kind of zenophobia. That’s like saying resisting the movement of jobs to China is xenophobic because it is against job growth for the Chinese. Maisano very well may have a strong economic argument for his disagreement with Geoghegan, and he may very well be right. But he should bother to actually make the argument.
Maisano and most of us who identify as socialists in the labor movement keep our faith in the primary power of worker self-activity and direct actions like the strike. But we mustn’t feel threatened by and act reactively to calls for experimentation with new strategies.
Geoghegan takes on a number of other topics in the book, which has prompted some Goodreads reviewers to complain that the book is too unfocused. I disagree, and think that, taken together, they constitute a powerful form of engagement with liberals who have abandoned the labor movement. Geoghegan pierces several myths that have become accepted by mainstream Democratic party types, including the idea that getting more education is a strategy for getting us out of poverty and the country out of its economic mess. The result is a book that manages to challenge conservatives, liberals, and radicals alike.
Geoghegan’s two arguments here that stir up the most controversy are (1) With so-called “right-to-work laws” steadily on the march through the states, unions’ days of exclusive representation are numbered, so the labor movement might as well start developing alternative strategies to deal with this reality: namely, organizing and bargaining for workplaces with a minority-union membership, and (2) American unions should adapt the practice of “works councils” of its European peers, whereby workers get elected to sit alongside management and have voting power over the decisions that effect the workforce.
Just as we can anticipate traditional unionists protesting Geoghegan’s book (“what! Give up exclusive representation? Why, that’s the backbone of the unionism!), so can we anticipate leftists responding “What! Have workers sit on a works council! Why, that goes against everything we stand for!”). Geoghegan is quick to provoke both labor’s establishment and labor’s left. As a socialist in the labor movement, I’m not sure if Geoghegan is right either, but I think his ideas need to be taken seriously and merit thoughtful critiques.
Only One Thing Can Save Us was reviewed in about as many outlets as we can expect for a book about the labor movement. The most substantial critique I read was Chris Maisano’s in Jacobin (jacobinmag.com/2015/01/bringing-labor...). Maisano may very well be correct in his positions, but he does not always sufficiently prove how. I would love to attend a debate between the two, or read a longer-form response from Maisano, whereby he could further elaborate his points.
But in his article, Maisano is a bit unfair to Geoghegan, equating “co-determination” (the works council arrangement) with other labor-management partnership schemes such as “lean production,” which he himself correctly acknowledges is only a “guise” of partnership:
“Besides, US workers and their unions already have ample experience with imported models based on labor-management partnerships — and it’s been a disaster. The Japanese auto transplants, for example, brought lean production, quality circles, and other practices that have only served to increase the exploitation of workers under the guise of partnership and ‘jointness.’”
It is not contradictory to acknowledge the guise of the Japanese auto strategies and at the same time entertain Geoghegan’s proposal of works councils.
The risk of workers identifying with the interests with the company is certainly real. But I have enough faith in workers that I’m not yet convinced that their participation on works councils automatically means their co-optation and subsequent abandonment of their class consciousness. Geoghegan’s book should prompt an earnest exploration of how works councils could advance workers’ interests in the American context. I don’t know enough about how the German model has functioned in practice, but we can certainly observe the results of the power of German unionism—a significantly higher level of organization and a higher standard of living for the German working class. Works councils in transnational corporations have the potential to transcend national labor movements. Maisano and other critics haven’t paid attention to Geoghegan’s point that federating works councils across countries could form an international works council, something that should catch the attention of socialists.
It also feels unfair when Maisano brushes aside Geoghegan’s concern over American debt to foreign creditors. Again, I don’t know much on this subject, but Maisano seems rash when saying that it implies some kind of zenophobia. That’s like saying resisting the movement of jobs to China is xenophobic because it is against job growth for the Chinese. Maisano very well may have a strong economic argument for his disagreement with Geoghegan, and he may very well be right. But he should bother to actually make the argument.
Maisano and most of us who identify as socialists in the labor movement keep our faith in the primary power of worker self-activity and direct actions like the strike. But we mustn’t feel threatened by and act reactively to calls for experimentation with new strategies.
Geoghegan takes on a number of other topics in the book, which has prompted some Goodreads reviewers to complain that the book is too unfocused. I disagree, and think that, taken together, they constitute a powerful form of engagement with liberals who have abandoned the labor movement. Geoghegan pierces several myths that have become accepted by mainstream Democratic party types, including the idea that getting more education is a strategy for getting us out of poverty and the country out of its economic mess. The result is a book that manages to challenge conservatives, liberals, and radicals alike.
January 31, 2020
Changed my thinking
This is one of the few books I've read that is actually changed my thinking. If you have an open mind and want to learn something read this book
This is one of the few books I've read that is actually changed my thinking. If you have an open mind and want to learn something read this book
September 9, 2020
If you have any interest in the state of the labor movement in America, this is a must-read. Written pre-Trump, yet the issues it raises are ripped from the headlines.
June 22, 2016
Written by a labor lawyer who knows his economics, Keynes anyway. Argues that it is not education that is going to help us overcome inequality - increasing the number & percentage of college graduates is just going to contribute to increasingly dismal post-graduation job prospects. Says we need to support labor & nothing supports labor like organization - unions. Increased union power & participation will result in (1) lowered national private & public indebtedness, (2) increased aggregate demand, (3) more equitable distribution of GDP, (4) reduced trade deficit, (5) diminished financial sector and (6) greater national stability. Given the unlikelihood of unionism making gains thru the legislative process, Geoghagan sees room for hope in globalization to the extent that foreign, especially German - plants in the U.S. are more worker & union friendly than U.S. conterparts, & the revision of U.S. union policies such as exclusive representation.
February 9, 2015
I'm a big fan of Tom Geoghegan and I applaud him for again writing about how the American Labor Movement needs to stop doing things that don't work and challenge itself to be something different. I think he's more right than wrong in his prescription that some form of "members only unionism" coupled with an emphasis on making joining a union a civil right and advocating for broad-based policy reform. I just wish he made this point stronger before page 215 of this book. Unfortunately what could be a strong and cogent argument gets lost in other points Geoghegan wants to make about individual and national debt as well as the necessity of a college education. His points on these issues are interesting but not really germane to his thesis about the need for a new kind of labor movement. Read the penultimate chapter of this book, skip the rest.
September 25, 2015
A fine book by Thomas Geoghegan, filled with ideas about how to revive labor in the US. Unfortunately this book suffers in comparison to Which Side Are You On? Geoghegan's best work written almost 25 years ago. A lot of that has to do with tone. The tone in Which Side Are You On? is dispirited. The tone in Only One Thing Can Save Us is almost completely defeated. There are of course glimmers of hope embedded in this new volume, but the author's grim outlook on the future - and he is someone who possesses much insight in this particular field - brings the whole thing down. Despite all this I am still very glad that this book exists. There are important ideas here. We should listen.
December 31, 2014
This is one of those books that really altered my perspective--it's good to find at least one book like that a year. I highly recommend. It is easy to read and really gives you a good grasp of the history and economics behind his argument.
January 30, 2016
This is a pro-union book. I found its depictions of the Chicago Teachers Union interesting and I like the idea of changing the rules so unions could go into places and unionize workers who want to join without requiring a majority vote so everyone is represented.
May 10, 2015
Great book
Georgetown shows how revived and transformed labor movement is vital for America's future economy, democracy, and for a decent society. Solidarity forever!
Georgetown shows how revived and transformed labor movement is vital for America's future economy, democracy, and for a decent society. Solidarity forever!
Read
August 28, 2015331.88097 G3451 2014
July 22, 2017
Posting my notes here. Sorry for the casual formatting. I wrote these for some friends.
He is skeptical of old labor in America. They're fairly unaccountable, and they have little incentive to appeal to their members. He cites the union representing IRS workers as a counter example. The union is pervasive and the vast majority of members pay their dues voluntarily, even though federal law prevents the group from ever striking or negotiating their pay as a group. The union is incredibly limited but it finds ways to appeal to workers regardless.
He claims that nurses and teachers are the best hope for future labor organizing. They're care professions, meaning that these workers tend to be more concerned for others. Nurses have an emotional stake in their patients. If their ability to heal people is limited by financial constraints through the hospital, the nurses will experience this pain viscerally. Alongside that, they're generally educated. A lot of them are immigrants from countries where people are more politically attuned. The general public is more sympathetic to them than to factory workers, or whathaveyou. Besides, healthcare is a rapidly expanding industry, which makes it easier for workers to win concessions.
He argues that labor should be looking to align its interests more closely with capital. Workers can organize in ways that increase productivity for the firm (through skill sharing with other workers, and through better communication with management). If workers can be allowed to represent themselves within the company, that further their longterm interests. They'll have more say in what work they do, and more power to fight for concessions. He cites Germany as an example. Workers councils are much more common there, and it's because industry views them as helpful organizationally (even though they take some managerial power away from the top of the company). While about 35% of Americans have college degrees, that number is 18% in Germany. The two countries are similarly productive (I think). The Germans make it work through vocational training on job. Their skills come from other workers. It's more practical, and less expensive than our system. The author spends a chapter criticizing democrats for treating education as a panacea for our labor problems. He claims that college attendance rates will increase when the wage premium for having those degrees increases (salaries have become notoriously unhinged from productivity growth). Tho, lol, I think that's too rational. I think a lot of college attendance comes from the desire for class / status / debauchery lol.
As a labor lawyer he says, "rights are expensive". Which seems about right. He suggests that labor needs to be asserted as a civil right. That would allow for labor litigation to pay for itself. Civil rights suits are funded by employers, even if they're found to be innocent. Alongside that, these suits would allow disposition powers to employees sufficient to harass the employers into settlements (he doesn't use such harsh language). It would also encourage employers to be less openly hostile toward collectivization efforts (since that shit would come up in dispositions). Also, these suits would be conducted by individuals, which would put them under the political radar rofl. These rights would be more politically durable if they're low profile to congress + the public.
He says that charter schools in Chicago were used for racist purposes + that charter schools are basically a way to destroy teachers unions.
Since Right to Work is so close to being passed on a federal level, he suggests that labor embrace it. Unions are currently obligated to represent all workers within the workplace without being able to collect dues from them all (in RTW areas). Non-union folx are resentful for being forced to pay dues, which is a major political liability. Union folx are resentful of paying to protect freeloaders. So the author suggests that RTW be offered up as a bargaining chip for some other gain, specifically treating labor as a civil right (I think he made another suggestion too). He thinks that labor should stop trying to represent everyone, and that it should stop collecting dues from everyone. Instead, it should focus its efforts only on the people who already support it within industry. Representation only for due payers would incentivize people to join. Unions would have to work harder to appeal to workers. Unions would revert to smaller, though hopefully still hegemonic players. They would represent more militant, focused groups of people. This is already the model for labor in good old Europe. America is the only country to have laws obligating all workers to pay unions. This law is extremely strange when you consider how weak unions are in America.
+++If we imagine today as similar to the conditions of 1912, (a century before the book's publication) then we could imagine ourselves as only twenty years away from the next New Deal.
He is skeptical of old labor in America. They're fairly unaccountable, and they have little incentive to appeal to their members. He cites the union representing IRS workers as a counter example. The union is pervasive and the vast majority of members pay their dues voluntarily, even though federal law prevents the group from ever striking or negotiating their pay as a group. The union is incredibly limited but it finds ways to appeal to workers regardless.
He claims that nurses and teachers are the best hope for future labor organizing. They're care professions, meaning that these workers tend to be more concerned for others. Nurses have an emotional stake in their patients. If their ability to heal people is limited by financial constraints through the hospital, the nurses will experience this pain viscerally. Alongside that, they're generally educated. A lot of them are immigrants from countries where people are more politically attuned. The general public is more sympathetic to them than to factory workers, or whathaveyou. Besides, healthcare is a rapidly expanding industry, which makes it easier for workers to win concessions.
He argues that labor should be looking to align its interests more closely with capital. Workers can organize in ways that increase productivity for the firm (through skill sharing with other workers, and through better communication with management). If workers can be allowed to represent themselves within the company, that further their longterm interests. They'll have more say in what work they do, and more power to fight for concessions. He cites Germany as an example. Workers councils are much more common there, and it's because industry views them as helpful organizationally (even though they take some managerial power away from the top of the company). While about 35% of Americans have college degrees, that number is 18% in Germany. The two countries are similarly productive (I think). The Germans make it work through vocational training on job. Their skills come from other workers. It's more practical, and less expensive than our system. The author spends a chapter criticizing democrats for treating education as a panacea for our labor problems. He claims that college attendance rates will increase when the wage premium for having those degrees increases (salaries have become notoriously unhinged from productivity growth). Tho, lol, I think that's too rational. I think a lot of college attendance comes from the desire for class / status / debauchery lol.
As a labor lawyer he says, "rights are expensive". Which seems about right. He suggests that labor needs to be asserted as a civil right. That would allow for labor litigation to pay for itself. Civil rights suits are funded by employers, even if they're found to be innocent. Alongside that, these suits would allow disposition powers to employees sufficient to harass the employers into settlements (he doesn't use such harsh language). It would also encourage employers to be less openly hostile toward collectivization efforts (since that shit would come up in dispositions). Also, these suits would be conducted by individuals, which would put them under the political radar rofl. These rights would be more politically durable if they're low profile to congress + the public.
He says that charter schools in Chicago were used for racist purposes + that charter schools are basically a way to destroy teachers unions.
Since Right to Work is so close to being passed on a federal level, he suggests that labor embrace it. Unions are currently obligated to represent all workers within the workplace without being able to collect dues from them all (in RTW areas). Non-union folx are resentful for being forced to pay dues, which is a major political liability. Union folx are resentful of paying to protect freeloaders. So the author suggests that RTW be offered up as a bargaining chip for some other gain, specifically treating labor as a civil right (I think he made another suggestion too). He thinks that labor should stop trying to represent everyone, and that it should stop collecting dues from everyone. Instead, it should focus its efforts only on the people who already support it within industry. Representation only for due payers would incentivize people to join. Unions would have to work harder to appeal to workers. Unions would revert to smaller, though hopefully still hegemonic players. They would represent more militant, focused groups of people. This is already the model for labor in good old Europe. America is the only country to have laws obligating all workers to pay unions. This law is extremely strange when you consider how weak unions are in America.
+++If we imagine today as similar to the conditions of 1912, (a century before the book's publication) then we could imagine ourselves as only twenty years away from the next New Deal.
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
Displaying 1 - 15 of 15 reviews