Do unions matter? An examination of the historical and contemporary role of labor unions in the social work profession.

Rosenberg, Jessica ; Rosenberg, Samuel

The labor movement in the United States is in a state of crisis. Union membership continues to drop. The union membership rate has steadily declined from a high of 20.1 percent in 1983 (the first year for which comparable union data are available) to 12.5 percent in 2005 (Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2006). Labor scholars are in general agreement that gradual trends in the economy and the world of work, the global context of industry and the practice of outsourcing jobs to non-union workers and other countries, the decline of manufacturing, and growing political and ideological opposition to unions all contribute to diminished union membership (Aronowitz, 2005). In light of the overall decline in union membership, labor leaders are challenged to consider new models for labor organizations (Bai, 2005). In this context, the unionization of professionals, a historically neglected target for union membership, has become an area of increasing importance (Bronfenbrenner, Freidman, Hurd, Oswald, & Seeber, 1998). Unions can no longer afford to ignore professionals in organizing strategies and need to understand what professionals want from their union (Rosenberg, 2003).

The unionization of the social work profession appears more robust than many other occupations; membership is estimated at 125,000, representing approximately 25 percent of 468,000 social workers in the labor force (Barth, 2003; Tambor, 1995). The accuracy of this statistic is debatable because it is derived from population surveys that lack a precise definition of "social worker." Nonetheless, the fact that many social workers are employed in the public sector, where workers are unionized at a rate more than four times that of private-sector employees, explains the relatively high number of unionized social workers. However, social worker representation in unions cannot be taken for granted, particularly as union membership in the public sector is dropping as well (Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2006). The extent to which unions can play a protective function for the social work profession, in light of contemporary constraints on social services resulting from funding restrictions and managed care policy, merits serious consideration. The question is twofold: (1) Do unions matter to social workers? (2) Can unions represent the interests of professional social workers? This article examines these questions in a historical context and provides an analysis of contemporary attitudes among social workers toward unions. Insights about social workers' current attitudes toward unions are informed through a critical analysis of a recent research study that examined attitudes toward unions among social work union members (Rosenberg, 2003).

REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE: THE HISTORICAL CONTEXT

The contemporary stance of social work to labor unions can best be understood in a larger historical context that reveals ambivalence, with alternating periods of cooperation and conflict.

In the late 1880s, the settlement house movement ushered in a new era of social reform. The settlement house movement sought to alleviate distress by addressing underlying social ills: poverty, unemployment, and economic inequality. The settlement house movement advocated for policy initiatives to protect working women and orphans and to improve working conditions for wage workers (Ehrenreich, 1985; Karger, 1988; Trattner, 1999; Wagner, 1990). In this context of egalitarianism, an alliance with organized labor was formed. During the 1890s, Jane Addams and Lillian Wald were instrumental in the development of the National Women's Trade Union League. Hull House provided support for female workers by assisting in organizing workers into unions and by providing supplies and funds during strikes. These efforts helped create the Amalgamated Clothing Workers of America (Axinn & Stern, 2001; Kolko-Phillips & Straussner, 1988; Reisch & Andrews, 2001). Hull House workers, including "Fighting Mary" McDowell, assisted in the organization of three unions: (1) the Women's Shirt Makers, (2) the Dorcas Federal Labor Union, and (3) the Chicago Women's Trade Union League (Reisch & Andrews).

Internal divisions within the social work profession were notable during this early period and developed out of a split between an activist perspective, rooted in the settlement house movement, and the rise of casework, rooted in the charity organization movement.

The spirit and direction of the charity organization movement differed significantly from the settlement house movement. Whereas the settlement house movement was a vehicle for social change, the charity organization movement emphasized individual growth and distinguished between "worthy" and "unworthy" poor people. In this context, reform efforts centered on "friendly visitors" to poor families who ministered to the individual's moral and material needs. The charity organization movement did not have a relationship with labor unions, although many charity workers supported improved working conditions (Blau & Abramovitz, 2004; Ehrenreich, 1985; Trattner, 1999).

The cooperation during the late 19th and early 20th century between the settlement house movement and unions occurred in a larger social context that promoted social welfare and reform. This period, called the Progressive Era, constituted a shift in U.S. ideology, which, spurred by the increasing dissatisfaction of poor people, was a response to a growing class conflict that threatened urban America. Government reforms were enacted as the dominant classes, increasingly fearful of the chaos of urban America, realized that poverty had to be addressed if a capitalist, industrial United States was to survive (Ehrenreich, 1985). During the Progressive Era, many government reforms were enacted with the intent to improve the lives of U.S. workers. These reforms included the establishment of an eight-hour day, minimum-wage legislation, and curtailment of child labor (Karger & Stoesz, 2002; Kolko, 1977).

The affinity between the settlement house movement and unions that flourished during the Progressive Era did not last long. In the period after World War I, the settlement house movement declined in influence. Following Flexner's infamous attack on the legitimacy of social work as a profession at the National Conference of Charities and Corrections in 1915, the social work profession sought to defend itself by consolidating a professional identity. In this context, the profession, in large measure, distanced itself from politics and sought to lay claim to a scientific body of knowledge that would inform professional social work. The publication of Social Diagnosis in 1917 by Mary Richmond, a leader of the charity organization movement, was widely embraced by the social work profession. Social casework rather than social reform became the order of the day (Blau & Abramovitz, 2004; Trattner, 1999). The supportive relationship between social workers and trade unions became strained as social workers shifted their attention from socioeconomic concerns to social casework (Kolko-Phillips & Straussner, 1988).

The social and economic crisis of the Great Depression significantly influenced the social work labor market, laying the groundwork for the unionization of the profession. The expansion of social programs under the New Deal, including the passage of the Social Security Act of 1935 (Trattner, 1999), created thousands of new social work positions. As an occupation, social work became an option for people from diverse socioeconomic backgrounds. Compared with MSWs, these new public-sector employees, many of whom were untrained and lacked professional credentials, were more likely to come from working-class backgrounds and were more likely to evidence concerns about wages and working conditions. These young and untrained social work recruits were often at odds with their professionally trained caseworker counterparts, many of whom were employed in private agencies. In this context defined by the rapid growth of social services and conflicting perspectives about the proper purview of social work, a new era of social work unionism emerged, propelled by a new breed of social worker: untrained, with limited professional credentials, pro-labor, and at odds with the old guard who were viewed as pro-administration (Ehrenreich, 1985; Walkowitz, 1999).

The earliest attempt to organize social workers occurred in Chicago in 1933 when a group of public welfare workers banded together and formed the Social Service Workers Union. The union addressed issues such as low salaries, inadequate vacation and sick time, long hours, and uncompensated overtime. Professional issues such as inadequate training and lack of supervision were included as union concerns (Axinn & Stern, 2001; Karger, 1988; Reisch & Andrews, 2001; Walkowitz, 1999).

In 1934, at the National Conference of Social Work, Mary van Kleeck, a director of the Department of Industrial Studies at the Russell Sage Foundation, delivered an impassioned speech calling for an alliance between social workers and organized labor to combat rising unemployment and exploitation in the workplace (Reisch & Andrews, 2001; van Kleeck, 1934). Van Kleeck's paper engendered a strong response that helped to mobilize the rank-and-file movement of social workers, who unionized themselves and fought for both better working conditions and improved services for their clients. The rank-and-file social workers, affiliated with Bertha Reynolds and van Kleeck, published a journal titled Social Work Today, which focused on issues of social work practice, labor concerns, and social reforms.

During the 1930s, the social work profession struggled to establish itself as a legitimate discipline (Reisch & Andrews, 2001; Trattner, 1999). The embracing of Freudian ideas and the role of individual as opposed to community strategies challenged practitioners who struggled to find a position that would accommodate the seemingly disparate positions of Mary Richmond and Bertha Capen Reynolds.

The passage of the National Labor Relations Act and its subsequent validation by the Supreme Court in 1937 legitimized the role of organized labor as an accepted and legal method to promote job security and economic objectives when negotiating with employers. The act (also known as the Wagner Act) called for the creation of the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), established the right of workers to organize, and required employers to accept collective bargaining as a ruling principle in industry (NLRB, 2006).

The alliance of social work and labor during the 1930s, however, did not last long. Although social workers were employed in labor unions during World War II and provided direct services to union members, as exemplified by Bertha Reynolds and her work with the National Maritime Association (Kolko-Phillips & Straussner, 1988), anti-union bias fueled by the Cold War led to the dismantling of social work unions. By 1947 the Taft--Hartley Act was passed, prohibiting secondary boycott, and gave the president the power to secure an injunction to postpone any strike that might affect national security for 80 days (Ehrenreich, 1985; Karger, 1988). In addition, union activists were portrayed in print media as seditious, and the act called for officers of unions to file affidavits that they were not members of the Communist Party (Ehrenreich; Karger; Reisch & Andrews, 2001).

During the turbulent years of the 1960s, parallel concerns developed within the social work profession: the drive for professional status and the drive for social reform. This decade was characterized by social unrest that affected the social work profession, resulting in its greater involvement in social change as the civil rights and antiwar movement politicized the country. On the social policy level, there was a growing emphasis on social problems such as poverty and racism (Piven & Cloward, 1993; Tambor, 1995).

The War on Poverty programs opened up social work practice areas related to social action and activist community organizing, particularly through program provisions requiring the maximum feasible participation of communities (Trattner, 1999). Community organizing emerged as a core social work method along with the more established clinical approaches. Within this context, a new wave of unionism emerged. During the mid-1960s, public welfare workers (both MSWs and paraprofessionals) joined unions. Several welfare workers, distrustful of the bureaucracy and goals of organized labor, formed their own national union, the National Federation of Social Service Employees. In New York, the Social Service Employees Union went on strike in 1964 to demand improved working conditions, better training, and better quality of service to clients. Other unions, such as the Independent Union of Public Aid Employees in Chicago and the Welfare Employees Union in Detroit, fought similar battles. A high degree of rank-and-file participation, an industrial organizational model that cut across job titles, and a commitment to social reform characterized these unions (Tambor, 1995; Walkowitz, 1999).

The War on Poverty programs introduced into the social work field individuals who were deemed capable of practicing social work by virtue of their life experience. The new social workers came largely from ethnic minority populations and lacked for-real social work education. These new local, state, and federal employees were union oriented; unions did not, to them, conjure up images of professional conflict held by the established members of the profession (Walkowitz, 1999). By the end of the 1960s and the beginning of the 1970s, social workers were more ethnically diverse and from more disparate socioeconomic backgrounds than in earlier periods, and for tens of thousands of social workers, unions had become an accepted means to protect their economic and professional concerns and safeguard clients' interests (Ehrenreich, 1985; Reisch & Andrews, 2001; Walkowitz).

THE CONTEMPORARY CONTEXT OF SOCIAL WORK UNIONIZATION

According to the U.S. Department of Labor, in 2002 about 477,000 jobs were held by social workers. About one of three jobs was in state, county, or municipal or government agencies; public employees are frequently union members. Social worker union members are most likely to belong to the American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees (AFSCME) and the Social Services Employees International Union (Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2006).

One recent study of 360 social work union members explored the perceptions of social workers toward their union (Rosenberg, 2003). The study examined the sense of belonging to the union, the role of pro-union values, and the degree to which unions are viewed as effective in addressing employment-related concerns. The sample consisted of BSW- and MSW-level social workers, all of whom belonged to a large health care union representing private employees in New York City. The findings suggest that social worker union members have a strong ideological identification with organized labor; they view themselves as an important part of their union and feel a strong sense of belonging to their union. However, respondents were significantly less likely to view the union as able to improve their working conditions, particularly with respect to job security and wages, unions' traditional purview.

Social workers of color were found to be more supportive of unions than white social workers. Earlier research on race and union attitudes found that ethnic minority status is related to commitment to unions, a finding considered to be the result of workplace discrimination toward racial and ethnic minority groups, with unions being perceived as providing some measure of workplace protection (Barling, Fullagar, & Kelloway, 1992). With respect to level of education, findings suggested that level of education was significantly related to pro-union attitudes and a higher percentage of the BSWs supported unions than did the MSWs. This finding has significant implications with regard to the differences in density of unionization in the public and private sectors of social work practice. As previously stated, during the expansion of the programs ushered in by the War on Poverty, grassroots political pressure and mobilization instigated by the civil rights movement, the Welfare Rights Organization, and the general politicization of the anti-Vietnam War movement expanded the social work profession and employed community-based individuals not formally trained in social work. The principle of "maximum feasible participation" of those who were the actual consumers of social services opened the doors to a cohort of individuals who performed a portion of the traditional scope of MSW social workers. Two important consequences followed from this socio-historical process: First, new social services employees, because of their lack of formal education and certification, were professionally vulnerable, and consequently sought the protection of unions in a traditional instrumental fashion, such as collective bargaining, health benefits, and job security. In addition, the influx of individuals who originated from underserved communities allowed for a significant increase of people of color to the ranks of the public social services sector, the sector with the highest unionization density. Thus, the finding that African Americans and BSWs express strong support for unions can be linked to the openings in the public sector created by the popular movements of the 1960s. Second, the influx of the aforementioned workers accelerated the career path of MSWs to move into clinical social work, as psychiatric social workers for the voluntary sector and as private practitioners. Concurrently, this process introduced racial and professional stratification, with non-MSW workers from diverse racial and ethnic backgrounds concentrated in the areas of concrete services while MSWs moved into administrative and clinical positions. Consequently, either as professionals or as managers, MSWs in the private sector found less compelling reasons for supporting unions (Ehrenreich, 1985; Walkowitz, 1999).

Age had a powerful effect on union attitudes, with older social workers much more likely than their younger counterparts to support unions. Men were more likely than women to be pro-union, a finding supported by earlier studies (Yates, 1998) that point to a union record that has historically excluded women and professionals, the major constituency of the social work profession.

Findings from this study suggest that although social worker union members evidence an ideological commitment to organized labor and strong ties to the union, they do not view unions as representing their concrete day-to-day workplace concerns. Thus, for social workers, traditional workplace concerns such as wages, benefits, job security, and working conditions, which typically dominate the collective bargaining agenda, may be less important than an ideological affinity between the goals of social work and organized labor.

PROFESSIONAL CONCERNS INFLUENCE ATTITUDES TOWARD UNIONS

Social workers' limited interest in the union's ability to influence their workplace can be understood in the context of research about differences in attitudes between white- and blue-collar workers.

One classic study examined how U.S. workers view labor unions (Kochan, 1979). Using data from the Quality of Employment Survey, a national survey conducted by the U.S. Department of Labor, Kochan found that job dissatisfaction is strongly correlated to support for unionization. White-collar workers, when dissatisfied with their jobs, are more likely to be unhappy with the nature of their work compared with concrete concerns, such as salary, benefits, and pension plans. Kochan found that although job dissatisfaction may be a precondition of joining a union, not all workers who are dissatisfied with their work support unionization as a vehicle for improving their situation.

This finding suggests that white-collar workers unionize to achieve greater participation in the workplace, whereas blue-collar workers unionize to defend themselves against their employers. The study examined workers' expectations of unions and found that although workers' primary priority for the union was concrete concerns (that is, wages, job security, and so forth), between 65 percent and 70 percent wanted their union to exert influence in quality-of-work issues. Social workers are likely to be more concerned about the quality of their work than their salary.

Another key to understanding social workers' limited interest in the ability of unions to influence wages can be found in Barth's (2003) study of the social work labor market. Barth, in examining the relatively low wages for social workers, concluded that one factor contributing to low wages is that social workers are drawn to the profession not for the money, but rather for altruistic ideals of helping others. NASW similarly identified social workers' strong sense of mission as a factor undermining its remuneration as well as its public perception, noting that because social workers are often drawn to the profession out of a sense of mission rather than for high pay, employers do not raise wages (NASW, 2004).

UNIONS AND OTHER HELPING PROFESSIONS

There are numerous examples of the ways in which collective-bargaining contracts have been used by a wide range of professional groups. Teachers often frame union issues within the context of improving public education. The American Federation of Teachers (AFT) identifies a central function of its union as improving teacher preparation and professional development (AFT, 2005). Nurses have used unions to address work issues such as wages and benefits, caseload size, and health care policy (Benn-Rohloff, 1997; Harris, 1996; Nguyen, 1997). Some of the reasons for nurses' involvement in unions are job dissatisfaction, frustration with limited career growth, and substandard working conditions (Brenda, 1997). In addition, changes in the health care field brought about by managed care, including changes in staffing ratios and an increased reliance on unlicensed personnel to carry out traditional nursing functions, have prompted greater involvement in labor unions as a means of withstanding these threats to the nursing profession (Harris). The professional association for nurses, the American Nurses Association, supports unionism, arguing that it is "professional and beneficial for nurses to use the collective bargaining process to reach personal and professional goals" (Scott, 1993).

Physicians are increasingly turning to unions because of their growing frustration with managed care, which has resulted in a decline in their decision-making authority and lower reimbursement rates (Greenhouse, 1999). In 1999 the Doctors Council, a New York--based union, merged with Services Employees International Union (SEIU), the largest health care union in the United States. With this merger, SEIU represents 15,000 physicians nationwide (Greenhouse).

A study of 641 U.S. physicians conducted by AFSCME favored legislation allowing them to join collective-bargaining organizations. The study found that doctors blamed health maintenance organizations, private insurance companies, and the government for the current state of health care. It also concluded that the biggest frustrations among doctors are insurers' authority over medical decisions, the volume of paperwork, and the amount of reimbursements (AFSCME, 2006).

The literature suggests that conflicts between professionalism and unionism are present in several professions, although social workers may be less likely to use unions as a vehicle for addressing professional concerns compared with other workers in the helping professions (Brenda, 1997; Karger, 1988). Stoesz (1997), observing that even under conditions in which benefits, services, and opportunities are denied to entire classes of clients, social workers rarely turn to collective bargaining, attributed such disinclination to a "belief in social work exceptionalism," that is, a belief in a special obligation of social workers to clients, which acts to prohibit collective bargaining.

DISCUSSION

In the analysis of the historical ambivalence between the social work profession and the more recent research of attitudes toward unions, two salient trends emerged:

1. Social workers, like other professionals, are likely to be concerned about the quality of their work and professional issues, such as services to clients and the ability to exercise decision making in their work (Rosenberg, 2003). As such, unions that seek to organize and represent social workers need to move beyond concrete issues to a broader focus on professionalism, such as safeguarding and improving client services. Unions that represent social workers would be well advised to examine how unions representing teachers successfully frame negotiations in the context of maintaining educational standards in the classroom. For example, the AFT hosts a biennial conference on quality educational standards in teaching that is a forum for learning, debate, and discussion among AFT members, leaders, and the entire education community (AFT, 2005). In positioning itself in a leadership position on quality-of-work issues, the AFT becomes an effective voice for the professional concerns of its membership and can garner public support. Unions representing social workers most effectively engage social workers when they focus on preserving and improving client services. Doctors, threatened by managed care companies making medical decisions, turned to unions to protect their professional authority. Unions representing social workers need to understand that social workers are equally interested in professional decision making. Accordingly, unions can advocate for social workers' ability to exercise their professional judgment, particularly in a climate where "best practices" and managed care standardize treatment, and to assert authority over traditionally professional areas of decision making. For social workers, these issues may be more compelling than union discussions dominated by instrumental concerns.

2. Social workers have historically been most involved with unions in the context of a larger social agenda that expanded beyond a narrow focus on their own working conditions to include social justice, civil rights, and the concerns of the poor population. The social reforms of the settlement house movement, the political rank-and-file social workers, and the civil rights agenda of the 1960s provided a social and political context that promoted partnerships between social work and labor. Historical evidence suggests that when social work's historic social reform mission dovetails with a progressive labor agenda, the potential for collaboration is enhanced.

We are at a historical moment of great significance. The current threat to social programs is unprecedented. Social security, considered the cornerstone of social welfare institutions, may be dismantled. Proposals to restructure Medicaid, if enacted, may have a devastating effect on social services provisions and on society at large.

The social work profession needs a political ally if it is to be successful in advancing the historical vision of the profession and the protection of the social programs currently threatened. Labor needs an inclusionary democratic approach that will attract professional partners as well as maintain its credibility. The stage is set for coalition building. Recent examples of a successful partnership between labor and social work at the state level is the NASW/1199-SEIU Alliance, which was instrumental in achieving passage of the social work licensing law in 2004 (National Association of Social Workers, NYC Chapter, 2006. As a beginning point of opening a dialogue, this model of mutuality could be examined and perhaps expanded at the national level. It is clear, however, that much work needs to be done if unions are to matter to social workers in the 21st century.

Original manuscript received July 27, 2004 Final revision received September 13, 2005 Accepted January 19, 2006

REFERENCES

American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees. (2006, July). AFSCME doctors survey. Retrieved July 23, 2006, from http://www.afscme.org/join/snellmd.htm

American Federation of Teachers. (2005, February). Teachers. Retrieved February 25, 2005, from http:// www.aft.org/teachers/index.htm

Aronowitz, S. (2005). On the future of American labor. Working USA, 8, 271-292.

Axinn, J., & Stern, M.J. (2001). Social welfare: A history of the American response to need (5th ed.). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

Bai, M. (2005, January 30). The new boss. New York Times Magazine, pp. 39-45, 62-3.

Barling, J., Fullagar, C., & Kelloway, E. K. (1992). The union and its members: A psychological approach. New York: Oxford University Press.

Barth, M. C. (2003). Social work labor market: A first look. Social Work, 48, 9-19.

Benn-Rohloff, N. (1997). Strikes--An appropriate action for health care employees? A personal perspective. Nursing Ethics, 4, 339-342.

Blau, J., & Abramovitz, A. (2004). The dynamics of social welfare policy. New York: Oxford University Press.

Brenda, K. L. (1997). Professional nurses in unions: Working together pays off. Journal of Professional Nursing, 13(2), 99-109.

Bronfenbrenner, K., Freidman, S., Hurd, R. W., Oswald, R.A., & Seeber, R. L. (Eds.). (1998). Organizing to win: New research on union strategies. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.

Bureau of Labor Statistics. (2006, July). Union members summary. Retrieved July 22, 2006, from http://www.bls.gov/news.release/union2.nr0.htm

Ehrenreich, J. H. (1985). The altruistic imagination : A history of social work in the United States. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.

Greenhouse, S. (1999, February 4). Doctors group merges with larger union. New York Times, pp. A1, B8.

Harris, S. (1996). The union movement: Legislative and regulatory issues in California. Seminars for Nurse Managers, 4(1), 78-82.

Karger, H. J. (1988). Social workers and labor unions. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press.

Karger, H.J., & Stoesz, D. (2002). American social welfare policy: A pluralist approach (4th ed.). New York: Longman.

Kochan, T. A. (1979). How American workers view labor unions. Monthly Labor Review, 102(4), 23-31.

Kolko, G. (1977). The triumph of conservatism: A reinterpretation of American history, 1900-1916. New York: Free Press.

Kolko-Phillips, N., & Straussner, L.A. (1988). The relationship between social work and labor unions: A history of strife and cooperation. Journal of Sociology and Social Welfare, 15, 105-118.

National Association of Social Workers. (2004, July). Social work public education campaign: Changing the perceptions, improving the profession. Retrieved July 20, 2004, from https://socialworkers.org/homepage/

National Association of Social Workers, NYC Chapter. (2006, July). Social work license becomes state law. Retrieved July 22, 2006, from http://naswnyc.org/ Licensing.htm

National Labor Relations Board. (2006, July). National Labor Relations Act. Retrieved July 22, 2006, from http://www.nlrb.gov/nlrb/shared_files/NLRA/TextoftheAct

Nguyen, B. Q. (1997). Long-awaited providence ruling upholds the right of charge nurses to bargain. American Nurse, 29(5), 1, 14.

Piven, F. F., & Cloward, R.A. (1993). Regulating the poor: The functions of public welfare (2nd ed.). New York: Vintage Books.

Reisch, M., & Andrews, J. (2001). The road not taken: A history of radical social work in the United States. New York: Brunner/Mazel.

Rosenberg, J. (2003). An investigation into social work and unions. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Yeshiva University, New York.

Scott, K. (1993). Reaching personal, professional goals through collective bargaining. American Nurse, 25(9), 11, 15.

Stoesz, D. (1997). The end of social work. In M. Reisch & E. Gambrill (Eds.), Social work in the 21st century (pp. 368-375). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Tambor, M. (1995). Unions. In R. L. Edwards (Ed.-in-Chief), Encyclopedia of social work (19th ed., Vol. 3, pp. 2418-2426). Washington, DC: NASW Press.

Trattner, W. I. (1999). From poor law to welfare state: A history of social policy in America (6th ed.) New York: Free Press.

van Kleeck, M. (1934). The common goals of labor and social work. In Proceedings of the National Conference of Social Work, 1934 (pp. 473-485). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Wagner, D. (1990). The quest for a radical profession: Social service careers and political ideology. Lanham, MD: University Press of America.

Walkowitz, D.J. (1999). Working with class: Social workers and the politics of middle-class identity. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press.

Yates, M. D. (1998). Why unions matter. New York: Monthly Review Press.

Jessica Rosenberg, PhD, LCSFV, is assistant professor of social work, Long Island University, #H831, 1 University Plaza, Brooklyn, NY 11201; e-mail: Jessica.Rosenberg@ liu.edu. Samuel Rosenberg, PhD, LCSW, is professor, Social Work Program, Ramapo College of New Jersey, Mahwah.