The crisis of the American labor movement continues to deepen. As measured by union membership, political influence, or clout at the bargaining table, the movement has seldom, if ever, been weaker. The repeal of public sector workers’ bargaining rights in Wisconsin last year, and the blow dealt California teachers by a judge’s ruling in June, that teacher tenure was unconstitutional, forecast further decline.

In the Q &A following remarks made recently by Steve Early at a book store in Cambridge, Massachusetts about his new book How to Save our Unions, union activists raised an issue that reformers often acknowledge as a problem but seldom respond to adequately: the generation gap separating experienced labor leaders and long-time union activists from younger employees and newer union members. Given the monumental challenges facing labor organizations, the intergenerational dynamics of their memberships might appear minor. Yet, the very survival of unions depends on the recruitment and retention of new and younger workers, many of whom see unions as outdated and irrelevant to their lives. For those new recruits to the movement, the links between the matters on their minds and the concerns of older veterans in the movement isn’t always evident.

The issue of a generation-gap was apparent in comments by one speaker frustrated with younger members’ disinterest in union-negotiated health-care and retirement plans, perceived by them to be of more immediate interest to older workers; a second commenter sought advice on how to bridge the gap between the traditional union agenda, and concerns felt strongly by young people—like those surrounding the environment.

Responses to the comments generally acknowledged the difficulties presented union leaders by generational differences, but the hint of a finger-shaking tone—the youngsters don’t appreciate what it takes to win and keep the benefits we have—also indicated a need for new ways to think and talk about the issues forming the generational fault line.

The “mine” versus “thine” distinction in the health and retirement issues, for example, can be dissolved best, not by pointing out to younger workers that they, too, will someday need those benefits—“someday” can seem far off to them—but by showing them that security for their elders is security for themselves—now. Union members of any age can understand that the economic burden of medical care, long-term disability, or nursing home expense could easily bankrupt their own middle-income-earning family, forcing them to abandon college educations or even their homes should the medical and retirement plans of their parents fail. Their own economic independence, in other words, is only as secure as that of their older family members.

Like me, many working Americans of middle-age and beyond, have had the experience of managing the finances of their parents and seen how the fragility of their security was mine as well. Having been there and done that (too), we can create the anecdotes of “lessons learned” in order to break down the illusory dichotomy presented by “mine” or “thine” thinking.

In the same way that a rethinking of our sense of “we” can reduce the perceptions of difference that divide older and younger union members, so too can the issues themselves be rethought to reduce the perception that they are less inclusive than they really are. Environmentalism is a case in point.

It is common to hear opposition to the Keystone pipeline counterpoised to the need for jobs: the environmentalists opposed to pipeline are said to be insensitive to the need for jobs that would be created by its construction, the jobs for refinery workers near port cities, and the industrial growth and economic expansion that would follow the flow of cheap energy through the pipe.

But the environment vs. jobs issue is another false dichotomy. Almost everyone agrees that the construction jobs would be temporary and the refined oil will be shipped abroad, leaving very little to be gained from Keystone in the way of jobs.

And there is more. Cheap energy, wherever it is burned, powers the machinery that replaces labor; cheap energy means more mechanization and automation and fewer jobs; cheap energy lowers transportation costs making more feasible the outsourcing of labor-intensive production (or what’s left of it) from the U.S. to low-wage countries.

In short, the environmental issues that appear at first glance to set younger members apart from their elders in the movement, can actually be used by union leaders to bridge the generation gap. Labor unions, in fact, should be at the forefront of opposition to increased drilling, fracking, and pipelining of dirty crude oil for reasons of self-interest—the survival of the very jobs their members depend on.

Creatively rethought, the issues that seem to be “dividers” of union solidarity can turn out to be “uniters.” Just as importantly, that rethinking can also realign the movement with other civic organizations for coalition work leading to social and political reforms of benefit to the American majority.

Jerry Lembcke is Associate Professor of Sociology Emeritus at Holy Cross College in Worcester, MA. He can be reached at jlembcke@holycross.edu. With Bill Tattam, he is the co-author of One Union in Wood: A Political History.

---