The shifting landscape of American trade policy has unions taking surprising positions. With tariffs once again at the forefront of political debate, labor organizations find themselves aligned with policies that economic experts warn could potentially harm the very workers they represent.
Having covered labor politics for nearly two decades, I’ve watched this paradox unfold in real time. Just last month at a United Steelworkers rally in Pittsburgh, I heard Tony Williams, a third-generation steel worker, declare: “We need protection from cheap foreign imports, even if prices go up temporarily.” This sentiment echoes across industrial America despite economists’ warnings about consumer costs.
The AFL-CIO, representing over 12.5 million workers across 57 unions, has repeatedly endorsed tariff proposals. Their official policy statement contends that “strategic tariffs can level the playing field for American workers facing unfair global competition.” What’s remarkable is how this position has remained consistent regardless of which political party promotes the tariffs.
The United Auto Workers recently published an economic impact study claiming that steel tariffs would preserve approximately 40,000 manufacturing jobs in states like Michigan, Ohio, and Pennsylvania. However, a Peterson Institute for International Economics analysis estimates that for each job saved through tariffs, consumers pay an additional $900,000 through higher prices across the economy. These contradictory narratives highlight the complex reality behind trade policy debates.
“Tariffs represent a complicated trade-off for labor,” explains Dr. Eleanor Robbins, labor economist at Georgetown University. “They can protect specific industries but often at significant costs dispersed across the entire economy.” This assessment mirrors what I’ve observed covering manufacturing communities across the Rust Belt since 2005.
Trade policies impact different segments of the labor movement in vastly different ways. Construction unions, for instance, have expressed concerns about how steel tariffs increase building costs and potentially reduce new projects. Meanwhile, industrial unions see them as essential protection against global competition.
When visiting union halls in Wisconsin last year, I noticed a fascinating generational divide. Younger union members appeared more skeptical of protectionist measures than their older counterparts who had witnessed the dramatic decline of manufacturing employment firsthand. This evolution reflects broader changes in how workers view economic security in the global economy.
The U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics reports that manufacturing employment declined from 17.3 million jobs in 2000 to approximately 12.8 million today. This dramatic shift occurred as international trade agreements expanded and technological changes transformed production processes. For communities built around factories and mills, these statistics represent profound economic and social disruption.
Trade policy creates unusual political alliances. According to a Pew Research Center survey conducted in early 2023, approximately 62% of union households now support some form of tariff protection, cutting across traditional political loyalties. This represents a significant shift from just a decade ago.
“We’re seeing the politics of trade completely realign,” notes Professor Samantha Chen from the University of Michigan’s Labor Studies Center. “Traditional party positions on free trade versus protectionism have essentially flipped, with labor unions navigating complicated territory as they determine which policies best serve their members.”
The tariff debate highlights a fundamental tension within economic policy: the difference between what benefits specific industries versus the broader economy. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office estimates that recent tariff proposals would increase consumer costs by approximately $45 billion annually while potentially saving between 150,000 to 300,000 manufacturing jobs.
Union leaders acknowledge these tradeoffs but argue that the social costs of deindustrialization justify protective measures. “When a factory closes, it’s not just jobs that disappear—entire communities collapse,” said Maria Fernandez, Communications Director for the United Steelworkers, during a press conference I attended in Cleveland last spring.
I’ve witnessed this community collapse firsthand. In Lordstown, Ohio, the closure of the GM assembly plant in 2019 didn’t just eliminate 1,500 jobs—it shuttered restaurants, reduced housing values, and forced families to relocate. The ripple effects transformed what had been a
