|
|
|
Victory to the P-9 strike! July 1986 | Pages 8 and 9 LAST MONTH, the UFCW revoked sanction of Local P-9's strike against the George A. Hormel Company in Austin, Minnesota, and stopped strike benefits. "the management of George A. Hormel and Co. should not gloat over our actions," writes the UFCW. But what else should they do? The International is trying to do what Hormel has been unable to do since August--break P-9. Ahmed Shawki and Alan Maass of Socialist Worker look at the issues involved, why P-9 deserves to be supported, and how the strike can be won. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - STRIKERS AT the George A. Hormel plant in Austin, Minnesota, face the most decisive test of their seven-month-long strike. Since August 17, 1985, the 1,500 members of Local P-9, United Food and Commercial Workers Union (UFCW) have braved the combined assault of a determined company, the National Guard, the courts, the press--and their own International union. The UFCW International is doing its best to see P-9 suffer a humiliating defeat. On March 14, UFCW President William Wynn informed the press that "the strike is over as of now," subsequently issuing a directive to P-9 and declaring the P-9 boycott of Hormel to be over. The UFCW revoked sanction of P-9's strike after P-9 narrowly approved a motion on March 12, by a reported 345 to 305, requesting that the local's executive board meet with the International and settle the differences that exist between them. The International apparently saw the vote as a weakness and calculated their directive would enjoy some support in Austin. Instead, on March 16, P-9 voted overwhelmingly to continue their strike and boycott against Hormel. The UFCW called for a meeting in Chicago on March 21 to try to bully P-9 into following their directive. But P-9's executive board refused to cave, and as Jim Guyette put it after the meeting: "They got disgusted with the meeting and got up and walked out. We asked for a chain meeting, as have other locals--Fremont and Ottumwa and others as well--but they will not agree to call a chain meeting. They insisted that their directive will stand. They also admitted their directive was released to the press before we got it. We asked them to fly their jet an extra 20 minutes to come to Austin or Minneapolis, but I guess that wasn't feasible for them, and instead, we had to get up at 1:00 in the morning and drive all night to come here--and have them get up and walk out." The local executive is now threatened with removal, and the International is contemplating placing P-9 under receivership. In effect, the International leaders have left the Hormel strikers to fight alone. They have also abandoned the 500 workers who have honored P-9 pickets at other Hormel plants. They, and only they, will be responsible if this strike is defeated, making it a hundred times more difficult for any other group workers to fight back against the bosses. Why has the International played this role in Austin? And what are the prospects for P-9's strike? - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - THE ISSUES which led to the strike at Hormel in Austin are straightforward enough. In October 1984, Hormel unilaterally imposed a 23 percent wage cut, bringing wages down from $10.69 to $8.25 an hour. Wages were later raised to $9.25 an hour, and since the strike, Hormel has raised them to $10. When the contract expired on August 17, 1985, the company was still demanding a wage concession. But as the Hormel strikers have said many times, the strike is not simply over 69 cents. The strikers are demanding improvements in working conditions--especially in safety, as the Austin plant's injury rate is six times higher than the industry average, with 202 injuries per 100 workers each year. P-9 is fighting contact provisions which would gut seniority and cut paid vacations and holidays. The UFCW International sanctioned the strike on August 17, but from the start has opposed any attempt to make the strike effective--and consistently urged P-9 to accept a substandard contract. The split with the UFCW leadership dates back to the opposition of Local P-9's newly elected leadership to the International's policy of accepting concessionary contracts. The split grew more bitter when P-9 decided to hire labor consultant Ray Rogers nine months before the contract expired. Rogers proposed a "corporate campaign," as he has done for other unions, that would pressure Hormel by pressuring a major stockholder--in this case, the First Bank system. The UFCW rejected P-9's attempt to resist concessions as unrealistic and rejected the corporate campaign, claiming that Rogers was an "outsider." Instead, they urged P-9 to follow their program--inaction in the face of a massive concessionary wave in the meatpacking industry. Clearly what irked them was the local's independence. P-9 went ahead with its plans, and launched a corporate campaign. They met with some success in reaching out to other unions, but with the opposition of the UFCW and the state AFL-CIO, the impact on First Bank was minimal. Moreover, the thrust of Corporate Campaign, Inc., Rogers' organization, is to see a strike as "the weapon of last resort," as one of its leaflets explains. The aim is to use workers' power as consumers. The tactic has proven ineffectual in a number of strikes, most notably at Brown and Sharpe Manufacturing in North Kingstown, R.I.--a strike which lasted four years and finally went down in defeat last fall. In Austin, however, the key to winning--the rank and file--had been mobilized and was active, holding mass meetings on a regular basis well before the strike deadline. This ensured a solid strike from its beginning. The International sanctioned the strike in August. Yet, now, for the first time in the UFCW history, according to Jim Guyette, strike sanction has been removed. Why? - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - THE UFCW justified its decision to end strike sanction and strike benefits to P-9 by saying that the strike has already been lost and that nothing could be gained by staying out. "It's time to abandon idealism for the realism of getting people back to work," says Allen Zack, director for publications and media for the UFCW. P-9, he went on to say, has "no program, no plan, no strategy of getting its members' jobs back." A lengthy report widely circulated by the International purports to show that it is P-9 which has broken ranks with other Hormel workers and is responsible for spreading misery to workers in the Hormel chain--referring to the 500 workers who honore P-9 picket lines. "The P-9 story is not one of "solidarity" in action. It is the converse of that honored union principle," says William Wynn. "Local P-9's workers refused to act in solidarity with other Hormel workers. Instead of acting together with other Hormel workers to accomplish the most for the greatest number of Hormel workers, Local P-9 leaders sought a better deal for Austin alone." "The UFCW," argues Wynn, "is unwilling to watch one of the best and most modern plants in the industry go nonunion because Local P-9's leadership is incapable of leading their strike." But these charges against P-9 are nothing but fabrications and misleading half-truths. As Jim Guyette wrote in January, answering the charge that P-9 has a "go-it-alone" strategy: "As you well know, from conversations held as recently as October, Local P-9 never withdrew from the Hormel chain negotiations. We were simply never invited by the International union. As our contract expired at a different date from those at some other plants, Hormel never sent our local a notice of contract termination. P-9's executive board sought to discover what rights we had to support the locals whose contracts were expiring, such as attempting to discover whether or not we have the right to strike prior to the expiration of our contact. We did not withdraw--rather, we were convinced by the International union to stand aside and let the other unions negotiate, and we were commended by the International and the locals for standing aside." Far from "going it alone," the International panicked precisely because P-9 sent out roving pickets in January. Moreover, the idea that P-9 has no strategy and no program is a complete travesty. At the very least P-9 is fighting concessions! They have also been seeking support from other workers, and the actions of other Hormel workers in support of P-9 are exemplary--and should be completely supported. The "program painstakingly developed by the UFCW," as Wynn puts it, amounts to complete surrender. They are directing P-9 to end their strike, having won nothing. Indeed, the UFCW is willing to write off P-9's jobs. "Our proposal," says Allen Zack, " does two things. One, it gives them preferential rights to a job. Number two, it also makes them eligible for unemployment compensation." A possible return to work on the company's term and eligibility for unemployment benefits if Hormel locks them out--this is what the UFCW has to offer. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - SO WHY are they so intent on calling off the strike? For starters, Wynn is feeling threatened by the revolt in his own ranks. Reform slates have been elected in several UFCW locals around the country--including at Morrell's Sioux Falls plant and the striking Oscar Mayer plant in Nashville. Under the impact of the Hormel strike, a Madison, Wis. UFCW local representing workers at Oscar Mayer replaced a majority of its executive board with a reform slate. Their first act was to muzzle the pro-International local president. By vote of the executive board, he cannot publicly criticize P-9. Obviously, this is a threat to Wynn's comfortable position--his social standing, his $160,000-a-year salary, and his perks as International president. Any local or rank-and-file organization which stands up to him threatens all of this. As Kevin Hatfield, a P-9 striker, put it, "They've sold too many meatpackers down the river, and if we win this thing, we'd make them really look bad." This contradiction stems from the very nature of trade unions under capitalism. The role of the trade union officials is to mediate between employers and workers. Their job is to negotiate--which is why they fear the independent activity of the rank and file. It threatens to disrupt their control and their carefully nurtured relations with the employers. Their interests are not bound up with any particular strike, concessions contract or plant closure--as their jobs are not threatened by any of these. Rather, their main concern is the strength of the dues base, and making sure that the money keeps flowing in. That's why the UFCW leaders would rather see the membership at work paying dues than out on strike receiving strike benefits. And that's why the UFCW can, on the one hand, sell its members out in Austin, and yet be the fastest growing union in the U.S. last year. That's why Lane Kirkland of the AFL-CIO stands behind William Wynn against the P-9 strikers. That's why it's no coincidence that Hormel believes that some of its best allies are in the International. The company's vice president, Chuck Nyberg, advised a Los Angeles Times reporter last month to talk to the International UFCW. "They don't like this dissident local," he said. "Let me give you some names to call." And that's why socialists argue that it is imperative to organize the rank and file independently of the bureaucracy. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - P-9 FACES an uphill fight. But it has already weathered seven months of strike, remained solid in the face of a national guard occupation of Austin, and of the herding of scabs into the plant. Today, they are pledging to continue their strike despite the International's termination of strike benefits and strike sanction. And although Hormel claims it has filled all strikers' jobs, "Hormel is getting about 20 percent of production our of the plant. They're killing 3,000 hogs a day. But killing 3,000 hogs would take us about two and a half hours," says P-9'er Kevin Hatfield. But clearly, for the strike to be won, several factors are essential. First, solidarity with the Hormel strikers is an absolute precondition for success. And the April 12 rally can only be seen as the renewed beginning of active support for the P-9 strikers. Financial support is also imperative--and should be sent directly to P-9. Already P-9 claims that thousands of dollars that were sent to support them are being held by the UFCW's Region 13 office. Second, the Austin plant will have to be shut down if P-9 is to strengthen its leverage against Hormel. Of course, the court injunction limiting strike activities at the plant gate is a barrier, but anti-union laws are nothing new. They have always had to be fought against for the labor movement to push forward. Shutting down Hormel can be accomplished, by mobilizing mass pickets. Building towards those pickets is key to winning. Civil disobedience by groups at the plant gate takes a lot of courage--but they will not shut the plant down. Spreading these pickets to other Hormel plants, as P-9 did in January, must be part of the strategy--and will be the best guarantee of winning the 500 fired Hormel workers their jobs back.
|