Mainstream Labor's Finest Hour or Last Gasp of Business Unionism?
A massive grocery store strike is under way in southern California. To date, about 85,000 workers are off the job and millions of consumers have had to change their shopping destinations. The walkout, the largest of the 21st century (so far), has garnered above average media attention and spawned two Jesse-Jackson-for-hire rallies. Labor and business leaders speculate that the stage is set for similar strikes throughout California.
For the workers, the strike is about holding on to what they have. For the behemoth grocery chains, it's about even greater profitability.
The behemoths Ralph's (Kroger Co.), Vons (Safeway Inc.) and Albertsons (American Stores) want to scale back workers' health care plans and ratchet down wages. The United Food and Commercial Workers Union, which represents the strikers, fears that this is only the thin edge of the wedge. If the three struck chains get their way, others will push similar demands as their contracts expire.
Within the labour movement, there is much anticipation about the outcome of the strike as the UFCW, retail's behemoth union, takes a hard position against some of the industry's largest employers for the first time in a long time. Some believe it's the beginning of the beginning of a new era of empowerment for service workers. Others believe it's the beginning of the end of a sad chapter in the history of North American unionism.
Will this strike turn back the tide on decades of concession bargaining, empower the workers and revitalize the union or will it be the demise of the UFCW and other business unions with toe holds in the service industry?
Certainly there are signs that the workers are united and committed to their fight. Almost a month into the strike, their resolve appears undiminished. They're in it for the long haul. But is their union? Is the mainstream labour movement?
In the initial three weeks of the strike meaningful support from the labor movement was subdued (to put it politely). No mention of the massive walkout could be found on the web site of the AFL-CIO until October 30th. No big name labor leaders were walking the picket lines or threatening to pull their members out on strike in support of the grocery workers.
Finally, three weeks into the strike, the AFL-CIO announced the creation of a special fund intended to help the striking workers cope with their financial burdens. The fund is welcome news for the strikers but what message will they take from the delay? Will other unions and labour organizations follow suit? Will they join with the strikers, will they encourage their own members to walk off the job. Their willingness to break away from the mainstream strategies and mainstream apathy when it comes to workers who belong to other unions may make or break this strike.
So might the UFCW leaders' strategic decisions. As the strike wears on, some of their calls leave us wondering if they truly understand the nature of workers' power and the vulnerabilities of the corporate bosses.
Last week, UFCW pickets at two Krogers' distribution centers (which had been honored by members of the Teamsters Union in a tremendous show of support for the strikers) were removed by UFCW leaders. A UFCW Vice President explained that the pickets were removed "to show its appreciation and to minimize the ongoing impact on Teamster members." The move was met with disappointment by at least some of the Teamster members who were more than willing to make a personal sacrifice for the striking UFCW members.
Over the weekend, the UFCW removed its pickets from all 250 Ralph's stores. Union officials said they wanted to give frustrated customers the option of shopping at one of the three chains in the dispute. The leaders also hope that the move will drive a wedge into the alliance between the three companies and encourage Ralph's to settle a contract quickly, thereby putting pressure on the two other companies.
There's an important factor that we hope the UFCW leaders have considered:
There is no such thing as solidarity among business leaders. Business leaders make business decisions and are driven by dollars. The leaders of the three supermarket chains are not acting "in solidarity"; they've taken a business decision that they hope will compel the union to agree to certain concessions which all of them want. They'll stick to their business plan as long as they think there is a reasonable probability that they can get the union to cave in. It's unlikely the leaders of the two struck chains will be angry at the leaders of Ralph's because it's no longer being picketed. They'll keep their eye on their plan and may be more optimistic about its eventual success because of what they are surely to perceive as a strategic blunder on the union's part. Business leaders understand the power of workers, possibly more than certain union leaders understand it. They understand the concept of solidarity - that's why they work so hard to discourage it.
Solidarity is a phenomenon that can and does occur among working people. We know this because it's happened in the past - under especially harsh conditions and it's worked for working people. Solidarity is not a business thing. It's a human thing. It's something that happens when people are drawn together by a goal that goes beyond dollars and cents - something that causes them to forego dollars and cents in the immediate future for a better deal down the road. It's about money yes, but it's also about things that can't be valued in dollars: Dignity, respect, security, and freedom from deprivation.
Certain factors encourage solidarity while others have a dampening effect. Workers standing together encourage each other to continue standing. Momentum builds and others - not directly involved in the dispute - are inspired to join in. Communities can be brought on board. Inconvenienced customers can become active supporters if they understand the common ground they share with the strikers.
Strikers watching other workers returning to work at struck establishment are less inclined to stand together. This is one of the major reasons for the vilification of "scabs". What's the point of bearing the load when others no longer need to? The load only becomes heavier. Worse still, the sense of unity and the power that comes from acting in concert with many others begins to dissipate. A successful outcome seems further away. Momentum is lost. People engage their power when they act together. That's solidarity. People are disempowered when they are moved around by their leaders like pawns in some bizarre chess match between the titans of retail and their (up until recently) union partners.
We hope that the UFCW leaders have a strategy for maintaining solidarity among their members now that several thousand of them are back at work. If the UFCW can't keep it together in southern California, its members will take the final plunge to the bottom of the barrel of wages and working conditions. The concessions will spread to other contracts too. There are several decades of examples to back up that theory. What will happen then?
The only bright light that we can see is that the workers, having had for even a brief moment a sense of solidarity, may shuck off the tired old mainstream labor movement with its armchair generals and evolve a movement of their own - one led by empowered workers who are not hamstrung by clued-out bureaucrats and CEO wannabe's.
We wish the strikers well. We hope their leaders get a clue.