authored by Members for Democracy
published Sat, Jun 15, 2002

The Cult of Mainstream Labour

Most of us would be horrified if we learned that someone close to us had joined a cult. Cults have a harmful and destructive effect on people. Cults require complete submission by the individual to the beliefs, norms and practices of the group. There is no freedom of expression or independent thought in a cult. Loyalty and submission to the group's leader are essential as is dedication to the cult's mission (typically the leader's own self-serving agenda), through financial contributions and the recruitment of new members. Cult members' behaviour is governed by rigid codes of conduct. Those who do not conform are punished or banished or both. Once you're in, getting out is difficult. Cults play games with people's heads by taking away their ability to think independently and reason their way to courses of action that are right for them as individuals. Research about cults indicates that they appeal the most to people who are vulnerable - the lonely, those with low-esteem or a need to belong, those searching for a sense of identity.

There are many definitions of just what makes a "cult". Corporate Cults, author David Arnott discusses how certain businesses employ cult-like strategies to get more out of their workers. Arnott teaches management studies at a college in the southern US and so is hardly someone we would expect to be openly critical of large corporations. Nonetheless Arnott points to corporate giants like Nike, Wal-mart, Microsoft and Southwest Airlines as examples of companies that are highly culted.

Businesses become culted, Arnott tells us, when they create a workplace environment where workers are compelled to put the company first: Workers are encouraged to think of the company as their family. Things must be done the "company way", workers are required to adhere to a strict code of conduct, devotion (sometimes called "commitment") to the company's mission is a condition of employment. Workers put in long hours, forego with their families, refrain from seeking out unions, tolerate deplorable working conditions and low pay and generally eat, sleep, and breath the company. The payoff for the corporation is enormous. Workers become culted when what they do comes to define who they are. According to Arnott;

"The only difference between religious cults and corporate cults I the direction of devotion. Religious cult leaders claim to direct followers devotion to God, when they actually direct it to themselves. Corporate cult leaders claim to direct devotion to conduct, when they actually direct it to the organization."

Corporate Cults have 3 main characteristics:

Charismatic leadership
Devotion of members to the organization
Separation of members from the community

Charismatic leadership:

Leaders of traditional cults use mind-control techniques to control their members and ensure a high degree of conformity. Arnott believes that leaders of culted corporations use these as well.

Submission to leadership. Cult leaders are strong, controlling, manipulative people who demand submission from members.
Polarized world-view. The group is good, everything else is bad.
Feeling over thought. Emotions, intuitions and mystical insights are promoted as more important than rational conclusions.
Manipulation of feelings. Techniques are designed to stimulate emotions, usually employing group dynamics to influence responses.
Denigration of critical thinking. This can go as far as characterizing any independent thought as selfish, and rational use of intellect as evil.
Fulfillment can be realized only in the group. This is reinforced in corporate cults by anecdotes of people who left the organization and failed.
The ends justify the means. Any action or behavior is justifiable as long as it furthers the group's goals.
Group over individual. The group's concerns supersede an individual's goals, needs, aspirations and concerns. Conformity is the key.
Severe sanctions for defection or criticism of the cult. This can even apply to negative or critical thoughts about the group or its leaders.
Severing ties with family , friends goals and interests. This is done more overtly in religious and traditional cults. It is accomplished more covertly in corporate cults.

Devotion:

Devotion to a cult means committing things to the organization that should be given to family and community. The company always comes first. Corporations sometimes call it commitment or loyalty. Devotion also means buying into a code of conduct that governs most if not all aspects of workers' behavior while at work and sometimes even outside of the workplace.

There is a belief that something greater than the individual exists: The corporation and its rules. The codes of behavior become sacrosanct. Corporate cult members gains identity from affiliation with the corporation, and thus rule-following enriches their lives and their identity. Without group identity, they would have no identity at all. They faithfully labor under the rules because that's where they find direction and meaning for their lives.

Devotion to people and causes can produce long-term satisfaction, resulting in great fulfillment. Devotion to organizations provides very short term satisfaction, resulting in severe disappointment.

Separation from community:

Highly culted organizations separate workers from traditional community relationships and replace them with work relationships, as the workplace becomes the only community the employee has. Examples of this range from frequent company social events at which attendance is mandatory (or at least highly encouraged) to on-site shopping, sports and other facilitates. Some of these are quite innocuous and many may be viewed as desirable. In the end, however, all serve the same purpose: To minimize the time workers spend interacting with people and organizations other than the company.

If you don't want to believe Arnott, here are a couple of other sources about the characteristics of cults.

www.ex-cult.org

Although many organizations have some degree of cultedness, some do not. How can we tell? Arnott draws what he believes to be a critical but simple distinction:

Unculted organizations are more practical in their operations. They allow individuals to figure out which means are best for achieving them, for both the group and the individuals.Unculted organizations apply consequentialist thinking, which is behavior that focuses on the outcome. Corporate cult leaders will argue that there is a proper form of conduct and that he has found it.

If workers are subject to cult-like control in many workplaces, surely their unions are helping educate union members about what is really going on. Not likely. From what we are seeing, some of our biz-unions and their umbrella orgs behave a lot like cults themselves.

Believe it!

In Canada, a single organization controls significant aspects of the lives of some 3,000,000 workers. This organization has no legal authority and yet makes decisions and formulates polices that influence - sometimes in very significant ways - the lives of millions of working people. This organization can decide which union will represent a group of workers. It prevents workers from changing unions even though the law allows them to do so. It maintains a rigid code among its affiliated unions and expects complete loyalty from their members. It imposes penalties on those who buck its internal rules and can expel unions that don't play by them. Most workers have no involvement in those decisions and no access to the organization or its leaders. They, nonetheless, pay a portion of their incomes to this org. Their support is obligatory, their loyalty is expected. The recruitment of new members is a priority.

Over the years, the CLC has been remarkably tolerant of activities of its various affiliates including that seem to have nothing to do with promoting the interests of working people. We asked about some of these last week:

This past week the Canadian Labour Congress had its 23rd Constitutional Convention in Vancouver BC. The event was attended by some 3300 delegates - representatives of its various affiliated unions, some of whom may have been elected by actual working people, some of whom were handpicked by union officials but all of whom make up only .132% of unionized workers in Canada.

What are we to make of this?

From the scene:

The Charismatic Leader:

The Polarized World-View:

Alberta Union of Provincial Employees president Dan MacLennan pushed against the rules when he championed the rights of individual union members by saying that there is a "continued need for change in the labour movement to recognize that all of our members are intelligent people who have the right to make decisions affecting their working lives. These people are not the property of the union of which they happen to be a member." Mr. MacLennan stood by his words and was kicked out of the house.

Buzz Hargrove pushed against the rules when he forcefully said, "It doesn't matter how badly a union represents its members, or how much it loses the confidence of those who pay its bills. Its members can't switch affiliations... And as long as dues money keeps flowing in from workers who are treated more like indentured servants than trade unionists, then the picture of happy solidarity is preserved-for the union leaders, anyway." Mr.Hargrove stood tall and received the boot as well.

For his efforts, honesty and iconoclastic views, Buzz Hargrove was repeatedly booed by the CLC delegates who are too obtuse and one dimensional to really understand what he is up to. The guy is doing the Heimlich maneuver on Canada's labour body and the machine-heads and their wannabes mistake it for a mugging. Canada's Labour Bureaucracy - Dysfunctional and Irrelevant, H. Finnamore, MFD, June 14, 2003

Denigration of Critical Thinking:

Finnamore asked Georgetti, "Is there going to be a debate at this convention about individual members' rights--the right to leave unions and switch unions?" Georgetti responded by asking Finnamore if he'd ever organized for "one of those pretend unions". When Finnamore said that in fact he had - for the UFCW - Georgetti ordered a CLC staffer to, "Get this guy off the floor! Get him off now!" MFD Front Page, June 10, 2003

Manipulation of Feelings:

Labour leader Buzz Hargrove was booed and openly ridiculed at the Canadian Labour Congress convention Tuesday as unions from across the country closed ranks to show their solidarity with the New Democratic Party.

With only a handful of dissenters, more than 2,000 delegates to the CLC convention in Vancouver reaffirmed the labour movement's commitment to be involved in NDP decision-making bodies and contribute two cents per member to federal NDP election campaigns and continuing political work.

Their endorsement came after Bob Desjarlais, of the United Steelworkers of America in Thompson, Manitoba, received a standing ovation for a thinly veiled attack against Mr. Hargrove, the president of the Canadian Auto Workers, for openly criticizing the NDP leadership. Earlier in the convention, Mr. Hargrove was loudly booed when he rose to speak about internal union business. Globe and Mail, Tuesday, June 11, 2002

Fulfillment can only be realized in the group:

In what is no surprise to many, the CLC delegates at the convention in Vancouver embraced the status quo. Buzz Hargrove who is an outspoken leader of the CAW was slammed by delegates and in particular Manitoba steelworker Bob Desjarlais.

Desjarlais told Buzz Hargrove - "Stay the hell out of the press if you've got nothing good to say about my party". This gained Desjarlais a standing ovation.

Sudbury, Ontario steelworker delegate Wayne stood up and said - "There's only one party that represents the rights of working people". "We've had fights, but we had those fights behind closed doors. Never did we attack the party leaders in public."

CLC Dumps on Hargrove

Comment from MFD Forum member about unions.

The code of conduct:

One of the major items on the convention agenda involves new sandbox rules. In response to major union infighting last year, Mr. Georgetti decided that the convention would debate a "protocol of behavior" for inter-union relations, after last year's brawl over individual workers' rights to democratically choose a union.

So much for rights of individual workers, National Post, June 15, 2003

The chant:

I went to a [social function] yesterday at the Bayshore [Hotel in Vancouver]! I walked in and the place was crawling with UFCdubya guys.
The place was loaded with union guys. The [firm hosting the social function] booked the pool area, so the hotel staff had to ask a bunch of union guys to clear out. The guys started yelling, "hell no, we won't go." They then started singing Solidarity Forever. Then the hotel balconies started filling with union guys and gals wearing the nice white bathrobes supplied by the hotel (no union guys don't wear underwear under their bathrobes). Then they start yelling, "hey no, we won't go." The hotel had to offer the goofs free food and booze to make them leave.
Ain't it amazing? If union guys will always go away if the price is right.

An MFD contributor after a chance encounter with some conventioneers

We are FAMILY!

Here's blast from the past that really says it all. This is SEIU Canada Trustee Sharlene Stewart had to say about the attempt by 30,000 members to leave the SEIU and join the CAW and the CAW's decision to let them in.

"It's a completely unethical thing to do. It would be like stealing your brother's children".
Toronto Sun, March 20, 2000

Sanctions for defection and criticism of the cult...

What happens when you buck the rules:
Buzz Bomb

What happens when you try to leave:
Canadian Members File Charges Against Eight Local Union Officials

What happens when you criticize the leader's men:

MFD Contributors write about the cult of mainstream labour:

about unions:
Hargrove who has been booed at this CLC convention refused to be quiet and told the CLC delegates-"Don't let those who would silence debate destroy our party." And there in a nutshell is one of the biggest roadblocks to change.

The insistence of labour unions to stifle open debate prohibits free debate, freedom of expression and the possibility of change. Even the mere thought of keeping things behind closed doors is a sure indication of an unwillingness for change. Too many dirty, dysfunctional and destructive evils are allowed to occur when we insist on keeping our thought bound by rules of secrecy. It may be great for power hungry status quo union leaders, but it is a memorial to the death of working union members rights across this country.

wannabeCAW:
To boo Buzz Hargrove makes me SICK! Some of you union dudes love this, don't ya!
Well up your a***s,in politics the opposition parties are forever being openly critical.
The NDP has been losing support steadily for years now, and they certainly need a
WAKE-UP CALL TO GET SUPPORT BACK. Buzz speaks for over a quarter MILLION
members, and also for wannabe members as myself, I told Buzz myself to not forget
about our Maple Grove situation[let the workers decide] at the CLC convention.
I have the opinion that the CAW should break affiliation with the CLC, and head in its
own direction which has been successful since its beginnings.
The CAW gives the CLC more $$ than MOST affiliated unions.
The CAW's Constitution is straightforward and definitely was drafted with the rank
and filers best interests. Cheers to the Legendary Mr. Bob White for being the corner-stone in the creation of the CAW.

Lekenny:
This is an interesting topic that I never gave much thought about. Just what are the perceived visible "agendas" of the public and private sectors? Why are there differences between public and private unions and why do they not try to work together for a common goal? Do public sector unions have a much easier time dealing with government groups, than private sector unions who have to deal with money hungry CEOs? Are the public much more sympathetic to the plight of union members than private union disputes, or is it merely because public union disputes are far more visible and usually affect a large portion of the public in one way or another? Why do private unions accept a back seat to public unions? Do they not have the political clout that public unions do, or are they just satisfied to follow?

Scott McPherson:
Pack mentality What's wrong with people when they blindly follow without giving their actions a second thought? Management thinks of workers as mindless monkeys, children that need to be told what to do every second of the day. When I hear about the conduct of workers at the CLC convention I have a very hard time not thinking they're right.

Licatsplit:
These financially bloated conventions are beginning to fall into the category of (Give em' enough rope, and they'll hang themselves.)

wieser:
It's the denial that the labour elite could possibly be wrong, and the refusal to do an brutally-honest internal look-see that will leave the North American labour movement stone, cold dead.

Herman Benson said it best in his 1999 article Rising Tide of Union Democracy:

The Secret Code of Union Officialdom
"...the chiseled-in-stone commandments that govern relations among union officials, is a code seldom broken that mandates loyalty, mutual support, and a live-and-let-live attitude.... In its most extreme and debased form, the code prescribes that you may run your union as you see fit, even honestly, as long as I am permitted to run mine as I see fit, without public criticism."

These blind labour fundamentalists are brainwashed into accepting that which isn't. I believe Noam Chomsky explains it this way:

You begin to conform, you being to get the privilege of conformity. You soon come to believe what you're saying because it's useful to believe it, an then you've internalized the system of indoctrination and distortion and deception, and then you're a willing member of the privileged elite's that control thought and indoctrination. That happens all the time, all the way to the top. It's a very rare person, almost to the point of non-existence, who can tolerate what's called "cognitive dissonance" -- saying one thing and believing another. You start saying certain things because it's necessary to say them and pretty soon you believe them because you just have to.

The Post with the Most:

Party Man:
Some of the UFCW members hanging out as delegates weren't sent as delegates. They showed up as guests and Mike Fraser saw to it that one of the Vancouver locals coughed up the dough to buy them entrance to the floor as delegates.

When people were asked to stand if this was their first convention, about 85% of the people stood up. All these newbies are taken to caucus rooms and told how their "union" is going to vote and therefore how they are expected to vote.

It's pretty obvious that 15% are there to control the vote of the other 85%. This whole convention is a sham, but tomorrow's party should be a hoot.

What many thought was an exercise in democracy has proved to be little more than one hell of a vacation.

Members for Democracy Archive