Hormel workers fight drastic takebacks

Scan page 6

'Who said feed 'em a few scraps and they'll AUSTIN, Minn.—On June 3 packinghouse workers here at the George A. Hormel Co. voted down a proposal to cut back their union's campaign against the company's take-away demands. The proposal, which was introduced by dissident union members, was defeated by a 4-1 majority.

Jim Guyette, president of Local P-9 of the United Food and Commercial Workers, said that the vote showed that the union membership is even more determined and that they refuse to be intimidated by the company's threats.

Hormel had attempted to influence the vote by announcing the day before the meeting that it would terminate its contract with the local union in August and that it might consider closing the plant.

Local P-9, which represents 1500 workers at Hormel's Austin plant, has launched a militant "corporate campaign" to force the company to rescind a staggering 23-percent wage cut. Last October the country's ninth largest meatpacker slashed wages from $10.69 to $8.25 an hour.

The union picketed the annual meetings of both Hormel and First Bank Systems, which owns 16.4 percent of Hormel stock and shares board members with the meatpacker. The union has begun to distribute leaflets criticizing the two corporate "partners in plunder" to baseball fans at the Minneapolis Metrodome.

Workers pay the price Hormel workers find themselves in a situation that has become a pattern for many union members throughout the country. A few years ago a number of major meatpacking companies claimed they were on the verge of bankruptcy and demanded large wage and benefit concessions from their unions as the KORPORATIONS UNIUN concessions price for "remaining competitive" and "saving jobs."

But once concessions were forced from the employees of one company they quickly became generalized throughout the industry. The result did not save any jobs but lowered the standard of living of thousands of workers.

Local P-9's current contract, negotiated in 1977-78, granted many concessions-including a wage freeze. After six years of the freeze, Hormel used a "me too" clause in the contract that allowed it to reduce wages in order to keep labor costs at its Austin plant "competitive" with other packers. Hormel used the ruling of a "neutral" arbitrator to back the company up in this action.

Hormel is hardly a company in financial distress. In 1984 Hormel reported the second highest earnings in its 93year history. Business Week recently URP called the company "the envy of the industry because of its consistent profitablity."

Hormel's profits were six times higher than five packers among its main competitors: Swift, Wilson, Frederick J. Hurrud, Farmland, and Smithfield.

In truth, company profitability is not a major factor in determining the wage and benefit levels of its employees. Wages and benefits are primarily determined by the relationship of forces between the employees and their unions, on one side, and the company and its allies, on the other.

Realistically and historically the company's allies include the courts, police, and government, and most of the news media.

Hormel-like tions today-is unions and their confused, and in Carott SIm 551984 eave you alone?" other major corporaconvinced that the leaderships are weak, disarray. They believe effective strike action to defend themselves. These corporations intend to impose larger and larger concessions with the eventual goal of eliminating the unions altogether.

Organizing to fight

The membership of Local P-9, like many other workers, has begun to understand that the company game of "remaining competitive" and "saving jobs" can only lead in one directionworking for minimum wages with no benefits.

The local has taken some good first steps in changing its relationship of forces with the company. It has begun the process of organizing its own membership to fight. It has also begun to mobilize its allies, including farmers and other unionists inside and outside the industry.

So far the international union has not played a good role in backing P-9 in its fight. The vote on June 3 was particularly significant because it contradicted the claims of the international leadership, as well as the news media and the company, that Local P-9's resistance campaign does not have the backing of the union membership.

The international has even gone so far as to discourage other unions and unionists from coming to the aid of the Austin workers. Hormel and the news media constantly use this open split between the international officers and the local to undermine the fight.

It is essential that the trade union movement as a whole respond to Local P-9's call for solidarity. It is not just a matter of extending a hand to a sister organization under attack. Allowing locals like P-9 to fight alone, with at most only token support from the broader trade union movement, has a disastrous effect. It is sapping the strength of the entire trade union movement.

The fight will not be an easy one. Hormel's response to the P-9 vote was to purchase $80,000 worth of barbed wire. Company spokesman Alan Krejci explained, "There are preparations you make for any eventuality... But in the event of a strike, this might be needed."

If you want to help P-9 in their fight, write to: Corporate Campaign, 316 N.E. 4th Avenue, Austin, MN 55912. •