FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail

Alcohol as Metaphor

by DAVID MACARAY

Some years ago, when I was a union rep with the West Coast papermakers, I was called in on a DOJ case (drunk on the job) to represent an employee who was facing termination.  While DOJs were by no means common, they weren’t exactly rare, either.

Alcohol cases vary dramatically in how they’re perceived.  If a professor or judge shows up drunk, it’s amazing how sympathetic people can be.  They become almost maternal in their concern.  Someone this accomplished, this educated, doing something this disgraceful can mean only one thing: the man is “fighting personal demons.”  A drunken judge?  Oh my god, there has to be some tragic human story to explain it.

But let it be a factory worker who’s been drinking, and the guy is regarded as a low-class degenerate who needs to be fired immediately.  But what about this man’s “personal demons”?  Screw his personal demons.  He’s fired.  Get him the hell out of here.

The employee in question (“Fred”) was a middle-aged man, with over twenty years of service, working the nightshift as an operator of a high-speed packaging machine.  While not staggering, fall-down drunk, he was, despite his denials, obviously under the influence.  He smelled of alcohol, his eyes were shot, and he was slurring his words.

Although a company can’t force a blood test—and a refusal doesn’t automatically mean you’re guilty—a refusal will definitely hurt your chances in arbitration.  Not surprisingly, Fred declined to take a blood test.  But when they asked him if he’d been drinking, he candidly told them he’d had “a few beers” before leaving for work, but insisted he wasn’t drunk.  That confession, by itself, was grounds for discharge.

So they fired him.  A security guard accompanied him to his locker to collect his gear, which they stuffed into a lawn bag, and the company called his wife to come pick him up.  Fred and I and the company nurse (who’d been summoned by Human Resources) stood at the plant entrance, awaiting his ride.  Not knowing what to say, the three of us barely spoke.  Minutes went by without anyone saying a word.

When his wife arrived, Fred had already sobered up sufficiently to appreciate what had just happened, and when he climbed unsteadily into the passenger seat, he looked about as melancholy and godforsaken as any 56-year old unemployed man could look.  It was a pitiful sight.  This was 1988.

Union veterans have told me that during the 1960s and ‘70s, the company treated DOJs much differently. Although drinking was definitely frowned upon—not only by management, but by the union, as well—instead of being automatically fired, employees suspected of being intoxicated were often removed from the factory floor and sent home without incident.

Because the supervisors, technically, didn’t have the authority to mitigate the punishment (i.e., issue a write-up or suspension in lieu of a discharge), but didn’t want to see the guy lose his job, they simply got him out of there as quickly as they could and pretended it never happened.

While they usually called a family member to come get him, it wasn’t unheard of to have an agreeable shop steward drive him home; and in some cases—if he lived close by or didn’t appear too drunk—the guy was actually permitted to drive himself.  Granted, letting him drive was a dumb move, but the gesture was indicative of the sensibilities that existed a generation ago.

By the time I got involved, everything had changed.  The term “zero tolerance” was already on the horizon, and employees suspected of being under the influence were treated with a weird mixture of competing attitudes:  utter revulsion and disgust mixed with the brusque, impersonal professionalism of a triage unit.

Consider the contrast:  In 1971, the facility’s plant manager was himself an alcoholic.  Once, after a night of boozing, he challenged the president of the union to a fistfight in a local bar, and had to be restrained by subordinates.  It was a famous incident, one that union officials still gleefully recount.  Compare this with 1988, when the plant manager was an abstemious Christian fundamentalist who held regular prayer sessions in his office.  True.

In alcohol cases, HR always used the same two arguments.  First, they said a drunk man working around moving equipment was a safety hazard, not only to himself, but to his fellow employees (which was probably true).  “We’re firing him for your benefit, not ours,” is what they liked to say.

And second, when the union requested that he be suspended and placed in rehab instead of fired (because crew safety, by their own admission, was their chief concern), they went Hobbesian on us.  They argued that suspending rather than firing him would be an invitation to everyone in the facility to have one drunken incident “free of charge,” without fear of losing their job, a conclusion so bizarre and cynical, only a certified HR creature could have come up with it.

No one is condoning drunkenness or denying that alcoholism is a serious and debilitating disease.  No one is saying it’s cool to drink on the job.  The damage alcohol has done to individuals and families is a matter of record.  I’m simply using alcohol as a metaphor, showing that drinking in the workplace has been treated differently in different contexts and in different eras, and suggesting that those differences speak to a larger issue.

A generation ago, most front-line supervisors were former hourly employees who’d been promoted into management, and most of their parents had been blue-collar workers.  They were sympathetic to working people.  This all changed in the 1980s, when front-line supervision was given over to young college grads who not only viewed workers as “factory apes,” but whose parents were typically white-collar.

A generation ago, there was also a greater sense of community.  While hourly and salaried workers obviously differed in their respective job skills and backgrounds, in a broader sense, they perceived themselves as being positioned on the same axis, as points along the same continuum.

Accordingly, top executives made salaries in the range of 15-20 times what the hourly workers made, not the 200-400 times it is today.  Company executives in the 1970s were regarded as just that—well-compensated businessmen—not as corporate mandarins who flew in private jets and lived in gated mansions.

Corny as it sounds, these blue-collar folks and their bosses had a grudging respect for each other.  Yes, they battled and bickered and embarrassed themselves, and yes, there were grievances and strikes; but they also genuinely engaged each other.  There were joint union-management bowling leagues, softball games, company picnics, talent shows, and Christmas parties.  Adversaries or not, there was a connection.

Most of that stuff was ancient history by the time I became a rep.  Moreover, instead of being the adversaries of old, the company assured us that management and the union were now on the same team.  “Why should we beat our heads against the wall, when we both want the same thing?” an HR director once asked me.

Of course, that was a lie; union and management didn’t want the same thing.  Working people wanted a larger slice of the pie, and the company wanted to give them a smaller slice.  Pretending that both sides wanted the same thing was a cruel hoax.  Predictably, once the union was embraced as “teammates,” wages began slipping, benefits began declining, and work rules began stiffening.

What happened next was hideous.  Loyal employees woke up one morning to find that not only had their standard of living been hollowed-out, but that they had been stripped of their dignity as workers.  Instead of being proud union warriors, they were now palace eunuchs.

The castration had been a three-step process.  Initially put in motion by the Taft-Hartley Act, way back in 1947, it was followed, sequentially, by policies of the Reagan and Clinton administrations, and culminated in the “team-building” philosophy of corporate HR.  Since then, of course, everything has gotten worse.

DAVID MACARAY, a Los Angeles playwright (“Americana,” “Larva Boy”) and writer, was a former labor union rep.  He can be reached at dmacaray@earthlink.net

 

 

David Macaray is a playwright and author. His newest book is “Nightshift: 270 Factory Stories.” He can be reached at dmacaray@gmail.com

More articles by:

CounterPunch Magazine

minimag-edit

bernie-the-sandernistas-cover-344x550

zen economics

Weekend Edition
December 02, 2016
Friday - Sunday
Jeffrey St. Clair
Roaming Charges: The CIA’s Plots to Kill Castro
Paul Street
The Iron Heel at Home: Force Matters
Pam Martens - Russ Martens
Timberg’s Tale: Washington Post Reporter Spreads Blacklist of Independent Journalist Sites
Andrew Levine
Must We Now Rethink the Hillary Question? Absolutely, Not
Joshua Frank
CounterPunch as Russian Propagandists: the Washington Post’s Shallow Smear
David Rosen
The Return of HUAC?
Rob Urie
Race and Class in Trump’s America
Caroline Hurley
Anatomy of a Nationalist
Ayesha Khan
A Muslim Woman’s Reflections on Trump’s Misogyny
Russell Mokhiber
Sanders Single Payer and Death by Democrat
Roger Harris
The Triumph of Trump and the Specter of Fascism
Louis Proyect
Deepening Contradictions: Identity Politics and Steelworkers
Ralph Nader
Trump and His Betraying Makeover
Dan Bacher
WSPA: The West’s Most Powerful Corporate Lobbying Group
Nile Bowie
Will Trump backpedal on the Trans-Pacific Partnership?
Ron Ridenour
Fidel’s Death Brings Forth Great and Sad Memories
Missy Comley Beattie
By Invitation Only
Fred Gardner
Sword of Damocles: Pot Partisans Fear Trump’s DOJ
Renee Parsons
Obama and Propornot
Dean Baker
Cash and Carrier: Trump and Pence Put on a Show
Jack Rasmus
Taming Trump: From Faux Left to Faux Right Populism
Ron Jacobs
Selling Racism—A Lesson From Pretoria
Julian Vigo
The Hijos of Buenos Aires:  When Identity is Political
Matthew Vernon Whalan
Obama’s Legacy
Subcomandante Insurgente Galeano
By Way of Prologue: On How We Arrived at the Watchtower and What We Saw from There
Aidan O'Brien
Fidel and Spain: A Tale of Right and Wrong
Carol Dansereau
Stop Groveling! How to Thwart Trump and Save the World
Kim Nicolini
Moonlight, The Movie
Evan Jones
Behind GE’s Takeover of Alstom Energy
James A Haught
White Evangelicals are Fading, Powerful, Baffling
Christopher Brauchli
Parallel Lives: Trump and Temer
Joseph Natoli
The Winds at Their Backs
Cesar Chelala
Poverty is Not Only an Ignored Word
David Swanson
75 Years of Pearl Harbor Lies
Nyla Ali Khan
When Faith is the Legacy of One’s Upbringing
Gilbert Mercier
Trump Win: Paradigm Shift or Status Quo?
Charles R. Larson
Review: Emma Jane Kirby’s “The Optician of Lampedusa”
December 01, 2016
Kenneth Surin
Life and Politics in Appalachia
David Swanson
Why Flag Burning Matters
Ray McGovern
Petraeus Redux?
John Wight
The Fierce Debate Over Castro’s Legacy
Jan Oberg
Orwell in Oslo: Nobel Institute Honors Kissinger (Again) and Brzezinski
RP Burnham
Egoism and Empathy in the Era of Neocons and Neoliberals
Blake Gentry
Fighting for Indigenous Rights: From the UN to Yaqui Territory and Standing Rock
Peter Lee
Chinese Catastrophism Collides with Trump Catastrophism
FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail