Exclusively in the new print issue of CounterPunch
SHOCK AND AWE OVER GAZA — Jonathan Cook reports from the West Bank on How the Media and Human Rights Groups Cover for Israel’s War Crimes; Jeffrey St. Clair on Why Israel is Losing; Nick Alexandrov on Honduras Five Years After the Coup; Joshua Frank on California’s Water Crisis; Ismael Hossein-Zadeh on Finance Capital and Inequality; Kathy Deacon on The Center for the Whole Person; Kim Nicolini on the Aesthetics of Jim Jarmusch. PLUS: Mike Whitney on the Faltering Economic Recovery; Chris Floyd on Being Trapped in a Mad World; and Kristin Kolb on Cancer Without Melodrama.
“Take It or Leave It”

The Lockout Weapon

by DAVID MACARAY

If you’re looking for evidence of just how confident, militant, and insufferably arrogant companies have become in recent years, consider the phenomenon of the lockout.  A lockout is where a company closes its doors, refusing to allow its union employees to return to work until they accede to company demands—demands that typically call for staggering cuts in wages and benefits.

Unlike strikes—which, as the ultimate manifestation of employee dissatisfaction with management, are a universally recognized form of protest—lockouts are a form of extortion.  A lockout represents an unambiguous threat, an ultimatum.  Management figuratively places a gun to the employees’ heads and says, Take it or leave it.

There was a time not long ago when strikes were a regular part of America’s economic landscape, and when, conversely, lockouts were about as scarce as hen’s teeth.  In fact, lockouts were practically unheard of.  But given that the business world has been recalibrated—and
considering the availability of replacement workers, part-timers and temps, coupled with the weakening of state and federal labor laws—strikes are now relatively uncommon, and lockouts have become management’s new weapon of choice.

One of the uglier incidents occurred recently at Caterpillars’ London, Ontario, facility.  After the membership refused company demands that they accept a savage 55 per cent wage cut, plus elimination of the pension plan (along with other take-aways), the plant’s 465 production workers were locked out.  No further negotiations, no compromises, no mediation; the company went directly to lockout mode.  Then, after a 6-week lockout, Caterpillar announced it was shutting the plant down for good, and that everyone had lost their jobs.  That’s what we politely meant by businesses “recalibrating.”

Strikes have always had a distinctly schizoid nature, being both dreaded and embraced, both glorified and vilified  Traditionally, when workers in a viable facility (i.e., one making a healthy profit) reached the point where further negotiations were deemed pointless, they hit the bricks.  They shut the place down, depriving the company of the ability to make a profit, and, very importantly, sacrificing their own economic well-being by no longer earning a wage or receiving benefits.

Because the stakes are so high, strikes have always been rightly regarded as scary, monumental undertakings.  While some strikes have been successful, many—perhaps most—have not.  But successful or not, strikes are labor’s only real weapon.  Depriving management of the opportunity to make money is the only bullet in the chamber; everything else is theatrics.  What’s the union going to do to get their attention—threaten to stand on the company’s front lawn and scream insults through a megaphone?

Here’s a true story.  In 1983 I was part of a union negotiating team that called a strike against a major manufacturing company, an action that put more than 700 men and women out on the street.  It was a chaotic scene.  Even though we got a 96-per cent strike authorization vote prior to the shutdown, once the real thing happened, and the hammer dropped, people were understandably frightened and anxious.  The strike lasted 57 days.

Looking to nip any problems in the bud, we immediately contacted the company and made clear our views regarding people crossing the picket line.  Although we were a tight local, and didn’t anticipate scabs, you never know what people will do in a crisis.  We told the company that if they allowed scabs to cross, we would be forced to retaliate by taking out full-page ads in local newspapers, exposing the company’s greed and stubbornness, and calling them bad names.

They didn’t take our peremptory salvo well.  Tensions were running high.  They told us to shut up, mind our own business, and not presume to lecture them on how to run their operation.  But they also informed us that they had no intention of allowing people to cross over, believing that allowing people to cross would create more problems than it solved.  We believed them.

But within a week or two, a handful of our guys tried to do just that.  They approached at night (it was a 24-hour operation) hoping they wouldn’t be observed, and asked to be put to work.  When the company refused, it occurred to them that being denied entry might very well constitute a “lockout.”  While it was a known fact that strikers weren’t entitled to unemployment benefits, wouldn’t “locked-out” employees be eligible?

They went down to the unemployment office and made their case.  They told the duty officer that even though their union had called a strike, they themselves wished to continue working, but the company wouldn’t let them.  “Doesn’t that mean that this is a lockout and not a strike?” they asked eagerly.  The duty officer seemed puzzled.  She thought about it a moment and answered: “What’s a lockout?”

DAVID MACARAY, an LA playwright and author (“It’s Never Been Easy:  Essays on Modern Labor”), was a former union rep.   He is a contributor to Hopeless: Barack Obama and the Politics of Illusion, forthcoming from AK Press.  He can be reached at dmacaray@earthlink.net