FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail

The Utility of Boycotts

As hit and miss as boycotts can be, some of them actually work.  By most accounts, it was the economic pressure exerted upon South Africa by the world community that was instrumental in convincing the regime to abandon its apartheid policy.

In 1977, the AFL-CIO launched a national boycott of Coors beer in response to the brewery’s anti-labor, anti-gay, anti-minority policies.  Was it successful?  Predictably, Coors declared it wasn’t.  Following the lead of companies that are shut down by strikes, but who claim, almost reflexively, that the strike, no matter how lengthy or debilitating, had no negative effect whatever, Coors pretended the boycott was harmless.

But there was ample evidence to the contrary.  While the boycott didn’t result in a miracle—turning Coors from a bigoted, reactionary company (it was Papa Joe Coors who provided the seed money for the right-wing Heritage Foundation) into an open-minded, progressive one—it did change some things.

Undeniably, the boycott resulted in loss of stature and revenue for the company.  In addition to hundreds of restaurants and bars refusing to serve Coors beer, Hollywood publicly threw its support behind the boycott.  Actor Paul Newman not only renounced Coors, he publicly declared that he was switching to Budweiser.  Ultimately, the boycott caused Coors to lower its profile and, in fact, to agree to adopt more enlightened policies regarding hiring policies.

Another example was the AWPPW’s (Assoc. of Western Pulp and Paper Workers) boycott of Scott Paper, spanning 1978-79.  Launched as part of a protracted labor dispute, the Scott boycott turned out to be very successful campaign, particularly on the West Coast.  Thirty years later people are still talking about it.

Indeed, the Scott boycott was so “successful,” a couple of the company’s paper mills were forced to shut down temporarily, resulting in hundreds of union workers losing their jobs.  (File that under the Law of Unintended Consequences.)

Boycotts that are too ambitious or all-encompassing usually don’t work.  For example, if the AFL-CIO, as part of its organizing drive, were to mount a boycott against Wal-Mart (asking people not to shop there), the effort would almost certainly fail.  Expecting people to stay out of Wal-Mart—to not set foot in the store until the boycott is lifted—is strategically sound, but tactically flawed.

However, if the AFL-CIO were to launch a boycott of the tires sold through Wal-Mart’s automotive division, the results might be different.  Arguably, the tire manufacturer, responding to a precipitous drop in sales, would exert enormous pressure on the giant retailer to get off the dime.

The same principle would apply to important product lines of virtually any large retailer.  The reason the Coors and Scott Paper boycotts succeeded was because they were narrowly focused campaigns:  one product, one target.  But in order to move a retailer, you don’t go after the retailer; you go after the influential venders of that retailer.

As to the efficacy of potential boycotts, union membership itself presents one of those classic glass-half-filled vs. glass-half-empty dilemmas.  Yes, union membership has shrunk dramatically; yes, union members don’t seem to be as “committed” as they once were (as in the 1930s); and, yes, solidarity isn’t as conspicuous as it once was.

But while we all lament the fact that union membership was once a mighty 35-percent, back in the 1950s, and now hovers at approximately one-third that (as of 2008, New York was highest, with 24.9-percent union membership; North Carolina was lowest, with 3.5-percent), comparative percentages can be misleading, especially for the purposes of national boycotts.

Consider:  In 1983, with national membership at 20.1-percent, there were 17.7 union members in the U.S.  Today, with membership at only 12.4-percent, there are 16.1 million union members.

Instead of dwelling on that 7+-percent drop, we should focus instead on those 16 million dues-paying members who are out there right now, with their shoulders to the wheel.  Shrinking numbers or not, 16 million of anything is formidable.

As modestly successful as those Coors and Scott boycotts were, there’s a remarkable new propaganda tool available today that wasn’t available back in the 1970s, one that could make all the difference in the world:  The Internet.

If even half of those 16 million union members got involved, think of the leverage they’d have in a boycott.  Think what 8 million engaged union members could do on the Internet, particularly if the boycott were focused, laser-like, on one product, one manufacturer, one small but significant portion of the market, rather than a scatter-gun approach.

Talk can take you only so far.  That’s because the distance talk can travel pales in comparison to the distance money can travel.  Discussion, debates, even threats, have built-in limitations that money doesn’t, which is one reason strikes are (or can be) so effective.  Unlike “talk,” a strike is the only thing that directly cuts into management’s ability to make a profit.

If organized labor wants to change the contour of the country, there’s only one way to do it:  by adding new union members to the rosters.  And to achieve that, labor needs to exert economic rather than ideological pressure.  One way of doing that is through boycotts.  Also, Big Labor probably needs to pare down—rather than load up—its national agenda.

Think of every cliché you ever heard:  a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush, slow and steady wins the race, one step at a time, the journey of a thousand miles begins with the first step, etc., etc.  Weirdly, as corny and annoying as those aphorisms are, they’re all true.

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

 

 

 

More articles by:

David Macaray is a playwright and author. His newest book is How To Win Friends and Avoid Sacred Cows.  He can be reached at dmacaray@gmail.com

Weekend Edition
April 20, 2018
Friday - Sunday
Paul Street
Ruling Class Operatives Say the Darndest Things: On Devils Known and Not
Conn Hallinan
The Great Game Comes to Syria
Jeffrey St. Clair
Roaming Charges: Mother of War
Andrew Levine
“How Come?” Questions
Doug Noble
A Tale of Two Atrocities: Douma and Gaza
Kenneth Surin
The Blight of Ukania
Howard Lisnoff
How James Comey Became the Strange New Hero of the Liberals
William Blum
Anti-Empire Report: Unseen Persons
Lawrence Davidson
Missiles Over Damascus
Patrick Cockburn
The Plight of the Yazidi of Afrin
Pete Dolack
Fooled Again? Trump Trade Policy Elevates Corporate Power
Stan Cox
For Climate Mobilization, Look to 1960s Vietnam Before Turning to 1940s America
William Hawes
Global Weirding
Dan Glazebrook
World War is Still in the Cards
Nick Pemberton
In Defense of Cardi B: Beyond Bourgeois PC Culture
Ishmael Reed
Hollywood’s Last Days?
Peter Certo
There Was Nothing Humanitarian About Our Strikes on Syria
Dean Baker
China’s “Currency Devaluation Game”
Ann Garrison
Why Don’t We All Vote to Commit International Crimes?
LEJ Rachell
The Baddest Black Power Artist You Never Heard Of
Lawrence Ware
All Hell Broke Out in Oklahoma
Franklin Lamb
Tehran’s Syria: Lebanon Colonization Project is Collapsing
Donny Swanson
Janus v. AFSCME: What’s It All About?
Will Podmore
Brexit and the Windrush Britons
Brian Saady
Boehner’s Marijuana Lobbying is Symptomatic of Special-Interest Problem
Julian Vigo
Google’s Delisting and Censorship of Information
Patrick Walker
Political Dynamite: Poor People’s Campaign and the Movement for a People’s Party
Fred Gardner
Medical Board to MDs: Emphasize Dangers of Marijuana
Rob Seimetz
We Must Stand In Solidarity With Eric Reid
Missy Comley Beattie
Remembering Barbara Bush
Wim Laven
Teaching Peace in a Time of Hate
Thomas Knapp
Freedom is Winning in the Encryption Arms Race
Mir Alikhan
There Won’t be Peace in Afghanistan Until There’s Peace in Kashmir
Robert Koehler
Playing War in Syria
Tamara Pearson
US Shootings: Gun Industry Killing More People Overseas
John Feffer
Trump’s Trade War is About Trump Not China
Morris Pearl
Why the Census Shouldn’t Ask About Citizenship
Ralph Nader
Bill Curry on the Move against Public Corruption
Josh Hoxie
Five Tax Myths Debunked
Leslie Mullin
Democratic Space in Adverse Times: Milestone at Haiti’s University of the Aristide Foundation
Louis Proyect
Syria and Neo-McCarthyism
Dean Baker
Finance 202 Meets Economics 101
Abel Cohen
Forget Gun Control, Try Bullet Control
Robert Fantina
“Damascus Time:” An Iranian Movie
David Yearsley
Bach and Taxes
FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail