period of growth and progress’.15 He took note of the end of nearly thirty years of cordial agreement, a period during which ‘many big companies had come to depend on the unions as a primary force for stabilization’.16
This reversal had been foreshadowed in the theoretical field by an intellectual trend whose theses, formerly held by only a minority, would serve as the basis for an assault on trade unionism, which was now rejected in its very principles. Neoliberal economists had long been developing an aggressive critique of trade unions. As early as 1947, economist Fritz Machlup had characterized their action as an attempt to ‘fix monopolistic wages’.17 At the same time, Henry C. Simons, a fierce opponent of the New Deal and the mentor of the young Milton Friedman, denounced the ‘anomalies of control by the voluntary association’: faced with the threat of a kind of trade union government being set up, it was vital to ‘preserve the discipline of competition’.18 In the strategic debates which divided the Mont Pelerin Society on this issue, the cradle and vanguard of neoliberalism, Machlup defended a bellicose position: ‘Industrial peace is something we should be afraid of, as it can only be bought at the cost of further distortion of the wage structure’.19
It was this position that prevailed among economic elites in the early 1970s. In 1971, Fortune castigated ‘the power monopoly of work’:20 ‘Allowed to organize like armies, they practice coercion and intimidation, and do not hesitate to disrupt a whole economy to gain their ends. […] The question is no longer whether this force needs curbing, but how. The key to doing so lies in understanding that the power of unionism is not preordained. It derives from exemptions and privileges granted by government that give unions a special sanctuary in our society. The task is to break down this sanctuary’.21
This took the form of direct political attacks from above, but also of more local manoeuvres. From the middle of the 1970s a new kind of consultant started to flourish, the ‘union busters’.22
Imagine you are a senior manager in a big American company, and you receive in your mailbox a brochure entitled Trade unions: how to avoid them, defeat them and get rid of them. Attached is an invitation to a three-day seminar in a big hotel. Arriving the night before, you meet the organizers. The unusual appearance of the first, a labour psychologist – beard, open shirt, rolled-up sleeves – initially takes you aback, until you realize that this casual demeanour is part of the dress code of a profession he has been working in for more than twenty years with large American companies, including IBM, Shell, Dupont and Texas Instruments. The second is a New York lawyer wearing the obligatory outfit: dark suit and tailored shirt.
The seminar takes place in three stages: (1) How to prevent unionization? (2) How to stop a trade union organization gaining a foothold? (3) How to ‘de-unionize’ a company?
The first day is reserved for the ‘industrial psychologist’, who is going to teach you ‘how to make unions redundant’. When a management team ends up with union members in its company, he tells you, it has only itself to blame. ‘In fact, there are really only two approaches to unions which I call the cactus and the plum. The plum is an easy target. […] The cactus is tough and prickly – creating an environment clearly opposed to unions’.23
It starts at the job interview. You have to learn how to grill the candidates. Since the law prohibits asking too direct questions about personal beliefs, you will need to be indirect: ‘Find out if they are involved in liberal causes; tenant organizations, consumer rights organizations or other activities which would reveal a pro-union tendency’.24
Once they have been recruited, make it clear to the newcomers that ‘the company operates without unions, and has for a long time. […] Now we are not saying that unions are good or bad, what we are saying is that we don’t feel there is a need for them here, and no one has evidently ever felt the need for them because we don’t have any’.25 QED.
You must also familiarize yourself with the art of ‘management without interference’: ‘Don’t drive to work in a fancy car. Don’t call people workers or even employees and don’t call bosses, bosses. Everyone should be considered part of the same firm. […] Give people titles they respect like technician or engineer’.26
To give you a better understanding of what makes your subordinates tick, the psychologist then introduces you to the basic principles of the psychology of learning. If, while driving through Yellowstone Park, you come across a bear and feed him sweets through the window, ‘it is natural for him to expect a second jelly bean. […] If we continue this process long enough, we will run out of jelly beans, at which time the bear will take not only the empty sack, but an arm and a leg. We are likely to wonder why that lovable bear has suddenly turned into a hostile animal. The answer is simple: The bear has been rewarded and reinforced by his aggressive activities in much the same manner that employees of some organizations have been rewarded for collective activity’.27
After the lunch break, the psychologist presents his ‘early warning system to spot unionization’ – a bundle of questionnaires. Employees will be required to complete personality tests, officially intended to ‘anticipate and solve employee relations problems’,28 but actually serving to establish a ‘psychological profile of the workforce’ aimed at evaluating the ‘loyalty of the employee’ and to detect, even on the basis of weak signals, the individuals most likely to join a union.29 ‘Think for a moment who are the people who are going to be the most vulnerable if the union knocks on your door. Are these people really meant for us? Maybe they’d be more happy someplace else. Weed ’em out. Git rid of anyone who’s not going to be a team player’.30
And have no compunction in doing so, for it is your freedom that is at stake. For, when there is no union,
you hire whom you wish, pay them whatever you have to pay them or you wish to pay them and terminate their employment as you wish and lay them off. You assign them to any kind of job you want. Those things are all going to change. […] If a union comes into the plant, who do you think is going to be affected most? It isn’t the president, or the vicepresidents of the company. It’s you. Mr. and Mrs. Supervisor. You’re the ones who are going to be up against the union every day. You’re going to have to deal with the shop steward, with the grievances, with the complaints, with the slowdowns, with the harassment. […] Having a union in your shop is going to affect how you operate in many personal areas. It will affect your ability to control promotions, transfers, job assignments, trial periods, discipline, discharge, retirement, layoffs, and recalls.31
With these fine words, the psychologist closes the first day of the seminar.
The next day, the lawyer sets out a series of manoeuvres to obstruct the formation of a union and delay the convening of professional elections – these are obstruction tactics and verge on illegality. Anti-union arguments, standard letters and patterns of pre-written speeches are handed out for you to distribute among your subordinates.
The third day, finally, the lawyer divulges to you, under the seal of strict confidentiality, a whole range of tactics of ‘de-unionization’. If you practise (as it is wise to do so) espionage on your employees, there is for example this advice: ‘I know the union meeting is going to be held at the Holiday Inn. I park my car in the lot and watch everybody who comes into the parking lot. That is an act of surveillance. I may not do this. Now, if I just happen to be coming to the Holiday Inn to attend another function and I happen to see certain people go in – I have every right to do that’. Once the ringleaders have been identified, you must be able to sack them in all due form. Here, too, provided you have made advance preparations, nothing could be easier: ‘If management keeps careful records of absences and reprimands, it can usually make dismissal of a pro-union worker look legitimate’.32
As a reminder, you will
