Shock Doctrine and Union Busting

[Joanne98]

http://calitics.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=4534

As you may have noticed from recent posts, I'm a big fan of Naomi Klein's new book The Shock Doctrine. It's one of the best books published this decade, and provides perhaps the best overview of the last 30 years yet offered. Her argument is essentially this:

The shock doctrine, like all doctrines, is a philosophy of power. It's a philosophy about how to achieve your political and economic goals. And this is a philosophy that holds that the best way, the best time, to push through radical free-market ideas is in the aftermath of a major shock. Now, that shock could be an economic meltdown. It could be a natural disaster. It could be a war. But the idea, as you just saw in the film, is that these crises, these disasters, these shocks soften up whole societies. They discombobulate them. People lose their bearings. And a window opens up, just like the window in the interrogation chamber. And in that window, you can push through what economists call "economic shock therapy."
She also links this to torture - quoting from CIA interrogation manuals that explain how the application of shock can open a window in which the subject is weakened and suggestible, a window that torturers or free market economists can use to push through a radical agenda that might otherwise be resisted. This works on individuals, societies...and labor unions.

It's in this context that two recent posts from the United Hollywood blog should be understood. In it, they explain the basics of management, union-busting strategy - that a successful anti-union strategy relies on precisely these tactics of terror, disorientation, and shock to destroy worker solidarity. That the writers appear to understand this could give them a powerful advantage in their ongoing strike, and these insights not only suggest how unions can win, but how the shock doctrine and union busting are inextricably tied together.

Details over the flip...

Robert in Monterey :: Shock Doctrine and Union Busting
First is a post excerpting an e-mail from Tim Lea regarding AMPTP strategy:

The AMPTP strategy...is to gain control over 'New Media' by breaking the unions. First us, then the rest. Then the Internet will be a non-union town.
In his book Confessions of a Union Buster, Martin Jay Levitt details the techniques he learned in his many years attacking unions. A key element is the demoralization of the union members during any industrial action against the company. Taking away people's hopes, their aspirations for a quick resolution to any labor dispute - that was Levitt's job. "If you can, make the union fight drag on long enough, workers...lose faith, lose interest, lose hope."

According to Robert Muehlenkamp, an SEIU Local 1199 organizer at Harper Grace hospital in the 70's, where Levitt was hired to consult management:


"Union busters wield great power through a program of terror and manipulation - people don't, can't possibly know what's going on and who's telling the truth.... The first time this happens to regular people, they're terrified."
And terror is the goal. The union buster hopes to control employees by employing terror.

This is, of course, precisely the situation we find ourselves in today. We are the example that is being used to intimidate the other unions. The studios want the actors, the directors, the Teamsters, IATSE, all to look at our struggle and see us lose. See us fractured and divided. With the hope that they will be frightened by what they see, and accept whatever deal the studios offer.

The emphasis is mine, and it reminds me EXACTLY of what Naomi Klein is describing in the shock doctrine. Terror and manipulation..."the first time this happens to regular people, they're terrified" - that is the exact phenomenon that Klein believes has been repeatedly employed over the last 30 years to push through radical neoliberal economic policies. Whether it was Pinochet's coup against Allende, the September 11 attacks in the US, the collapse of the Soviet Union, or Hurricane Katrina, the result is the same - societies are terrorized because they are experiencing something alien, frightening, something they never expected they'd face.

WGA West Board of Directors member Tom Schulman provides details about how union busters employ the shock doctrine in negotiations in a post, also from yesterday, in which he took copious notes from a chief negotiator for management in another sector of the entertainment industry:


Tactics:
* Lower the expectations of the other side, divide and conquer.

* Raise and lower the expectations of the other side, divide and conquer.

* Do everything possible to destroy the credibility of the other side's leadership, divide and conquer.

* Use confidants and back channels to go over the heads of the stronger leaders to the softer targets. Divide and conquer.

* When you figure out the other side's bottom line, offer a fraction. It's surprising how many times that stands.

Sound familiar? If you examine the recent "leaks," comments, and press releases from the other side, you'll realize this is exactly the strategy the Companies are employing against us today. And why not? It's worked for them for the last 20 years! They are putting us on an emotional roller coaster by raising and lowering our expectations, attacking our leaders, trying to pit the town against us, refusing to move on the issues that matter to us, bragging about their generosity when the opposite is true, fear mongering and claiming we're going to ruin this industry - hoping we'll splinter, lose faith in and attack each other, negotiate against ourselves, and cave.

Again the emphasis is mine, and hopefully you can see what I saw - a link to the "terror and manipulation" described above. These negotiating tactics are primarily designed to shock the rank and file, and the coaliton that supports the strikers. The act of rapidly raised and dashed expectations, of dramatically dividing workers and coalition partners, are all aimed at producing a moment of shock that will allow management to gain the upper hand and conclude negotiations on favorable terms - or to break the union entirely.

Schulman went on to Continued>>>>>
http://calitics.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=4534