An employer focused analysis of meat industry disputes in Australia and the USA: the Hormel (1985-86) and Portland (1987-88) strikes
Presented by Mr Patrick O'Leary - Lecturer in Business, School of Business, UB
Wednesday, 16 April 2008, 1.30-2.30pm in Room B014
Abstract
Labour historians and industrial relations researchers have widely regarded meat processing (meatpacking in the USA) as a highly strike-prone industry, focusing significant research on strikes in the industry. There have also been some tantalising hints in the various stories of the meat industry of the usefulness of the developing literature on space and community. Initial research for this paper suggested that Sandra Jones’ 2002 paper, “A woman’s place is on the picket line: Towards a theory of community industrial relations”, could begin to offer a way of explaining much of the historical narrative of the industry but it failed to account for the range of employer actions and other factors at play that refused to be explained by these ideas. Thus, this paper will examine two meat strikes during the 1980s, focusing on factors effecting employer actions, to test the validity of other recent theoretical developments, such as Campling and Michelson’s fusion of the older resource dependence model and the comparatively more recent strategic choice model. Two strikes, the 1985-86 strike at the Hormel plant in Austin, Minnesota, USA and the 1987-88 strike at the AMH plant at Portland, Victoria, Australia, provide useful examples that challenge conventional wisdom regarding the so-called isolated mass thesis found in the early strike-prone industries literature and the more recent theories of space and community. What this paper will argue is that large, multi-plant employers have a greater number of available choices, due in part to the heavy imbalance in power reflecting vast asymmetry in resources and in mutual dependence between the parties. Put simply, Hormel’s and Portland’s meatworkers had very few other options for local employment and thus depended heavily on the local meatworks for their employment and their incomes. On the other hand, the large meat corporations that owned these two plants had less financial need for these isolated works. These theoretical assumptions challenge traditional notions contained in the older strike-prone industries literature and the more recent space and community literature, offering instead a more useful model for understanding community disputes with large multi-plant employers.
.
. |
