American Dream Labour Movement

American Dream: Power to the Labour Movement American dream documents the six-month strike against Hormel meatpacking plant in Austin, Minnesota, in 1985 to 1986. This dispute, although unsuccessful, was historic to the labour movement as it represents the struggles that many working men and women face, often without protest. Within this essay, I utilize American Dream to recount aspects of the Hormel strike to analyze the relationship between the Local Union P-9 and its parent union United Food and Commercial Workers International Union. I also asses Local P-9’s strategies and the use of the term morality within the film.

Question 1— The Initial Issue

The Hormel meatpacking plant in Austin, Minnesota was integral part of the community,

This new campaign structure really instead hope, passion, and even victory mentality within the union. As per Rogers instruction, the union relied on media coverage and making this fight into newsworthy one in order to gain bargaining power through public opinion and sympathy. The Hormel company responds to this new effective methods by characterizing the union to be bad. The Chief Counsel of Hormel states that Rogers refuses to utilize the traditional method of collective bargaining and is instead using “harassment, intimidation, and threats” (Kopple et al., 1990). However, this campaign method was crucial to the success and length of the movement. It was solidarity that carried into the end of the strike that resulted in guilt of those who crossed the picket line and prevented those who didn’t. Although the Hormel strike garnered a lot of attention throughout, it was unsuccessful in the end. This can be attributed to a few factors; for one we see an obvious disagreements between Local Union P-9 and UFCW. This may have played a part in the failure of Local Union P-9 as this might have changes the perspective of the public.

Lewie Anderson, the vice-president of UFCW, expresses early on in the documentary that Ray Rogers corporate campaign will not result in a win. He states that by continuing in the direction that they are going now Local P-9 will be “bigger losers than what they are right now” (Kopple et al.,1990) and that this will cost the workers their jobs. You can tell that Anderson is not the most professional, as he is foul-mouthed and is not afraid to express his often crude opinions. This being said, he views these negotiations as crises and notes that companies are not being respectful of workers. At the Local P-9’s move to the road, Anderson released more press condemning the union and accusing them of anti-unionism. He feels that the union is being militant, however, this might be just be a marker of the times because strikes were seen to be an act of defiance.Anderson makes this clear to Guyette, as he views the union to be selfish. He feels that there can’t be one meatpacking plant giving out wage way higher than the others, as this is unfair and promotes the “wrong kind of unionism” (Kopple et al., 1990). I am not sure that I would agree with Lewie Anderson’s assessment because I do feel that being a Local Union, P-9 is open to express their qualms about their particular employer. Although, I do understand that being defiant of their parent