The fear of Norma Rae

The reason they gave for firing her was "insubordination". Her name was Crystal Lee, and it took three years, the end of her marriage and a court order before she could eventually get her job back and $13,436 in back wages, during which time she worked some of the most disagreeable jobs imaginable to support herself and her children. By that time, though she had a more secure job, and returned to her old job for two days just to "make a point". Two years later Hollywood made a movie based on her, named Norma Rae.

Unfortunately Crystal Lee's firing resulted in the textile mill where she worked becoming unionized. Heartless employers can be bad, but often unions can be worse. In spite of the fact that the vast majority of people they supposedly represent being Conservative, Unions are one of the top financiers of Liberal causes in this nation. Also, confronted with the benefit of having their products "Made in the USA" and the burden of unions, many companies opt for foreign manufacturing plants, where they can pay their employees wages Americans would find obscene. But it's the age old story: when entities of great power collide, the pawns suffer the most.

Since the events of Crystal Lee's story in the 70s corporations have shifted their focus in two ways. Most now offer much of what unions demanded back then, but at the same time companies have adopted hiring processes to weed out potential "Norma Rae's".

When My wife and I both applied for positions at the local Whirlpool plant, it became obvious that Whirlpool Corporation was using a tested and tried collection of psychological methods to separate people based on their malleability. When I described the technique, a friend who is an chemical engineer said his company used the exact same method, except to find the leaders, not the followers.

I was refused a job, my wife was hired. I, apparently, was a potential "Norma Rae".

Since then the Whirlpool Corporation, or at least the Tulsa plant has shifted their method to a more simpler, yet just as effective method. The newly hired apply through a temporary agency, and receive little if any benefits. During the initial three months their employment is considered temporary and can be terminated at will, at any time. Given that circumstance it is easy to note those displaying "spunk", "feistiness" or a penchant for leadership, and simply notify the temp agency that their services is no longer needed. Many newly hired simply quit anyway, so those culled from the herd because of their "Norma Raeness" will appear to the other workers as just another that quit on their own.

An effective way of removing the threat of unionization, and, in all honesty, given the overall tendency for unions to abuse both businesses as well as the workers they represent, I can't really blame the businesses. I can, however fault them for not taking more responsibility for those they continue to employ.

The other prong of this approach is the real or imagined benefits businesses such as the Whirlpool Corporation pump up to give the appearance that they are taking care of their workers better than any union could. Most of that image is nothing but empty air.

The PR hype pushed on employees is that they are "part of a team", but a group of subordinates led by an authoritative boss would be more akin to a herd than a team. When bosses abuse their authority over that herd to further their own career, the imagery becomes even less flattering. Lions picking the weak and young from a grazing herd, comes to mind.

The problem created with the "Norma Rae" filter is that while it may keep the company safe from abuse by unions, it leaves the employees vulnerable, since they now consist almost entirely of easily manipulated followers, who rarely will speak out for themselves. If the company then can simply use marketing techniques to present an image of caring for their employees, there's quite a bit of abuse they can get away with before anyone will bother to do something.

But it will only be a matter of time until abuses rise to the level that someone, a union, a politician, or any of a number of groups that stand to benefit from the publicity, will start ringing the alarm bells loudly. When that happens it won't be the company in which those specific abuses occurred, but could easily be an industry wide, or even sweeping legislation that furthers the government's control over businesses in general. The company that becomes the focal point will suffer the worst, but others will suffer as well, because while irresponsible employees are bad, irresponsible unions are worse, the biggest nightmare is the damage that can be caused by laws enacted by irresponsible legislators vying for re-election. And ultimately it will be the employees who suffer the most, under the iron foot of those "there to help".

A few extra dollars in profit today is not worth millions lost tomorrow.

Posted by Danny Carlton at June 11, 2007 8:23 AM