Labor Repression 1950s Style

From “simple” to “bureaucratic” control? 

The struggle for workers’ rights and autonomy continues unabated in the State of Washington. Readers and followers may recall that last July a group of several hundred indigenous farmworkers and their families launched a historic strike against the Sakuma Berry Farms, a company in western Washington just north of Seattle (see our post of July 16, 2013 and related posts on July 28, August 6, and August 29among others). Most of the workers are Triqui and Mixtec natives from Mexico. The struggle continues and has passed through several important watersheds since we last reported on the strike and its aftermath.

One important development occurred this past May when the workers successfully challenged Sakuma over company efforts to receive federal Department of Labor approval to import H-2A (temporary agricultural) guest workers. The request was rejected by the feds and the workers’ active pressing of the issue before various regulatory bodies played a major role in that outcome (see the report by David Bacon in The Nation).

The company sought to use guest workers to replace the organizing mass of indigenous farmworkers. In the aftermath of this failed attempt to import strikebreakers, the company has now turned to some old-fashioned tactics that date back to the 1940s and 50s. Indeed, these same tactics have been used before and were commonly deployed during the heyday of the farm worker movements to end the Bracero Program, which was essentially the largest guest worker program in US immigration policy history, and during the 1960s-70s and the rise of the United Farm Workers (UFW).

In the aftermath of the failed attempt to import strikebreakers, the company has now turned to some old-fashioned tactics that date back to the 1940s and 50s.

Got a problem [sic] worker? Invent a disciplinary handbook; don’t share it with the workers; then use it to take disciplinary measures (including penalties and employment termination) to control or get rid of ‘problem’ employees. It would appear that Sakuma Brothers management has discovered “bureaucratic” control and are deploying it since their original strategy of “simple” or “direct” (supervisory) command and control failed to produce the worker acquiescence sought by the company.

Michael Burawoy (1979) did the first classic analysis of control strategies in USA context and identified three principal control modes used by capitalists against workers: simple control involves direct face-to-face interaction and supervision between the manager and the worker; technical control involves the use of machines like the assembly line conveyor-belt to reinforced greater division of labor and set the pace and intensity of work; this allows the supervisor or manager to monitor and control indirectly without having to rely much on the interpersonal contact required under simple control; and bureaucratic control, the most recent modality, involves the use or rules and regulations to obtain worker compliance and conformity to corporate organizational plans and processes; like technical control, this also eliminates the need for much interpersonal contact.

The report from the field posted below makes several observations about how Sakuma Brothers is relying on a feigned observance of bureaucratic rules. This is a ruse and likely a violation of federal labor laws since workers are to be provided with any handbook issued and followed by the employer. Federal and Washington state labor laws require that the employer issue regulations and statements that are “truthful” and are developed “in good faith”. It appears that in this case, the employer is not “truthful” or acting “in good faith” when the alleged employee handbook is written in English and has not been shared with workers or their representatives.