Abstract
Sociologist Chris Rhomberg explores the changing terrain of labor relations in this thoughtful case study. Taking on academic “conventional wisdom” grounded in the New Deal framework, he argues that the Detroit strike fits a pattern where “one side comes to the table looking to make a deal. The other side comes to get rid of the table” (p. 267).
In July 1995 2,500 Detroit workers struck newspapers owned by the Gannett and Knight-Ridder chains and their joint operating company. Five years later, the unions settled on management’s terms after federal judges overturned the National Labor Relations Board’s (NLRB’s) unfair labor practice ruling against management.
The strike’s backdrop was the 1989 joint operating agreement that let Gannett and Knight-Ridder, which published the Detroit News and Detroit Free Press, respectively, maintain separate newsrooms while merging production and circulation and sharing revenue. In preparing for the 1995 negotiations, company bargainers were determined to undermine union power. Claiming management prerogatives, they targeted long-standing practices as they attacked jurisdictions and unions’ role on the job. Meanwhile, Gannett pressed a merit pay scheme that denied a meaningful union role in setting News reporters’ pay.
Managers knew their hard-line approach was likely to provoke a strike and were ready to make the most of a walkout. After settling the contracts in 1992, company officials immediately began preparing for a showdown. They developed extensive strike plans that included even minor details like stocking in-plant food machines. Twelve months before the walkout, managers were holding monthly strike preparation meetings.
Company officials prioritized outreach to local police. Before bargaining began, they were meeting with police at suburban Sterling Heights where they planned to centralize strike production. During the strike, management treated Sterling Heights officers like a paid detail, shelling out $1 million for overtime.
At first, there was aggressive picketing as workers clashed with police and paramilitary private security. But within a few months, injunctions had helped management win the plant-gate battle. The workers’ multi-union council also fought back with subscription and advertising boycotts, community outreach, unfair labor practice charges, and an alternative strike newspaper. Rhomberg notes that these efforts went beyond traditional strike tactics, but he does not explain that they were common to newspaper strikes by the late 1970s.
The strike cost the corporations $92 million in the first six months. One year into the walkout, circulation was down by one third, and advertising revenue was off more than twenty-five percent. But the companies’ stock continued to rise, and the chains’ other operations subsidized the strike.
Rhomberg’s discussions of management strategies, the role of labor law and “judicial repression” make an important contribution to understanding what has happened to unions and strikes in recent years. Bargaining to impasse, implementing management’s demands, and bringing in permanent scabs were a union-busting trifecta as managers used labor law as a weapon against the Detroit workers’ National Labor Relations Act rights. When the NLRB unanimously ruled that management unfair labor practices had caused the strike, the Appeals Court tossed out the decision. The judges excused management’s stonewalling information requests because the questions “were obviously designed to narrow the zone of discretion the employer wished to preserve” (p. 252).
This is a clear, well-written account illustrated by moving stories that bring to life the strike and its impact on workers’ lives. Rhomberg emphasizes that his aim is to explore the labor relations framework, not assess strike tactics and strategy. Still, with his extensive interviews with strikers and rich discussion of strike activities, the decision not to dig deeper into what worked and what didn’t was a missed opportunity.
While parts of The Broken Table will be of particular interest to social scientists, this highly readable book has a lot to offer a broader audience. For union members it provides an important reminder of what has changed and what is at stake. It is a valuable addition to studies of other key labor struggles of the last three decades.