Through Jaundiced Eyes: How the Media View Organized Labor

It's good to be back home! I've had the honor of spending the past few days in Chicago representing my union at a conference. There were many fine speakers, and the brother- and sisterhood I found there was amazing! Much love and respect to the good sisters and brothers of Minneapolis and St. Paul!!! Anyway....

One of the fine speakers was Dr. William J. Puette, author of Through Jaundiced Eyes: How the Media View Organized Labor. He found that anti-union attitudes are strikingly consistent, even though labor history and/or education is rarely taught at the elementary or secondary level. His students already arrive with preconceived notions about unions, and have little to no actual knowledge of labor history (as shown by their answers on a test). The students who hold anti-union views believe that unions: are un-american, are ruining the country, are too powerful, are no longer needed, have "bosses" that are corrupt, have "bosses" that are overpaid, are greedy and selfish, protect bad workers and are always going on strike. Hmm. Where could they possibly be getting these ideas?

Ever heard the term "media bias"? Film, television (news and dramas), newspapers, cartoons...all emphasize different facets of anti-labor bias, but together present a unified portrait of the evils of "Big Labor". In fact, that's a popular loaded term, "Big Labor"; often used in opposition to "small business" (which is used many times without regard to the actual size or income of the business! He presented an example of one of Hawai'i's airlines referring to themselves as a "small business"...not exactly a mom-and-pop operation, no?). Typecasting, caricatures, and stereotypes are trotted out on a regular basis to emphasize bias, not challenge it. Subliminal messages are given through images and placement (and size) of articles in print media.

Film tends to emphasize violence in relation to unions. Especially mob violence (which could be, and will be, its own topic on this blog!). It's telling that Jimmy Hoffa is still the best-known labor figure. Fictional images of working-class men with ballbats and ax-handles are given more space than real news footage of police attacking nonviolent, unarmed labor demonstrators with plastic bullets, tear gas, pepper spray, and batons. Movies also highlight strikes (in reality, 99.3% of labor negotiations are handled without a strike), corruption (again, cue up the Godfather theme), and greed (greed?! CEO pay, anyone?!!).

Print media utilizes liberal use of subliminal messaging, images and verbal bias. Contrast "labor boss" with "corporate executive" (or official, spokesman, etc.). But it fits nicely with "Mafia boss". During negotiations, labor "demands", employers "ask for concessions" or "make an offer". Employers "resist", in order to "seek higher profits"; when union members seek an increase in wages to keep up with the cost of living, or an increase in health benefits, words like "lust" and "greed" are used. When labor leaders are featured, they tend to have their age listed right after their name...like criminals do in the police beat section. In fact, Dr. Puette kept track of labor articles during the writing of his book; thirty percent of the time, labor articles were on the same page as the police beat. He even showed an example where the labor news was embedded in the arrest records, although there was no tie-in at all! There was another example of a magazine article on organized crime in Hawai'i; the graphics featured different areas of organized crime (prostitution, drugs, etc.....and "labor racketeering"). There was no mention of labor in the article, as there were no charges of labor racketeering!

Visual images are important. Labor leaders are not only referred to as "labor bosses"; they are almost universally presented as large, heavyset, broad-shouldered men (the better to beat you up with, my child! Sorry, been reading too much "Little Red Riding Hood" over here). Pictures shown are unflattering, and with scowls instead of smiles. Contrast that with photos of business leaders...clean-cut, smiling, average-sized. If a labor official does not fit the image, well...the photo isn't shown! Dr. Puette's union president was referred to as a "union boss" in an article during negotiations, but because her petite, slight build did not match the aggressive terminology of "boss", her photo was not published. Newspapers often use photos of picket lines, even of informational pickets, and inflammatory headlines for labor articles; when negotiations are resolved (again, 99.3% with no strike, let alone no violence!), it gets a small blurb in the back of the paper. There is no regular labor beat in today's newspapers. The Chamber of Commerce, traditionally hostile to unions, is used as a news source. Graphics are increasingly employed in an attempt to compete with USA Today; an example of the "Union Boss" puppetmaster pulling strings, a la The Godfather was the visual headline in one magazine article. And of course, no image of a union leader is complete without the standard-issue large cigar clamped between the teeth!

Television reiterates these images, and tends to emphasize the pettiness and "foolish goals" of unions. Take for example, a 1993 episode of the Simpsons, which featured Homer Simpson as the president of the International Brotherhood of Jazz Dancers, Pastry Chefs, and Nuclear Technicians. This animation hauled out all the old, tired negative stereotypes, from sicilians being synonymous with the Mob (Homer was referred to as "the Kingpin" after his election), to beer-swilling, not-too-bright union members. Interestingly enough, this was released after an unsuccessful 1991 attempt by U.S. animators of the Simpsons to organize; this particular animation was done in Korea.

Which brings up another point...global union density rates. Media images feature large union "bosses" and cartoons of big muscle to highlight how powerful unions supposedly are in the U.S. Here's an actual breakdown of the percentages of union membership in various countries:

80% Denmark
70% Belgium
44% Italy
43% Germany
31% Canada
28% England
26% Australia
26% Japan
25% Spain
19% South Korea
17% Taiwan
13% U.S.A.

Labor is a political party just about everywhere besides the U.S. So, who's kidding who about labor and power?

The rise of corporate media coincides with the decrease in pro-labor voices in media. Around the turn of the century, most newspapers were locally owned, and each had its own philosophy; there were diverse opinions, and working people had advocates. There was accountability to the community. Those days are long gone...in print, in television, in radio. In 1996, Clear Channel owned 40 radio stations; after 1996's deregulation, they now own 1200 radio stations. (Quality and variety of music played on radio did a swan dive, and that's another topic for another time...in the meantime you can google "Greg Tate" for good articles on radio apartheid).

What can we as union members do? For starters, we can monitor the media, and offer critiques. We can point out media bias to our children. We can develop contacts within the media; it's harder to demonize real human beings as opposed to nameless masses. We can provide leadership training to our members so they can be more media-savvy when called upon for photo-ops and interviews. We can provide contrasting images of our membership to counter the stereotypes. We can support the labor press that does exist; give it a greater audience. We can develop our own PR. We can use pro-labor cartoonists. We can do even more....but we can't ignore the impact of the media. We do so at our own risk.