eabakkum Review of American Dream

American Dream (1990)

Documentary on Corporate Campaign against Hormel

[8/10 · 3 November 2010]

American Dream confirms the excellent reputation of director Barbara Kopple, which was first established with Harlan County USA. Again the theme relates to a labor conflict, but in most aspects the events and the emotions are strikingly different. It is 1986 and the meat processing industry in the USA experiences strong setbacks. The wages in the meat trade are reduced everywhere, also at the plants of giant Hormel. However, the difference is that Hormel is still making huge profits. Therefore the local union organization Local P9 decides to deviate from the federal labor contracts and demand full spending power. Their stance is rejected by the federal union, who fears labor unrest at the other meat corporations. Lacking federal support, the local union hires an external labor consultant from Corporate Campaign in order to develop a strategy, in particular with respect to the public relations. It is vital to convince the stakeholder, such as the financiers of Hormel. The film crew is allowed to attend the meetings of the strike committee and is of course present at all public events, such as union member meetings and the picket lines. The strike lasts for about half a year. After several months the management of the Hormel plant(s) withdraws from the negotiations and starts to hire new personnel (scabs). At this time some cracks emerge in the strikers' solidarity, and some return to work. Hormel manages to get their plant(s) running again, at full capacity. Eventually all of the strikers, several hundreds of their employees, are sacked by Hormel, and the battle is lost. The titles at the end tell that still later Hormel outsourced the complete plant and the wages were cut to half of their original value. American Dream is not an easy story, and the difference between right and wrong is less clear than in the Harlan County conflict. Is wage differentiation within a trade justifiable? I have my doubts. It is a punishment for successful plants and takes away the incentive for the management to excel. Jobs should be rewarded according to their average productivity in the economy as a whole. On the other hand, the strikers at Hormel were in a strong bargaining position, and could act as special forces in order to lead the way for their more unfortunate colleagues elsewhere. In addition the film shows the power shift between labor and capital. Repeatedly the strikers complain that "this would never have happened under the old mister Hormel". The point is of course that capital had become mobile, and therefore the local bonds between labor and capital got detached. Hormel is now able to close his plant, and start again in another state or continent. Also the competition may have (temporarily) increased due to globalization. I guess that the strikers overplayed their card.