If its record is so hideous, one wonders why the public is just now hearing about Stevens. In part the reason is that while the company has been found guilty in lower courts consistently, it has taken years to accumulate a record against Stevens. Each case takes two to four years to wind its way through the courts.
The NLRB processes are so slow that they are ineffectual. As a panel of law experts said, "In labor management relations, justice delayed is often justice denied. A remedy granted more than two years after the event will bear little relation to the human situation which gave rise to the need for government intervention." Frustrated by the company's deliberate evasiveness, the NLRB is seeking to impose fines of $5,000 per day for continuing violations. Citing the company's "unfair labor practices of unprecedented flagrancy and magnitude," the NLRB's general counsel wants the ability to bypass several legal steps and go directly to an appeals court for a contempt order if the company fails to bargain.
About a year ago, the Amalgamated Clothing Workers and TWUA merged to form the Amalgamated Clothing and Textile Workers (ACTW). ACTW and the AFL-CIO are now beginning a massive campaign to unionize Stevens and the textile industry. They plan to fight the campaign on two fronts: first, unlike previous attempts to organize a few plants at a time, the unions will try to organize in all 85 plants simultaneously. Second, a nation-wide boycott of J.P. Stevens products is beginning, aided by support from church groups, civic leaders, politicians, and many others.
The boycott is a risky tactic. First, unlike the Farah pants or Gallo wine boycotts, Stevens makes no single product. Stevens goods are sold under a variety of brand labels--eight brand names of sheets, three of towels, and carpets, hosiery and linens under a mix of labels. Supporters of the boycott will have trouble making the consumer aware of what brands not to buy. In addition, only 34 per cent of Stevens's sales are in consumer products; the rest is in sales to the government and in unfinished textiles to other manufacturers. As a result, the boycott may focus on forming local support groups which will ask local retailers and government agencies not to purchase Stevens products.
Second, the boycott could backfire. Stevens will probably try to persuade the public and its workers that the boycott is forcing them to layoff workers and thus is hurting, not helping, employees. The union insists the purpose of the boycott is to pressure the company to obey the law; it is necessary because no other tactic has succeeded. "It was the company that created the conditions of the boycott by making it impossible for us to get fair elections in the first place," says the union's secretary-treasurer.
A group of Southern church leaders and politicians has endorsed the boycott. George Meany, president of the AFL-CIO, has promised the federation's "complete, total, all-out support." It has earmarked millions of dollars for a long campaign.
In the New England area, the groundwork for the boycott has just begun. Last Friday, at a Fanueil Hall rally, recently fired Stevens workers described their experiences in the plants. But major retailers of Stevens products, including Jordan Marsh and Filene's, have announced sales of Stevens goods--presumably to get them off the shelves before public awareness grows.
The Cambridge City Council passed Mayor Alfred Vellucci's resolution supporting the boycott last week. At Harvard, a support committee consisting of students, tutors, and professors has been formed. So far, the committee includes Phillips Brooks House (Steering Committee), H-R Democratic Club (executive committee), Radcliffe Union of Students, Education for Action, the Task Force on Affirmative Action, Prof. John K. Galbraith and Robert Ginn (OCS-OCL). The Coop Board of Directors has agreed to discontinue purchase of Stevens products until the labor conflict is resolved. This Thursday, the Orson Welles Cinema will hold a benefit showing of Harlan County, U.S.A., a film about contemporary miners' struggles. All proceeds will go to the boycott fund.
One thing seems certain: the boycott will be a long fight. Union supporters predict a two to five year effort. Having battled this long, Stevens is unlikely to give in without a tough fight.
At the Stevens stockholders meeting, representatives of civil rights, church and labor groups led by Coretta Scott King (the widow of Martin Luther King Jr.) attempted to introduce a resolution demanding data on Stevens's labor practices. The overflow crowd soon turned raucous. In response to the questions and outbursts from the audience, Chairman Finley declared, "This is my meeting and I'm running it." Someone then reminded him that it was supposed to be a stockholders meeting, and Finley apologized. Later, when asked what rules were being used to run the meeting, Finley answered, "Our rules."
Despite the antics at the meeting, the company's policies remained unchanged. It will change only if forced to do so.
For the union, the boycott represents the only tactic left to organize the plants. If the general history of American labor is any guide, unionization of the plants is the only way workers will ever achieve better wages, improve safety measures, and health conditions, and secure decent pension plans. For the AFL-CIO, the campaign is the first step toward unionizing the South and improving the conditions for Southern workers. That, in turn, could curb the pattern of Northern "runaway shops" moving south to avoid union labor, and help the economic development of the North-east.
But the Stevens executives are betting on the American public. They are betting that people won't give enough of a damn about Southern textile workers to become outraged over a situation that is clearly outrageous. They are betting on popular lethargy, and hoping people will rationalize, such as: the situation is far away and doesn't concern me; we have had enough of such causes; the issues are complex and there must be two sides; I don't have the time.
To support the boycott of J.P. Stevens products, one does not have to be a "radical" or an "activist," although many people who wear those labels will be involved. One does not even have to believe that unions are a good thing. For at the simplest level, the purpose of the boycott is to allow Stevens workers to choose for themselves whether or not they want a union--without company intimidation, interference or reprisal. It is to prevent a company from buying the power to break the law. It is a matter of simple justice. If for no other reason than this, the boycott of J.P. Stevens deserves support.
[Timothy G. Massad, a Lowell House junior, is a member of the Committee to Support the J.P. Stevens Boycott.]
"J.P Stevens is so out of tune with a humane, civilized relations that it should shock even those least sensitive to honor, justice, and decent treatment."