WITH COUNTLESS STORIES of recent labor union losses it is rare to find a group of employees unwavering in their demands. The setting for such a tale is Austin, Minnesota, where the country's most interesting and controversial labor battle is taking place.

It all started more than six months ago when 1,500 workers struck against their employer, George A. Hormel and Company. The issues then were wages and working conditions. But half a year later those original concerns have taken a back seat to the story of the rebellious, militant union behind the strike.

The embattled United Food and Commercial Workers Local P-9 offers a promising example to unions which actually want to win fights with management in an era of conservative labor leaders and a staunchly anti-labor President Reagan. It is also an anomaly because unlike other unions which readily accept vacuous management concessions, the Minnesota local is fighting back.

Unfortunately, it is struggling without the tactical support of its own national unions and the AFL-CIO. The national union, whose president is William Wynn, opposes P-9's strategy. Last week Lane Kirkland, president of the AFL-CIO, announced that the industry-wide union would not endorse the actions of P-9. In addition to the national union, the AFL-CIO, and of course the Hormel company, the small Austin union has made another eneme--the National Guard, which in January cleared the way for workers hired to replace the strikers.

Yet despite the opposition from above, P-9 is refusing concession offers. Whether it can actually succeed in reaching its demands is questionable. Pickets have spread beyond the Minnesota base to Hormel plants in Ottumwa, lowa and Dallas, Texas. But the top national union leaders refusal to support local strategies may hurt P-9.

Although the national union still provides strike benefits to the Austin strikes, it has also accused the militant local leaders of being "false prophets" who mislead the workers they represent. Wynn has gone so far as to liken the strategies of the Austin leaders to Nazistyle propaganda. Such denunciations by the national unions are rather hypocritical for leaders who nominally act to fight against management attacks on the working lives of their members.

The P-9 heads are basically pushing to gain back what was taken from the workers a year and a half ago. Hormel had cut hourly meatpacker wages by more than two dollars in October 1984. Through bargaining, that pay was raised another dollar. Recently P-9 refused several offers and seems willing to hold out until management makes an offer close to the employees' 1984 wages.

THE RADICAL, UNBENDING posture of the union will serve as a model for rank-and-file resiliency in the future if it proves successful. In recent years, the demands of many unions have been stifled by Reagan-backed federal actions, as in the case of a much-publicized air traffic controller's strike four years ago. And Ironically, the unions have also stifled themselves. In many cases today, they accept concessions in the form of employees stock ownership plans, workplace democracy schemes and worker participation on management boards. But while these plans are progressive, they usually come at the expense of worker wages and pension plans.

For example, unions at Eastern Airlines last month took an 18 percent pay cut in exchange for a 25 percent share in the ownership of the company and the placement of four workers on the board of directors. Yet the plan doesn't seem to have worked in the employees favor. Workers are now considering another strike and the company is attempting to pay off a staggering debt.

Fortunately, P-9 has managed to avoid burying its own goals by accepting these kind of concessions. Curtailing picket line militancy and accepting concessions will eventually hurt unions set on defending wages and bettering the working lives of their members. If the hard-nosed and broad-based strategy is successful in Minnesota, other unions should follow the P-9 lead and take a chance at making some enemies.