During half time of the 2012 Super Bowl, a commercial aired that represents a direct attack against unions and serves as an excellent demonstration of the use of ideology to promote false consciousness. The supposed union workers in the ad complain about unions taking such high union dues and state that they did not vote for the union, suggesting that they don’t want the union and that it does not represent their interests. The commercial’s narrator says “only 10% of people in unions today actually voted to join the union” and encourages people to support the Employee Rights Act, a bill that would make it much harder for workers to join unions and easier to de-certify existing ones (click here if the video isn’t embedding correctly):
The commercial was created by the anti-union Center for Union Facts, an astroturf organization founded by DC lobbyist Richard Berman and supported by big business interests. Astroturf organizations are advocacy groups promoting a political or corporate agenda but designed to make it appear like a grassroots movement. Note that one of the union “actors” in the video is played by Berman himself. These photos show Berman as he appears in the ad and in his normal attire as an anti-union lobbyist:
[Via Republic Report.]
Federal law requires that at least 50% of a company’s workforce vote in favor of the formation of a union, and most union members join unions formed years before, so it’s not surprising that many workers today weren’t involved in the votes that founded their unions. Furthermore, according to independent analysis by the Economic Policy Institute, laws like the Employee Rights Act hurt workers by leading to lower pensions; workers in unions actually have higher wages and health benefits because they can use their collective bargaining power to improve their working conditions.
In The German Ideology, Karl Marx argued that “The ideas of the ruling class are in every epoch the ruling ideas … The class which has the means of material production at its disposal, has control at the same time over the means of mental production.” This ad demonstrates the use of ideology, or dominant ideas that help to perpetuate inequality. An advertisement (which cost about $3.5 million to air during the Super Bowl) produced by a large corporate-funded organization is meant to shape workers’ perception of unions in a negative light. With greater wealth (“the means of production”) and access to media (“the means of mental production”), they seek to discourage workers from joining unions, or even to leave those they are already members of, in hopes of making them easier to control. Ultimately, the goal is to convince workers to accept the ideology of the ruling class and act against their own class interests.
—————
Paul Dean is a PhD candidate in sociology at the University of Maryland. His research focuses on social inequality, including his dissertation which examines social responsibility movements that promote more socially responsible and sustainable business practices. He is also co-founder and co-editor of The Sociological Cinema.
Comments 36
Anonymous — February 17, 2012
Indeed. And the workers who have to pay those "high union dues" also tend to make higher wages than non-union workers. As a union member (teaching assistant!) in a unit that may have to go on strike this year because our bosses are trying to screw us, well, all I can say is that I don't know what we'd all do without our representatives at the table.
Anna — February 17, 2012
most union members join unions formed years before, so it’s not surprising that many workers today weren’t involved in the votes that founded their unions.
If I am not mistaken, the commercial refers to something different. It says that some union members never voted to join their union. Please correct me if I'm wrong.
I am not very familiar with union policies in America. Can you be regarded as a member of a union, even if you do not explicitly want to be in it? For a culture that prizes the individual so much, it strikes me as extremely problematic if someone has to join a union based on the strength of popular votes, and not their personal decision to participate in it.
Yrro Simyarin — February 17, 2012
It depends on the laws of the state.
Some states are "right to work" states, where law prohibits unions and employers from signing an agreement requiring employees to join the union (or at least pay equivalent union dues). Some states do not prohibit this, and others have specific anti-scab legislation. The law governing what exactly it takes for a shop to become unionized varies as well.
Pro-union groups argue that workers who are not part of the union gain from union efforts for better pay, pension, or safety, without contributing anything. Anti-union groups say that no one should be forced to pay money to the union, who may (among other things) donate that money to political causes they disagree with. And that those individuals should be free to negotiate their own salary independently.
Neither side is being entirely altruistic - businesses want cheap labor, and union groups gain power and money when the default action is to join them.
And of course, both sides will say you are free to seek employment elsewhere.
Edit: This should be in reply to Anna.
Andy — February 17, 2012
"workers in unions actually have higher wages and health benefits because they can use their collective bargaining power to improve their working conditions"
"the goal is to convince workers to accept the ideology of the ruling class and act against their own class interests"Isn't the issue a teensy bit more complicated than that? For example, is it possible that higher union wages result in market distortions which lead to greater unemployment? If so, then unions may be working against the interest of a significant portion of the working class.
I'm skeptical of this post's simple depiction of power-grabbers trying to brainwash the ignorant masses.
Full disclosure: I'm a student of economics so maybe I'm simply regurgitating "the ideas of the ruling class"
John Hensley — February 17, 2012
What immediately disgusts me about the ad is the mystification of unions, as if they are supernatural forces that should to read workers' minds, without those workers having to get active and state their concerns about the workplace.
John Hensley — February 17, 2012
"I bet it was Harold" is of course an essential component of what Chomsky describes as the Mohawk Valley Formula. See
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q2X46nYH5Nk