Coors strike and boycott

Edit links
This is a good article. Click here for more information.
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

A color photograph showing the cityscape of Golden, Colorado, prominently showing the Coors brewing facility
Cityscape of Golden, Colorado, home of the Coors Brewing Company

The Coors strike and boycott was a series of

boycotts and strike action against the Coors Brewing Company, based in Golden, Colorado
, United States. Initially local, the boycott started in the late 1960s and continued through the 1970s, coinciding with a labor strike at the company's brewery in 1977. The strike ended the following year in failure for the union, which Coors forced to dissolve. The boycott, however, lasted until the mid-1980s, when it was more or less ended.

The boycott began in 1966 as a regional affair coordinated by the Colorado chapter of the

Teamsters union allied to promote the boycott that involved noted gay rights activist Harvey Milk
.

In April 1977, members of

strikebreakers. The company initiated a vote the following year over whether the local union would be dissolved, with a majority of workers voting to dissolve Brewery Workers Local 366. Despite this, the AFL–CIO continued their boycott. By the 1980s, Coors began making deals with several minority groups to do more business with minority companies and hire more minority workers. Despite this, the boycott continued and expanded to include numerous other groups, such as the National Organization for Women and the National Education Association. However, in August 1987, the AFL–CIO agreed to end the boycott, with Coors making several concessions that included using union labor to build a new facility in Virginia
and an agreement to an expedited union vote at its Golden facility. In December 1988, workers at the Golden brewery voted against unionizing by a margin of over 2 to 1.

The strike and boycott had a direct economic impact on Coors. The company's market share in several western states dropped from over 40 percent to as low as 17 percent in the case of California. Additionally, the boycott may have encouraged the company to expand nationally, as the company expanded its presence from 11 states in 1975 to 49 states by 1988. In the LGBT community, the boycott left a lasting impact, as several groups and activists still object to Coors over the company's past actions and the family's continued support of conservative politics. As late as 2019, Coors beer was difficult to find in any gay bar in San Francisco.

Background

A color photograph of the Coors brewing facility in Golden, Colorado, with the Clear Creek in the foreground
The Coors brewery along the Clear Creek

Coors and organized labor

The

AFL–CIO claiming that the company had destroyed 19 different unions at their facilities, including local unions representing boilermakers, electricians, and ironworkers, among other groups.[5]

The Coors family and social issues

Executive Vice President Joseph Coors

By 1975, several members of the Coors family held leadership positions in the company, including

National Right to Work Committee.[4]

Boycott begins

Hispanic and African American groups

Starting in 1966, the Colorado chapter of the

clerical workers.[1] That month, the EEOC filed a lawsuit against the company with the United States District Court for the District of Colorado, with the company settling out of court in 1977.[9]

In addition to employment discrimination, Hispanic activists also singled out Joseph Coors' actions while university regent and the Coors family's response to the

Southern Colorado State College protested Coors by blocking people at a local pub from ordering Coors beer. 15 of the students were arrested, and the college later filed a restraining order against the protestors. The same year, the boycott grew nationwide, with the national chapter of the American GI Forum instituting a boycott against Coors. This action was supported by several other national organizations representing Hispanics and Mexican Americans,[6] including the Mexican American Youth Organization and the Raza Unida Party.[2] Representatives from the American GI Forum had several meetings with William Coors during this time to address the issues they were protesting, but the discussions proved fruitless.[6]

Polygraph testing and LGBT response

A color photograph of Harvey Milk and Audrey Milk standing in front of a store, with a campaign poster featuring a photograph of Harvey Milk in the background, partially out of frame
Activist Harvey Milk (left) helped coordinate an alliance between San Francisco's gay community and labor unions to boycott Coors.[10]

Another point of contention between the company and protestors involved the use of

marijuana, personal debts the individual owed, political affiliations of the application (specifically regarding "subversive, revolutionary or communist activities"),[4] and a question that read, "Is there anything in your personal life that might tend to discredit or embarrass this company if it were known?"[11] Multiple sources also reported that applicants were asked about their sexual orientation.[12][13][14] While critics of the testing alleged that the company used the information collected to prevent people from being hired based on political affiliations or sexuality, the company denied this.[12] According to William Coors, approximately 45 percent of applicants failed the polygraph testing, primarily with regards to questions over drug use.[15]

Despite the company's claims, Coors became known throughout the

gay rights movement.[19] Activist Tami Gold later claimed that the boycott was "perhaps one of the first major public demonstrations of the links between class and sexual identity".[16]

Strike action

1977–1978 Coors strike
DateApril 5, 1977 – December 14, 1978[note 2]
(1 year, 8 months, 1 week and 2 days)
Location
Golden, Colorado, United States
Caused by
  • Disagreements over content of new labor contract
Goals
  • Change in grounds for dismissal
  • End to polygraph testing
Methods
Resulted in
  • Strikebreakers and union members hired without labor contracts
  • Workers vote to decertify local union
Parties
Brewery Workers
Local 366

During the boycott, brewery workers at Coors had union representation as members of the

Brewery Workers Local 366, which had existed at the plant since at least a failed strike in 1957.[6] A 1975 article in The New York Times described the unions at Coors as weak, highlighting several failed strikes that had occurred throughout the company's history.[1] At the time, union members reported that working conditions were not ideal, with the most significant point of contention being the 21 causes for firing, which included doing anything "which would discourage any person from drinking Coors beer" and "making disparaging remarks about the employer".[1][20] While the union's president claimed that the labor contract was "pretty lousy", he admitted that the pay and benefits offered by the company were better than most in the industry, and that "[a]s long as they're getting a high wage rate and aren't faced with disciplinary action, their contract doesn't mean much to them".[1]

In 1976, under Colorado's Labor Peace Law provisions, Coors demanded a vote amongst brewery workers on whether the brewery would remain a union shop.[4] In a vote held that December, the union shop was kept, with 92 percent voting in favor.[11] On March 1 of the following year, the labor contract between Coors and the local expired, and ensuing negotiations on a new contract were bogged down by disagreements between the two.[11] The disagreements were not related to pay but instead concerned the company's grounds for dismissal and their use of polygraph testing for applicants.[11] Additionally, the company had wanted to change policies regarding seniority rights, which the union opposed.[4] On April 5, 1977,[3] approximately 1,500[note 3] union members began a strike action against the company with a mass walkout.[4] However, the next day, the company sent letters to the striking employees saying that they would hire strikebreakers if necessary and that, if the striking worker were replaced, they ran the risk of losing their position within the company.[23] On April 12, the AFL–CIO announced a national boycott of Coors in support of Local 366.[12] Around this time, then-company president Jeff Coors, in speaking to the Los Angeles Times,[24] stated that agreeing to the union's proposals was like "inviting the Russians in to take over America".[25]

Shortly after the strike's start, Coors began pushing for the union shop rule at the brewery to be revoked, which was strongly opposed by the strikers. According to a company official, Coors "didn't believe non-strikers should be forced to join the union or that people should be forced to pay union dues to support the boycott".[4] Within several weeks from the start of the strike, hundreds of strikebreakers had been hired, and many strikers had returned to work.[23] Soon, the main issues of the strike concerned keeping the union shop rule and pushing for the rehiring of strikers. By early 1978, Coors was seeking a vote on whether to decertify the union, and, after agreeing to pay $254,000 in back pay, the election became official.[4] By June, it was reported that a majority of strikers had returned to work,[11] and by the time of the vote in early December,[note 4] only 500 of the initial 1,500 strikers were still on strike.[4] The Associated Press reported on December 14 that workers had voted 993 to 408 to decertify Brewery Workers Local 366, bringing an end to the strike.[3]

Continued boycott

In 1979, both the American GI Forum and the California-based

La Raza, with the company agreeing to do more business with minority businesses and contractors and hire more minority workers, among other things. As a result of the agreements, the NAACP ended their threats to boycott Coors.[27] The agreements also helped the company's relationship with groups including the National Urban League and the League of United Latin American Citizens.[15]

A color photograph of the Harvard Science Center, a modernist building used as a classroom and laboratory building at Harvard University
Approximately 200 students picketed Joseph Coors outside the Harvard Science Center in February 1987.[28]

In 1986, the South Dakota Farmers Union announced they would also be boycotting Coors following advertisements Coors released that the union said cast aspersions on local

communists.[29] By 1987, Coors had expanded its market to include 47 states, and it was the only brewery among the top 15 in the nation that was not unionized.[30] In February of that year, during a speech given by William Coors at the Harvard Science Center in Cambridge, Massachusetts, approximately 200 Harvard University students picketed the executive and his company.[28] That same month, Coors expanded their market to include New York and New Jersey, with the AFL–CIO organizing a regional boycott. However, at the time, the non-AFL–CIO affiliated Teamsters were not part of the boycott, instead focusing on organizing the workers at a Coors brewery in Elkton, Virginia.[30] In March, a scuffle broke out at the New York State Capitol in Albany, New York between union members and Coors wholesalers during an event held by company representatives who were publicizing Coors' expansion into the state.[15]

End of the boycott

Agreement between the AFL–CIO and Coors

In 1985, Pete Coors took over the company's day-to-day operations from his father Joseph and immediately began negotiating with the AFL–CIO on an agreement that would end the boycott. The AFL–CIO rejected Coors' initial offer in February 1987, but on August 19, they announced that they had come to an agreement with the company and would end their boycott.[31] Among the concessions, the company agreed to use union workers in the construction of their new facility in Virginia.[32] This had been a point of contention that prevented the February agreement from being approved.[33] Additionally, the AFL–CIO and the company claimed that the agreement would make it easier for worker organization efforts at Coors facilities,[32] However, any union vote would be overseen by a third party such as the American Arbitration Association rather than the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB).[22] Shortly after the agreement, the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers (IAM) announced their intent to start organizing drives at both the Elkton and Golden facilities, while the International Union of Operating Engineers (IUOE) and the United Auto Workers (UAW) also expressed interest in organizing Coors workers. An AFL–CIO representative at the time of the announcement claimed that it was "arguably the biggest victory in my time at the federation, and that covers 18 years",[32] while AFL–CIO president Lane Kirkland called the boycott "a complete success, a resounding success"[33] and commented on the "more positive approach taken by (the new) management" at Coors.[24] However, some union members criticized the agreement, as Coors did not guarantee a union contract.[22] At the time, union membership in the United States had been on the decline, with activist and writer Jonathan Tasini stating, "Organized labor has been in such desperate straits that the Coors settlement has been perceived as a victory – even though the workers at Coors are still without a union."[22]

Teamsters union drive

At the time of the agreement, the Teamsters were attempting to organize workers at the Golden facility. The Los Angeles Times reported that the AFL–CIO saw this as a threat to possible union efforts by the IAM, IUOE, and UAW. As part of the agreement, only AFL–CIO unions would be guaranteed an expedited vote on union representation.[33] Following the agreement, the Teamsters continued their efforts to organize at the Golden plant.[34] In late 1987, the Teamsters became an AFL–CIO affiliate.[22] Following this, the Teamsters were the AFL–CIO union tasked with the organization at the Golden plant. In September 1988, it was reported that the Teamsters and Coors disagreed on whether a union vote would include only brewery workers (favored by the Teamsters) or an additional 2,000 container workers who were less favorable to unions (favored by Coors). The dispute was at the time being settled by the NLRB.[24] Ultimately, only the brewery workers participated in the union vote.[35][note 5] On December 15, 1988, workers at the Golden plant voted against unionizing with the Teamsters.[36][35] The vote came after 18 months of campaigning, with the final vote being 1,081 against to 413 in favor of unionizing.[35] Among the issues presented during the campaign, the Teamsters cited increased wages and pension plans with Teamsters members at Anheuser-Busch as examples of what could happen with a union at Coors. However, Coors rebutted that Anheuser-Busch was larger than Coors and could therefore afford the larger pay and benefits.[36][35]

Impact

The strike and boycotts had a considerable impact on Coors, with Jonathan Tasini stating that they "effectively helped stunt the company's growth".[22] In the late 1970s, the company's market share in California had dropped from a high of over 40 percent to just 14 percent. In the company's home state of Colorado, there was a similar drop from 47 percent in 1977 to 24 percent in 1984.[15] In 1987, the Los Angeles Times claimed that "Coors officers have conceded that the boycott, which was joined over the years by various special-interest groups opposed to the outspoken political conservatism of Coors family patriarch Joseph Coors, had damaged its main market areas in the West and its drive for nationwide sales".[33] However, these numbers and the impact the boycott had on the decline are disputed by Coors representatives. A company representative in 1983 claimed that, while the boycott hurt sales in California, the overall decline in sales during this time was due to increased competition from the Miller Brewing Company and Anheuser-Busch.[37] Speaking later about the boycott, Pete Coors stated that "the '70s and early '80s were not a stellar time for the company".[8] The decrease in market share in Coors' limited market area may have contributed to the company's decision to expand nationwide, with the company having a presence in every state except Indiana by 1988.[15] This is compared to the company's stance in 1975 when a company representative claimed there were no plans at the time to expand to the eastern United States.[1]

Legacy in the LGBT community

In the years after the boycott ended, the relationship between Coors and the LGBT community remained frayed. In a 1998 article from the

Out Front Colorado was criticized for refusing to run an ad submitted by the LGBT committee of the National Lawyers Guild that criticized Coors and contended that the boycott was still active.[39] In 2019, union and LGBT activist Nancy Wohlforth commented that "to this day, you can't find Coors in a gay bar in San Francisco",[17] a claim backed up by a 2017 article by the Teamsters on the impact of the boycott.[18] A 2014 article published by Colorado Public Radio stated that "grudges against Coors continue" among groups that had been involved in the boycotts.[6]

Notes

  1. ^ A 1978 report by the Associated Press claimed that the company had had a union presence for 42 years at that time, since 1936 when union representation began.[3] However, a 1979 article in The Washington Post claimed that a union had been invited to organize at the brewery 45 years prior, giving the year of 1934.[4]
  2. ^ End date represents the date that brewery workers voted to decertify the local union.[3][4]
  3. ^ One source gives this number as approximately 1,400.[21] A 1988 article in The New York Times gives a specific number of 1,472.[22]
  4. ^ Sources vary on the exact dates of the vote, with a 1979 article in The Washington Post stating that voting happened from December 13 to 14,[4] while a 1991 book by Russ Bellant gives the vote dates as December 14 and 15.[23] The Associated Press reported on the "[u]nofficial returns" in the voting tally as happening on the night of December 14.[3]
  5. ^ Sources differ on the number of brewery workers at the plant at the time of the vote, with sources claiming 1,500,[36] 1,600,[35] and 1,700.[24]

References

  1. ^ a b c d e f g h i j k l m n Lichtenstein 1975.
  2. ^ a b c Jimenez 1976.
  3. ^ a b c d e The New York Times 1978.
  4. ^ a b c d e f g h i j k l Dewar 1979.
  5. ^ Bellant 1991, pp. 80–81.
  6. ^ a b c d e f g h i j Cole & Brantley 2014.
  7. ^ Now 2004.
  8. ^ a b Brantley 2021a.
  9. ^ Bellant 1991, p. 66.
  10. ^ a b Shilts 1982, pp. 82–83.
  11. ^ a b c d e f Wins 1978.
  12. ^ a b c Bellant 1991, p. 80.
  13. ^ a b c d Hsiao 1998.
  14. ^ a b c McDevitt 2015.
  15. ^ a b c d e f g Richter 1987.
  16. ^ a b c d Gold 1999, p. 91.
  17. ^ a b c Kelly 2019.
  18. ^ a b c International Brotherhood of Teamsters 2017.
  19. ^ Jones 2009.
  20. ^ Hurt III 1976.
  21. ^ Crisman 1978.
  22. ^ a b c d e f g h i Tasini 1988.
  23. ^ a b c Bellant 1991, p. 81.
  24. ^ a b c d Stumbo 1988.
  25. ^ Anderson 2015.
  26. ^ Ivins 1979.
  27. ^ Peterson 1984.
  28. ^ a b Grossman 1987.
  29. ^ Los Angeles Times 1986.
  30. ^ a b Prial 1987.
  31. ^ The New York Times 1987.
  32. ^ a b c Los Angeles Times 1987.
  33. ^ a b c d Johnston 1987.
  34. ^ Knudson 1987.
  35. ^ a b c d e The New York Times 1988.
  36. ^ a b c Kelleher & Reid 1988.
  37. ^ The New York Times 1983.
  38. ^ a b Mirken 2001.
  39. ^ Roberts 2002.

Sources

Further reading
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Coors_strike_and_boycott&oldid=1194573580"