regulations. A new attendance policy was also instituted and workers were shocked to find out that anyone with over seven absences per year would be fired and the number of allowed absences would decrease every year. A few months later, company management announced a new set of offences that were grounds for immediate termination. This list included "smoking outside of designated areas; loafing; dishonesty; sleeping on duty; insubordination; refusal to work overtime as directed; unauthorized possession of a camera; and use of abusive or threatening language." This was a gross violation of the union contract, which states that employers cannot fire employees without having the "just cause" to do so. Due to this new regulation, more workers were fired during the next year than had been fired in the previous twenty years combined. Considering the climate, it was no surprise that continued contract negotiations were unsuccessful. Under the guidance of Jerry Tucker, the union began to organize an in-plant "work to rule" campaign, where workers pressure management to reach a fair campaign by altering their behavior on the job, as opposed to going on strike. At A. E. Staley, this meant that the workers collectively decided to do only what they were told to do by their supervisor without their past knowledge and experiences. They performed only their outlined job duties and nothing extra. The goal of the work to rule campaign was to show management that the factory could not be run without the knowledge and skills of the workers. In many ways, A. E. Staley was the perfect environment for this type of labor tactic, as most unionized workers had acquired skills over the years that boosted overall production and quality of the product. Management and new supervisors simply did not have this knowledge and skills to effectively instruct workers. This was evidenced in the fact that over the next 11 months during which the work to rule campaign occurred, production fell drastically. A company spokesperson estimated that production had fallen by 32%, but union estimates were upwards of 50%. The New York Times reported that the decision resulting in the lockout of A. E. Staley union employees were due to Staley officials claiming that workers had been sabotaging plant operations for the weeks prior to the lockout. Representatives from the Allied Industrial Workers of America, claimed that there were no reports of any employees being reprimanded for