Research Paper Mar 2010

THE SELLING OF AMERICA: BIG BUSINESS FIGHTS OFF BIG LABOR 1

The Selling of America: Big Business Fights Off Big Labor –

Alternative Strategies to the Counter-Organizing Campaign

Tammy E. Gallinger

HRER 504

Pennsylvania State University


ABSTRACT

Addressed primarily to human resources and executive management, this paper focuses on union

organizing efforts within the private sector and the use of preventative labor relations and positive

employee relations as part of a successful union avoidance strategy. After examining copious reading

materials (i.e. periodicals, labor journals, blogs, online newspapers, and human resources/labor/law

books), including variable statistical analyses associated with employer counter-organizing campaigns,

the paper suggests a number of counter strategies, including employee participation programs and

employee positive rewards, to counter-balance the anticipated surge in union organizing efforts. These

programs, when employed in advance of an organizing campaign in conjunction with appropriate staff

training and continued participation and involvement by both management and employees, should result

in a favorable, union-free environment. While the statistical and evidentiary documents support a marked

increase in the nature, scope and frequency of employer opposition to union organizing, this paper

concludes that preventative and pro-active strategies can significantly reduce the need for aggressive,

reactionary tactics in order to thwart union intervention in the workplace and, in fact, can significantly

reduce the chances of falling victim to an organizing effort.


Organized labor (aka “unions”), like it or not, is big business. Recruiting disenfranchised workers

and lobbying politicians on behalf of the greater “social good” and “workers’ rights” is more than just

serving a good conscience. In order to better understand just how much money (not to mention power) is

involved in organized labor, all one need to do is review the various periodicals, journals, books, and

online websites or blogs that discuss unionization, union corruption (including the latest news of union

boss’s embezzlement schemes, bribes and threats of violence against corporations and its employees),

union lobbying and organizing efforts. Better yet, access the U.S. Department of Labor website and get

your (or any other) union’s LM-2 report. Just to show how “big” organized labor actually is, an article

posted on the National Legal and Policy Center website (Horowitz, 2008) announced that the United

Steelworkers (USW, which represents over 850,000 members nationwide) and a British union (UNITE,

which represents some two million workers in the U.K. in the transportation, energy and public sectors)

agreed to join forces. If this joint venture succeeds, it will be the first global union of its kind. This is not

to suggest by any means that unions are evil organizations without an ounce of merit. Nor is it to infer

that corporations are somehow “better than,” less corrupt or more ethical than their union counterparts.

The purpose is merely to establish that unions are, in fact, a business. Historically, organized labor, as a

service-oriented business, has had a far-reaching and long-lasting (social, political and economic) impact

on American life. Understanding that principle, the veil can then be lifted and a greater understanding can

be had in deciphering the juggernaut of labor-management relations.

As organizations continue to struggle with flagging profit margins; shifts in the job

market; (market and labor) competition on a global scale; competing demands for continued innovation

with a premium on efficiency, productivity and cost-shrinking; retaining top-performing talent pools in

the midst of increased employee dissatisfaction and rapid “burn-out” through burdensome workloads and

greater attrition, employers are looking for ways to not only retain but increase their control (over

multiple financial, operational, and administrative mechanisms) and maximize productivity, efficiency

and flexibility. Organized labor, generally-speaking, is intuitively opposed to an unstructured workforce

and unbridled (management) control. If organized labor fails to gain for the worker rights or benefits (s)he


could simply have afforded him/herself without the aid of third-party intervention, then the need for

unions more or less ceases to exist. Based upon a very primitive interpretation of the economic theory of

supply and demand, without the demand, unions would be out of business (and labor leaders, including

union representatives, organizers and local administrative staff would be without jobs).

The demand, of course, continues to be driven vis-à-vis the pipeline of “co-option” of

dissatisfied/maltreated workers by idealistic, sometimes self-serving unions and paternalistic, “bottom-

feeding” organizations. This paper will discuss the labor-management relationship from the point of view

of employer opposition to unionization and its deployment of alternative union avoidance strategies and

techniques.

Big Labor and Big Business: America Divided

Union density in the private sector, unlike that in the public sector, is experiencing an all-time

low; so alarmingly low, in fact, are the numbers that neophytes and labor relations experts alike are taking

Vegas-type bets on how long it will take before Big Labor’s gross apathy, greed and ineptitude kills itself

off (before Big Business does it in) and are beginning to toll the proverbial death-knell for unions in the

U.S. While this statement may seem a bit over-melodramatic, according to the U.S. Bureau of Labor

Statistics, in 2009 membership in private sector unions dipped to a paltry 7.2%. Despite the seemingly

precipitous and rather steady decline in unionization within the private sector, some studies are now

anticipating a resurgence of union power within the next few years.

Historically, a Republican-dominated political infrastructure has proven to be largely pro-

business and anti-labor (i.e. the 1981 PATCO strike, conservative “Reagan-esque” NLRB appointments

and subsequent rulings, George W. Bush’s anti-labor “putsch” [DHS et al]); the recent shift of power in

2008 vis-à-vis the Obama Administration, with the Democrats retaining control of both the House and the

Senate, has caused a “tidal wave” of pro-labor activity and increased legislation (i.e. EFCA, RESPECT

Act, National Healthcare Reform, expansion of Davis-Bacon Act of 1931) aimed at creating a more labor-

friendly public policy and a pro-worker environment through an ultra-liberal, pro-union NLRB


(i.e. appointments à la Craig Becker, former Associate General Counsel for SEIU, which, by the way, was

a unilateral, “recess appointment” by President Obama). There are a few questions currently at play: a)

what is the “average” American’s consensus (if there is, in fact, one at all) on unions? b) Given the

ideological and political shift toward Big Labor, what effect, if any, has this created with regards to

employer opposition toward unions and what strategies are organizations employing to counter-act and/or

pre-empt unionization of its workforce?

The United States of Unions

The numbers don’t lie – unionization within the private sector in the U.S. is down; what isn’t

clear, however, is what those numbers actually mean. Depending upon whose report one is to believe, the

majority of Americans – when given an opportunity – want a union. A 2006 poll of the general public by

the Pew Research Center found that 68 percent of Americans believe that labor unions are necessary to

protect working families. In that same year, pollster Peter Hart conducted a survey of workers indicating

that as many as 60 million Americans would join a union tomorrow – if they could. Rassmussen Reports

(www.rasmussenreports.com) in a 2009 survey of 1,000 participants nationwide, determined, however,

that only nine percent (9%) of Americans want to have a union, compared to its study in 2006, with a

larger share of 58% of Americans having had at least a favorable opinion about unions.

Various reports and studies suggest that it’s not so much that U.S. workers don’t want a union, as

it is that employer intimidation and use of threats have increased, so as to cause a substantial reduction in

the number of workforce units being unionized. Employers and others suggest that this is not the case at

all; due a changing job market, poor union leadership, bitter internecine feuds among the various unions

and labor organizations (i.e. AFL-CIO, Change to Win) and other socio-political-economic causes – as

well as increased employer awareness and pro-activity in employee engagement, satisfaction and

participation (HRM) programs and techniques – workers are less inclined to join a union. These aside

remarks notwithstanding, the NLRB reported that union election win-rates are the highest in decades. In

the first half of 2008, labor unions won 66% of elections they asked to be conducted (Wilson, 2009). Big

http://zh.wiktionary.org/wiki/en:t%C3%AAte-%C3%A0-t%C3%AAte

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/


Business, seeing the writing on the wall, has responded in kind by pursuing, by many accounts, more

vociferous and aggressive strategies aimed at avoiding unions altogether.

Union Avoidance: A Rose by Any Other Name

One of the more controversial of such efforts is the use of aggressive campaigns in

representational elections as a union avoidance strategy; organizations frequently hire high-priced union

avoidance law firms, labor consultants, industrial psychologists or strike management firms, which offer a

variety of services – including vulnerability assessments, strike management strategies -- based upon the

specific needs of the client as well as the “stage” of the organizing campaign (or as the case may be, the

anticipated strike). Organizations may choose to hire outside counsel as described above or in many

cases, they may already have labor relations experts in-house who have experience with implementing

union avoidance strategies and conducting anti-union certification campaigns. Nonetheless, implementing

a union avoidance strategy in some of the more aggressive organizations may also include, in addition to

perfectly legal avoidance tactics, some rather nefarious and/or illegal “persuader” and union-busting

activities.

Frequently, more often than not, the terms union avoidance¸ preventative labor relations and

union-busting are used interchangeably by labor practitioners on both sides of the fence, as well as the

common observer. There are those who would believe that any action, plan or strategy (i.e. employee

participation/involvement programs, team building, labor-management committees, ADR systems; work

councils, etc.) that is undertaken by a company related to remaining union-free (or in some cases,

unloading an existing union) is driven by union animus and is therefore, ipso facto, “anti-union” or

automatically synonymous with union-busting. “’Protecting democracy’ is simply the facade the

corporate opposition is using to wage war on organized labor…union-busting tactics “designed, at every

juncture, to undermine employees’ free choice of bargaining representatives.” (Logan, 2002, p. 198).

This statement is overly-broad, in this author’s opinion; in fact, one could postulate – without

delving into the issue of Constitutional rights – that the employer (as much as the employee) has the right


to determine the workplace environment within the confines and context of legally prescribed rules and

regulations.

The right of employees to unionize -- to join together as a unit for collective bargaining with their employer -- is specifically authorized by law. But that same law not only permits employees to refuse to unionize initially, but goes one step beyond to provide a framework for “de-unionization” -- the process by which a union, once it has become the elected representative of the employees, may later be removed from that position if the employees so wish.(Fernandez, May 2002, para. 2).

Employers, by engaging in counter-organizing campaigns or decertification campaigns, as the case may

be, are exercising their opportunity and right under the guidelines of currently-established law to offer

differing and/or alternative viewpoints in opposition to that which is being presented (to its employees) by

the union. In this way, the author of this paper would not necessarily consider all counter-organizing or

anti-union campaigns to be union-busting, so long as the employer conducts activities and behavior as

proscribed by the applicable body(s) of state and/or federal laws (i.e. NLRA, LMRA, Railway Labor Act,

FLRA, etc.). Additionally, union avoidance strategies, in and of themselves are not necessarily “anti-

union” in nature and may, in fact, mostly likely be a strategic decision based upon a complex number of

factors and considerations, including the desire to encourage a pro-employee (rather than anti-labor) work

environment. Charles Hughes, best known for his union avoidance manual, Making Unions Unnecessary,

refutes any argument that his own (union avoidance) activities as a consultant are in any way related to

union busting. In an article published by John Logan in the British Journal of Industrial Relations entitled,

The Union Avoidance Industry in the United States:

Unions have accused Hughes and other industrial psychologists of using subtle forms of manipulation and intimidation to ensure that employees are prevented from organizing. But Hughes sees things differently: “If the goal is to fight unions…it could be called union-busting. If the goal is good employee relations and the side effect is a union-free organization, I would call it class management. Take your choice…The message is not anti-union. Its theme is simply, “Unions are unnecessary for those who work in or our organization.” (Logan, 2006; Hughes 1984).

Further to the point, George Strauss -- a retired Professor of Organizational Behavior and

Industrial Relations at Haas School of Business (University of California at Berkeley) and former

President of the U.S. Industrial Relations Research Institute -- in his article titled, How Many of These Are


Anti-Union Practices? A U.S. Perspective and published in the Labor Journal (2009, November), goes on

to state:

For some Marxist and many economists, the sole goal of managers is to maximise profits. Further many of the same people believe that having a union automatically reduces profits. Thus for suspicious people almost everything management does in the broad human resources area is ipso facto anti-union. I think this conclusion overbroad. Management has other things to do besides fight unions. It needs to make and sell things, and faces a variety of pressures – not just from its employees, but from its customers, its stockholders, and the government. Thus – and this is my main point – management's motivation is often more complex than just anti-unionism. (Strauss, 2009).

An organization may adapt an arsenal of “weapons” by deploying one of several union avoidance

strategies which may include counter-organizing campaigns, decertification campaigns, or preventative

labor relations (aka “substitution”) without necessarily engaging in union-busting as it has come to be

understood. Union avoidance strategies may encompass such concepts as industrial democracy (i.e.

workplace democracy); lockouts; paternalism; personnel practices such as selective recruitment and

screening initiatives; employee involvement (EI) programs, including ‘work councils’ or teams. In the

sections that follow, the author will discuss positive employee relations and preventative labor relations

as two of the more popular, “soft HRM” union avoidance strategies -- apart from the more aggressive and

reactive counter-organizing campaign -- and clearly demonstrate the advantages of engaging in pro-

active, (usually) attitudinally-positive, union avoidances strategies. Further, this paper will illustrate that

these strategies can be equally effective in thwarting union organizing activities, if appropriately

implemented and consistently practiced. First, however, the issue of employer opposition must be

addressed. To what extent does employer opposition to union organizing and unions in general, exist

today? Has employer opposition increased, decreased or remained relatively unchanged?

Employer Opposition: Deal or No Deal

A majority of business organizations today implement some type of union-avoidance strategy as a

critical component of its over-arching human resources management strategy. The extent to which

employer opposition has increased over the past couple of decades, including the use of more aggressive

and vitriolic forms of union avoidance (i.e. commission of unfair labor practices, illegal threats, violence,


etc.), is an important question with serious consequences. Unfortunately, much like everything else in the

world of industrial relations, the answer depends in large part on whom you ask, the source and reliability

(as well as skew) of the data, and the interpretation of the information (consumer-bias, sold separately).

A massive compendium and some of the more popular studies on labor union organizing and

unionization trends within the United States (both private and public sectors) have been published by

Kate Bronfenbrenner, PhD, a union-organizer-turned leading- (union)- researcher and current Director of

Labor Education at the Cornell University School of Industrial and Labor Relations; Morris M. Kleiner,

University of Minnesota (Intensity of Management Resistance: Understanding the Decline of

Unionization in the Private Sector, Journal of Labor Research, Volume XXII, Number 3, Summer 2001);

and more recently, the Center for Union Facts (CUF), which released an analysis of National Labor

Relations Board data, An Analysis of Current NLRB Data on Unlawful Terminations During Union

Organizing Campaigns, 2007 to 2008 (Wilson, J., March 2009). Of course, neither study is without its

inherent bias. Bronfenbrenner’s most recently published work – an EPI Briefing Paper titled, No Holds

Barred: The Intensification of Employer Opposition to Organizing, was sponsored by the Economic

Policy Institute of Washington, D.C. – which, according to its own website (http://www.epi.org), is a non-

partisan (read, liberal) not-for-profit think tank that “seeks to broaden the public debate about strategies

to achieve a fair and prosperous and fair economy,” founded by a group of economists in 1986 and

American Rights at Work Education Fund -- defined by Wikipedia as “a self-described non-partisan, non-

profit organization that advocates for workers and their right to form unions without interference.”

Conversely, the Center for Union Facts is an interest/advocacy group which serves to monitor union

activities and was founded by Washington, D.C., lobbyist Richard Berman.

Nonetheless, the studies do reveal interesting insights about employers’ attitudinal positions

toward unions in general and their commitment to maintaining a union-free environment.

Bronfenbrenner’s latest study originated from a review of primary NLRB documents (through a FOIA

request) using a random sample of 1,004 NLRB certification elections that took place between January 1,

1999 and December 31, 2003, including an in-depth survey of 562 campaigns conducted [read, interviews

http://www.epi.org/


with head organizers] with that same sample. Highlights from the study reveal (Bronfenbrenner, 2009, p.

1-3):

Employer threatened to close the plant in 57% of elections, discharged workers in 34%, and threatened to cut wages and benefits in 47% of elections. Workers were forced to attend anti-union one-on-one sessions with a supervisor at least weekly in two-thirds of elections. In 63% of elections, employers used supervisor one-on-one meetings to interrogate workers about who they or other workers supported, and in 54% used such sessions to threaten workers.

In combination, the survey and ULP findings reveal that employer opposition has intensified: the incidence of elections in which employers used 10 or more tactics more than doubled compared to the three earlier periods studied, and the nature of campaigns has changed so that the focus is on more coercive and punitive tactics designed to intensely monitor and punish union activity.

Although the use of management consultants, captive audience meetings, and supervisor one-on-ones have remained fairly constant, there has been an increase in more coercive and retaliatory tactics (“sticks”) such as plant closing threats and actual plant closings, discharges, harassment and other discipline, surveillance, and alternation of benefits and conditions. At the same time, employers are less likely to offer “carrots,” as (we) see a gradual decrease in tactics such as granting of unscheduled raises, positive personnel changes, promises of improvement, bribes and special favors, social events, and employee involvement programs.

Unions filed unfair labor practice charges in 39% of the survey sample and 40% of the NLRB election sample. The survey and NLRB documents both show that the most aggressive employer anti-union behavior – that is, the highest percent of allegations – were threats, discharges, interrogation, surveillance, and wage and benefits altered for union activity.

In 2007, there were only 1,510 representation elections and only 58,376 workers gained representation through the NLRB. Even for those who do win the election, 52% are still without a contract a year later, and 37% are still without a contract two years after an election. (Bronfenbrenner, 2009)

The analytic data provided in her study which sourced both NLRB elections, an analysis of NLRB ULP

documents and an NLRB election sample all from years 1999-2003, suggests that the percentage of mean

elections where “at least one allegation upheld or settled” was 6% related to discharges and 2% related to

harassment (Bronfenbrenner, May 2009, p. 21).

Most research on the subject of unlawful terminations – deemed “discharges” by the NLRB –

during organizing campaigns has relied on interviews with union organizers conducted by union-funded

researchers (as cited in the Center for Union Facts, archival blog, March 4, 2009). This, of course, in this

author’s opinion presents at minimum a conflict of interest and sustains the possibility of skewing the

resultant data. Bronfenbrenner readily addresses this issue by explaining that ULPs by themselves are

inadequate for tracking the totality of employer behavior for a number of reasons: a) unions are wary to

file charges when there is a high probability of winning an election because an employer can use this to

his/her advantage by indefinitely blocking or delaying the election; b) the length of time it takes to resolve


a ULP and the associated weak penalties for violations are detracting motivators; and c) many ULP

“wins” are not captured in NLRB or court determinations but rather informal settlements that occur after

charges are filed but before the merit determination takes place, or after the election as part of the first

contract process. (Bronfenbrenner, May 2009, p. 8).

The study presented by the Center for Union Facts, An Analysis of Current NLRB Data on

Unlawful Terminations During Union Organizing Campaigns, 2007 to 2008, used the following criteria

to determine the number of discharge allegations filed in conjunction with an organizing campaign: ULP

charges filed between January 1, 2007 and December 31, 2008; ULP charges filed against businesses;

ULP charges that the NLRB determined to be associated with an organizing campaign; and ULP charges

alleging “discharge” (Wilson, 2009, p. 2). The results of this study revealed that for years 2007 and 2008,

the NLRB’s General Counsel determined that “158 election-related Unfair Labor Practice Charges

alleging unlawful terminations had merit; 309 were determined to lack merit and the remaining

allegations required further investigation, were withdrawn, or otherwise remained undetermined. Based

on this data, a maximum of 3.75% of union organization campaigns included unlawful termination.”

(Wilson, 2009, p.3).

Labor and management have, throughout the ages, historically had an adversarial relationship –

one often leading to mutual threats of violence and even death. What makes these surveys all the more

interesting is the appropriateness of the topic given the current re-focusing of attention on the labor

movement (i.e. worker’s rights, outsourcing, off-shoring, etc.) within the context of a shifting job market

and expanding global economy. Employers and workers are on the precipice of monumental change –

each “side” vying for a more substantial piece of the pie – a Darwinian-type war of “survival of the

fittest”; corporations are looking to “trim the fat” when there’s nary a bone left on the heap pile, while

management is left scrambling to devise “new” ways whittle down the budget through attrition,

elimination of benefits, cost-sharing programs, out-sourcing, and lay-offs – shifting more and more of the

burden (and less of the profits) to the worker. The employee, in most cases, is left fighting for a very slim


piece of a mostly-eaten pie, caught standing at an empty banquet table like a character out of Dickens’

Oliver Twist – begging for one more morsel (of food); workers’ wages are being frozen or cut, they are

being asked to share a greater portion of the economic burden whilst participating less in organizational

profits or resultant benefits, full-time positions are being eliminated in favor of part-time positions or

independent contractor positions with little or no benefits.

What distinguishes the current organizing climate from previous decades of employer oppositions

to unions, according to Bronfenbrenner (2009), is that the most intense and aggressive anti-union

campaign strategies, the kind previously found only at employers such as WalMart, are no longer

reserved just for a select group of extreme anti-union employers; the “stick” method of anti-union

campaigns has become the “new norm.” Data notwithstanding, it appears that employer opposition is, in

fact, increasing both in intensity, frequency and scope. The plethora of newspaper and online articles

citing “union-busting” and aggressive anti-union activities by well-known and respected companies (i.e.

Wal-Mart, Cintas, Earthgrains, Whole Foods, Starbucks, Verizon, Michaels Arts & Crafts Stores, the

University of Wisconsin, Station Casinos, Blue Diamond Almond) abound; organizations that are being

threatened with unionization are doing everything in their power (often resorting to illegal and dubious

practices) to maintain a union-free environment, and those organizations that are “saddled” with unions

are often resorting to old-fashioned (and some newer, more subtle forms) of union-busting to get rid of

the union weight.

It seems that most employers feel less need to bother with the carrot and instead are going straight for the stick…new findings show a consistent pattern across the data, namely that threats, interrogation, surveillance, harassment, and retaliation were the most common tactics across all the campaigns surveyed. (Bronfenbrenner, 2009, p. 14).

Referencing statistical analysis provided by Bronfenbrenner (2009, p. 13), the number of tactics used by

the employer more than doubled between 1986 and 2003, with the mean of elections involving 10.9

employer tactics; between 1999 and 2003, approximately 49% of employers used more than 10 tactics in

NLRB elections, with 82% using more than five; and 6% using no tactics at all. Additional data further

suggests that the intensity of the employer’s campaign does, in fact, drastically affect the union’s win rate,


such that the greater number of tactics employed by the employer, the lower the union’s win and where

the employer chose not to use a quantifiable number of tactics, the union’s win rate increased: aggressive

campaigns (10 or more tactics), 45% vs. 55% when employer did not use 10 or more tactics; moderate

campaign (5-9 tactics), 40%; v. 52% when employer did not use 5-9 tactics; weak campaign (1-4 tactics),

65% v. 35% when employer did not use 1-4 tactics; and no tactics used, 72%. (Bronfenbrenner, 2009, p.

11-13).

Remaining Union-Free: What’s All the Fuss?

Although certainly not a “new” strategy, union avoidance has increased significantly in

popularity and use since about 1983. Citing an article by J. Chalykoff and P. Cappelli in the Monthly

Labor Review (1986), a survey of management industrial relations practices conducted by The

Conference Board in 1977 and 1983 reflected a priority shift in 1983 toward union avoidance and away

from a “best bargain” strategy The article goes on to state:

…the most important and most obvious consequence of a union avoidance strategy is its effect on union membership and growth within unionized firms. Overall, unionization in union avoidance firms dropped, on average, from 23.5 percent in 1977 to 18.6 percent in 1983, compared with 63.5 percent to 60.5 percent for best bargain firms over the same period. Because union coverage was substantially lower in the former to begin with, its decline in percentage terms is much more substantial; a 20.8-percent decline in coverage for union avoidance firms, compared with a 5-percent decline for best bargain firms. (Monthly Labor Review, Superintendent of Documents. 1986, Highbeam Research, para. 7).

Union avoidance as a separate growth industry is particularly unique to the United States –

although a few U.S. law firms and expert labor consultants have established and/or are making attempts

to “export” this value-added service overseas, to the U.K. especially – bringing in revenue over several

hundred million dollars annually (some have estimated it to be valued more closely at $4 billion dollars)

and despite dismal union density rates, according to Curtis Greve, an independent consultant

specializing in labor relations and supply chain management, “since the 2008 elections, labor unions have

grown stronger than they have been since the early 1980s (Greve, 2010).” In fact, it looks as though the

unions have re-upped their game and are positioned for significant growth. Union organizers are

leveraging technology by training organizers to use up-to-the-minute methods (i.e. social networking sites


such as Facebook, Twitter, viral technology like YouTube, email, mobile platforms, etc.) to attract

potential new members and are designing web pages in support of organizing efforts within those

businesses that have been targeted. The Teamsters, for example, have a site that enables organizers to

design websites in support of their organizing efforts. With the Government’s current pro-labor stance

and a re-invigorated union leadership (i.e. SIEU President, Andy Stern; AFL-CIO President, Richard

Trumka) at the helm, the threat posed by unions to American businesses is greater now than ever before.

The cost of fighting a union campaign can be staggering, costing the employer often several

thousands of dollars per vote with an entire campaign running well into six and sometimes seven figures,

not including indirect costs related to a reduction in productivity, decreased quality, increased customer

service issues, as well as other “hidden” costs such as the diversion of internal resources in managing the

campaign and away from running the business. Given the high financial and “emotional” costs involved

in waging an anti-union campaign, many organizations today are looking at implementing alternative

strategies or programs that not only make unionization less attractive to its employee base but, in the end,

are less costly and more pro-active (and less reactive), thus giving management the upper hand.

Unions: Why Go Thee Hither?

If the Lone Ranger were an industrial relations consultant instead of a cowboy hero, he’d be the

first to tell employers, “There are no magic silver bullets in labor relations.” In order to remain union-

free, an organization must be consistent in its communication efforts with employees – to the point of

over-communicating, constant in its vigilance both in monitoring the performance of management and

employees alike and in developing programs that anticipate and respond to employee needs. Policies and

procedures should be instituted such that employee participation, engagement and understanding are

ensured. In short, a company must want to make the workplace as “issue-free” as is possible; maintaining

a union-free environment is constantly a work in progress and the work is never finished.

Organizations that wish to remain in business and retain the flexibility and power of a union-free

environment must inherently recognize that it is able to do so only with the consent of the individuals it


employs. This is a difficult concept for most employers to acknowledge, let alone understand; yet,

acceptance and understanding of this principle are critical to remaining free of third-party intervention. In

order to effectively eliminate the need and/or the threat of unionization or any other type of third-party

intervention (i.e. government, employee representative groups/associations, etc.), one must remember

why employees seek it out in the first place.

While there are a number of postulations on the subject of why employees choose to join unions,

most would agree without much contest that certain conditions must exist in order for employees to

invite, let alone, support third party intervention. The reasons, while innumerable, are driven primarily by

“lack”: lack of communication; lack of or poorly written/misunderstood policies, procedures and rules;

lack of true leadership within the organizational hierarchy; lack of personal recognition and valuation of

one’s job to the organization; lack of job security and/or job design; lack of employee participation or

involvement; and “failure”: failure of management to communicate expectations; subjection to

health/safety hazards and failure to address these issues in a meaningful way; failure to cultivate

employee identity within corporate culture; discriminate and/or inconsistent treatment in the application

of policies and procedures, including disciplinary actions; inadequate wages/benefits; and no grievance

procedures.

Phillip B. Wilson, Esq., in his book The Next 52 Weeks: One Year to Transform Your Work

Environment, however, codified the gamut of reasons into three main “motivational” categories.

According to Wilson, employees turn to third-parties when they feel a problem or issue is too big to

handle on their own; a third party will get them more or get them a better outcome than they can

reasonably attain on their own; or a third party somehow lends more credibility to the employee’s

problem or issue. Any strategy to eliminate the threat of unionization or third-party intervention must

attack each of these motivations. Essentially, it is the employer’s job to help employees deal effectively

and swiftly with their issues or problems; convince employees that they can get as much or more for

themselves by liaising with management without having to seek the aid of a union; and help employees


understand that management considers their issues with equal credibility and that no additional credibility

would be gained by turning to a third party. (Wilson, P., 2004). If an organization can achieve these

points through continued communication, a commitment to the development of a positive employee

rewards program combined with a strong preventative labor relations strategy, unions, by default, become

unnecessary.

Wilson also offers up two critical theories on avoiding third-party intervention. The first theory

revolves around “cutting the head off the dragon,” by eliminating the problem (usually a vocal union

activist/ring-leader and/or disruptive employees) at the source. This approach is attractive due to its

“quick fix” but the success of this method, by itself, is relatively unsuccessful. He advises that

“consistent, measured and public acts over the course of months are required to turn (a toxic workplace)

around. Solving problems involve supervisory training, implementation of a variety of positive programs

for employees and lots of hard work.” The second theory is “substitution” or a “pre-emptive” approach.

This approach, unlike “cutting the head off the dragon,” recognizes that in most workplaces where third-

party intervention is a risk, the “dragon” is more like the Hydra from ancient mythology; you can cut off

its head but it just keeps coming back. While the problem might get better initially, over time the root

causes remain and the trouble persists. (Wilson, 2004, p. 14-16).

Positively Rewarding: Employee Relations & Rewards Programs

Taking the union out of the equation for a minute, positive employee relations and (total)

rewards programs just make good (business) sense. It’s like asking someone if they’d rather take a trip to

Disneyland or visit the Keebler cookie factory. Ok, sure, there are those out there that would prefer to get

up at the crack of dawn just to grab a rare sighting of a few white-suited folks get all excited about

slathering baked goodies in chocolate, all in the hopes of snagging a few “freebies” but on the whole,

most (‘normal’) people would choose a trip to D-land and an afternoon with Goofy any day. The point

being this: employees are just like you and me; in fact, chances are – they are you and me. They’re

normal (well, sort of) and they want the good stuff…and if you can throw in a few “freebies” along the


way, even better. Developing a good, positive employee relations and rewards program is the equivalent

of a trip to Disneyland (or, if you prefer, “frequent flyer miles”) for employees and management alike.

Employees reap the benefit of working for an organization that is invested in them and they, in turn,

become more invested in (and loyal to) the organization. It’s a win-win (in negotiation parlance, we call

that interest-based, collaborative bargaining [IBB]), as opposed to win-lose (again in negotiation parlance,

“traditional,” adversarial bargaining) – which is usually what the employer-employee relationship tends to

resemble.

Positive employee relations is often considered a “soft” skill set in the human resources

management; nonetheless, it is still a more subtle yet effective tool in remaining union free: valued and

engaged employees make for satisfied employees who don’t see the need for a union. What follows are a

few examples of what makes for a solid positive employee relations program:

Competitive Wages: organizations should evaluate wages of similarly situated employees in

other companies, both locally and distally in neighboring geographic regions, to determine

their employees are being paid competitively (include benefits). The make-up and

composition of the companies should be similar (i.e. don’t compare Fox TV to PBS).

Perform analysis of internal compensation system for disparities.

Surveys/Taking the Pulse: Conduct employee engagement surveys and vulnerability

assessments to assess overall employee level of engagement/satisfaction and to better

determine what changes need to be made within the organization. Include employees in the

communication process; don’t just “speak to” employees; engage them, ask for feedback. A

cult of leadership should be fostered at levels within the organization. Without leadership,

there is no clear vision.

Communication: Build teams centered around communication, involving HR and managers

from various departments/divisions, designed as a forum for the airing of issues, ideas for

new policies or interventions, etc.; assign an agreed upon meeting schedule and follow up


with the team leader, where appropriate. Other: one-to-one meetings with employees

targeted for high performance, performance improvement or other. Take regular feedback

from line managers to strategize on group performance plan; listen for concerns; Suggestion

Box; Newsletters; Company Intranet.

Convey Expectations, Encourage Responsibility: Managers and supervisors should be

trained in positive employee relations, including positive and/or progressive discipline,

employee coaching, performance monitoring and evaluation. Goals and expectations should

be developed with the employee, and the employee should be held accountable for his/her

performance.

Create an Employee Handbook, Company Policy Manual, Code of Ethics/Conduct:

Workplace policies, procedures and codes of conduct should be properly aligned with the

organization’s mission statement and culture. Vet through legal counsel; invite managers to

review documents to ensure content is clear and concise. Train managers and supervisors on

how to apply policies and procedures uniformly and consistently, without discrimination.

Pose hypothetical situations to management team(s) and solicit response. Clarify any

questions.

Institute a Solicitation and Distribution Policy , if one does not already exist. Ensure that the

policy complies with the NLRA and that it is applied consistently and uniformly.

Educate: Managers and supervisors on areas relevant to labor and employee relations (i.e.

harassment; handling violence in the work place; wage and hour violations; NLRA; EEO;

company’s commitment to remaining union-free, etc.), workplace policies and procedures.

Develop a system to track compliance, continuity and consistency.

Quality Working Conditions: Working conditions should be clean and safe. Employees

should be OSHA-trained, as required for job performance. Any problem areas should be

identified and resolved by management immediately.


Recruitment and Retention Policy: Develop a policy that enhances and encourages diversity

within the workplace. Policies and programs should reflect the culture of the organization;

employees should be screened with a view toward making a “best fit” for the person and the

organization.

Train Managers and Supervisors: Management must be able to effectively interact and guide

employees. Provide training in order to facilitate managerial skills, fair distribution of

scheduling and overtime compliance, productivity watch, etc. Develop a cohesive plan to

evaluate supervisors and managers on their employee relations skills and activities.

A 2006 Employee Participation Study as cited in an August, 2007 blog article posted on the SHRM

website (http://shrm.org ), argued that the positive impact of employee involvement practices – in terms

of job satisfaction and organizational commitment – is greater when the practices are more rooted in the

organization. The authors measured embeddedness by:

1.) the number of employee involvement practices in an organization (e.g. team briefings, employee surveys asking for feedback, interactions with senior managers, etc.);

2.) the proportion of employees taking part in these practices; and3.) the frequency and amount of time allotted to these practices. (Cox, A., Zagelmeyer, S. &

Marchington, M., 2006).

In addition to employee productivity or merit bonuses, rewards coupons (i.e. movie tickets,

raffles, etc.) and other cash-for-trade type programs, the following are some additional examples of a

good employee rewards program where the cost is minimal and the payoff is invaluable:

Negotiate an Employee Wellness Program. Various studies have shown that Wellness

Programs increase employee satisfaction and well-being, raise employee productivity and

are a low-cost alternative and/or supplement to more expensive employer-provided

benefits.

Formalize Employee Flexibility (i.e. telecommuting; staggered hours; compressed work

week; reduced schedules/flextime; and mini-sabbaticals). Sylvia Ann Hewlett, an

economist and founder of the Center for Work-Life Policy in New York City, says “have

http://shrm.org/


employees propose their own work programs and measure the results. (Hewlett, 2009,

December, p. 65).”

Retain Career Development through the use of cross-training and providing employees

an opportunity to work in other areas through “stretch assignments.”

Create Employee Pride and Purpose by encouraging employees to “give back to the

community” through volunteerism – on company time.

Preventative Labor Relations: Call Me “Auntie” Union

The concept behind preventative labor relations (“substitution”) is two-fold: create a positive,

innovative, challenging environment that not only responds to but anticipates employees’ needs,

encourages them to be creative and engaged – part of a solutions-oriented, team process, steeped in a

corporate culture that is identifiable and real -- and you have an organization that is able to attract and

retain top talent and be union-free. The importance, however, is to have a workable strategy already in

place, in advance of any real signs of an organizing campaign, and keep it going. Many organizations

who have survived one, maybe two organizing campaigns admit that they have “issues”; in fact, they

usually know what those issues are because they’ve “done” all the (employee) opinion and engagement

surveys, the small/large group and one-on-one or facilitated meetings, and yes, they’re very well aware

that “communication” is their number one challenge. Yet, they seem surprised to find themselves

undergoing yet another organizing campaign. What happens is simple. Like most of us, we try something,

it works for a while, the novelty wears off and we go back to our old (and probably easy but very bad)

habits; same thing with the work environment. Except at work, before the day even begins, we find

ourselves overloaded with so many projects and tasks we don’t even know where to begin; so this

wonderful program that is supposed to keep us union-free (yippee, right?!) is just one more thing to do,

one more long laundry list of stuff to get accomplished yesterday.

So, this is where the employee orientation (aka “indoctrination”) process comes into play, starting

with the first day of hire. As quoted in John Logan’s article The Union Avoidance Industry in the United


States, published in the British Journal of Industrial Relations (2006, December), Charles Hughes offered

this sage advice:

Companies (should) state explicitly their dedication to a union-free environment…from the point that employees are first hired, firms tell them: ‘This is a union free operation, and it is our desire that it always will be that way.’ (Hughes 1984; Hughes and DeMaria 1984).

Hughes also stressed that managers and supervisors must be willing and able to convey the firm’s union-free philosophy. Indeed, he views (sic) this as a proxy for his or her loyalty to the firm: ‘Every person in a leadership role must accept the union-free responsibility as part of the job, or leave…Disagreements with or deviation from this goal cannot be tolerated on the part of any manager or supervisor. As to what to do with those who are unwilling or unable to commit to the firm’s union-free goals, Hughes suggests (sic) that employers ‘place them with your competitors…Either they share in the belief system or they cannot be managers in your organization.’ (Logan, 2006; Hughes, 1984).

Said another way, using the Wal-Mart mantra: “The commitment to stay union-free must exist at all

levels of management – from the chairperson of the ‘Board’ down to the front-line manager. Therefore,

no one in management is immune from carrying his or her ‘own weight’ in the union prevention effort.”

(Mason, 1991).

Pre-emptive strategies practiced at organizations throughout the U.S. vary both in nature and

scope. Not all of the tactics employed are appropriate as long-term strategies, and some are dubious, if not

downright illegal. In an effort to be “fair and balanced,” it’s important to present some of the more

“flavorful” techniques employed as part of a preventative labor relations strategy at a company most-near

you.

Paternalism. In the case of an employer-employee relationship, a policy or practice of treating

employees in a paternalistic manner, in such a way that the employer is only nominally serving

their interests while, in fact, pursuing another agenda which is directly against the employees’

interests. (This strategy could also be one of “suppression” as well as “substitution”). Some

organizations have combined the paternalism of a “company union” with an attempt to design its

own brand of a “union-proof” workforce by “converting motels into permanent living quarters for

Mexican and Central American workers, recruited by labor contractors to take jobs in local chicken

plants (Bacon, n.d.).” ConAgra, for example, has instituted systematic recruitment campaigns for


immigrant workers, offering on-site child care, prenatal care and housing projects. ConAgra

manager, Charles Romeo, told Business Week:

It’s clear that the company sees a big advantage in the situation. In the eyes of managers, immigrant workers are not only a workforce with low wage expectations. Because immigrants face an unknown and unfriendly environment, immigration problems, and ignorance of their labor rights, companies believe they are also less likely to support unions (cited in Bacon, n.d.).

Selective Recruiting and Screening of Potential Applicants. Citing a fairly recent event involving

Honda and UAW, wherein Honda Motor Corp. announced in 2006 that it was building a new plant

amid the farms of southeastern Indiana…and then abruptly announced later the following year that

“only people living in 20 of the state’s 92 counties could apply for jobs – a move that excluded most

of the state’s thousands of unionized laid-off workers.” (Boudette, 2007).

Wal-Mart is notorious for its union-busting activities and here’s just one more example of why

unions and Sam Walton don’t go together like mom and apple pie. In its Bentonville, Arkansas store

(population, 33,744 per 2007 Census), Wal-Mart apparently keeps constant track of the “union

threat” through a “Union Probability Index” (UPI) – later more appropriate renamed “Unaddressed

People Issues.” Sources say that a store with a high index is given special attention (and not like the

old K-Mart ‘blue light special’ kind of attention) by headquarters, so that the “right people” (i.e.

rebel-rousers) can be “otherwise disposed of” (i.e. transferred, fired, hours reduced or ‘otherwise

shown the door’) [Turl, 2010].

Scrub for ‘SALTS.’ Using the Wal-Mart approach again, the labor relations manual suggests:

(management) screen as many applicants as possible to ensure hiring the most qualified person

(read: “positive,” “dedicated,” “enthusiastic”) for any opening you have available; utilize

‘consensus’ interviewing when interviewing applicants in which the store has a strong interest – then

compare notes and recommendations for hiring; ensure applicants provide a complete work history –

ask applicants to fill in the gaps; and finally, check references thoroughly. (Mason, 1991).

The tactics presented above, while interesting, are not the best solutions for a stable and

productive union-free environment. In developing an appropriate union-avoidance/preventative labor


relations strategy, the employer must consider its short- and long-term goals, its corporate culture and

mission statement (including its code of ethics and conduct), as well as the overall impact on the

organization itself. “Workplace democracy” type strategies are quite effective in enhancing employee

engagement and overall satisfaction within the workplace and simultaneously act as a natural deterrent to

union organizing.

Employee Involvement Programs

Employee Empowerment Programs, also referred to as Employee Involvement Programs (EI),

have a rather long and favorable history with employers and employees alike and have been successfully

employed by U.S. organizations for several decades as a well-established business practice. Various

forms of participative decision-making models exist within the HRM schema – some of which are

mentioned below (i.e. Quality Circles, working teams, peer review committees, ADR/grievance panels) –

and are being heralded as efficient and innovative ways to enhance productivity within a competitive,

global economy. In order for EI programs to be maximally effective, management (from the highest-

ranking executive to the lowest level supervisor) and employees must be fully committed to the success

and continued growth of the program(s).

Whatever one’s view of employee involvement systems, when they are used to persuade workers that their voice is heard and a union is unnecessary, they have been extremely effective. Unions win only 16 percent of representation elections where quality of work programs exist as compared with the 45 percent success rate during the early 1980s for all NLRB representation elections. “The one major company benefit that drastically affected union organizing drives,” according to Charles McDonald, formerly director of organization for the AFL-CIO, “was the quality of work life plan…” (Eiger, 1989; AFL-CIO, 1984).

One of the first EI schemes to arrive in the U.S. and Japan were Quality Circles (QCs) and other

“upward problem solving forms.” According to a blog article by Martin Webster on employee

participation:

QCs aim to tap into employee knowledge and opinion through the mechanism of small groups, and are aimed at increasing employee motivation, morale, loyalty and commitment…QC programs are often confined to a specific task or project, and once this is completed, employees are no longer involved in participation. (Webster, 2009, June).


Unfortunately, QCs often fail due to the lack of training and leadership abilities necessary to lead a circle;

a further flaw with QCs is that they have a short “shelf-life” and are not embedded in the organization and

have no decision making powers.

Teamworking is another popular tool in the HRM and management arsenal – particularly within

manufacturing and technology industries. Essentially, teamworking consists of a small group of about ten

or less employees who are empowered to take care of a specific function, process or product line in an

effort to increase efficiency and/or productivity. The focus tends to be on problem-solving, and therefore,

requires substantial training to ensure that team members, including supervisors and managers, have the

required skills to function efficiently.

Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR). The primary purpose of ADR is to provide employers

and employees with a non-discriminatory, equitable and private forum to settle workplace disputes within

a structured setting. Establishing a grievance system which provides for various options (i.e. interest-

based, rights-based dispute resolution techniques) and diverse resource personnel (i.e. multiple access

points pertaining to ethnicity, gender, technical background, etc.) for all individuals (i.e. executives,

managers, employees, etc.) in the workplace and which is capable of addressing a wide range of disputes,

is of tantamount importance. Ideally, the system would include a neutral third-party – an organizational

ombudsperson –to help informally with any workplace concern; the system would also take virtually

every kind of concern that is of interest to people in the organization, including disputes between

coworkers and fellow managers, teammates, and groups as well as concerns about conditions of

employment, termination, anonymous complaints…in essence multi-issue complaints. (Rowe, n.d.).

Some of the more “innovative” forms of ADR which have been used successfully in non-union

environments, in general order of preference or frequency, include Open Door Policy, where employees

have an opportunity to meet with supervisors and managers to discuss issues without fear of retribution or

retaliation (Wal-Mart implements this practice); Peer Review, a panel of employees or a combination of

employees and managers, work together to resolve employee complaints (The Hyatt Hotel in Sacramento


and GE are examples of companies that use this method successfully); and Fact-Finding, a neutral third

person or team from outside the organization examines the facts of the complaint and presents them in a

report. Other more “traditional” routes of ADR include Mediation, Arbitration, Final and Binding

Arbitration, Nonbinding Arbitration (Pre-dispute: parties agree in advance to use arbitration but the

decision is non-binding; Post-dispute: parties agree to arbitrate unresolved issues but are not bound by the

outcome); and Mediation/Arbitration (a hybrid solution where mediation is attempted first but give a

neutral third party the authority to make a decision if mediation is not successful).

A more creative solution for tapping into your employees’ thoughts and motivations is Sensing

Sessions (also known as “focus groups”). Sensing sessions are typically held on a monthly basis (more

often and it would seem like a therapy session) and involve randomly selected employees and an

executive – usually someone outside of the participants’ reporting structure. The purpose of the meetings

is to seek answers to the following questions (Greve, 2010):

What do you like about working here? What don’t you like about working here? If you owned the company, what things would you try to change?

Employers can often use sensing sessions to identify “hidden” issues of which management may have

previously been unaware. The key, however, is taking action based on the information and suggestions. If

employees sense that that these meetings are little more than venting sessions for management’s

amusement, they will stop participating. Now they’ll have proof that no one cares, morale will drop,

productivity will dip and the insidious root of employee apathy and discontent begin to take root within

the organization.

Employee Involvement Programs work, when you work them. Sounds almost like a Twelve Step

Program doesn’t it? Well, truth is, it is. It’s a “12-Step Program” for organizations that want to stay union

free and that truly believe (no lip service here, thank you) that the best work place is not only just the

most productive, most profitable, or most efficient but one where diversity and innovation is cultivated


and appreciated; employees are respected for their individuality; and management and employees alike

believe in working together – side by side, hand-in-hand – to resolve its issues.

Suppression: The Other Evil Twin

Sup-what? That’s right. Everyone’s heard the story about Goldilocks and the Three Bears

or is it the Three Little Pigs? Three Blind Mice? Anyways, it’s been told that one of them had an evil

step-sister and the number “three” was somehow involved. Unions are a lot like those fairytale characters

– some are cute, some are thug-like but nonetheless they all manage to sneak up on person just when they

think it’s safe to take a nap, go to Grandma’s house or visit old Uncle Piggly Wiggly at the market.

So what’s a poor little piggy supposed to do when the wolf comes knocking at the door? Or for

that matter, a frail, blonde, Caucasian girl when bears come and attack her in the middle of a nice

leisurely, afternoon nap? Luckily for our fairytale characters, they have “insurance”. The kind of

insurance that says, “Don’t come knockin’ here….I won’t accept your leaflet or your porridge.” Or, “You

think grandma was good enough to eat and now you want to negotiate meal penalties and a paid lunch,

too? No way, buster. I don’t have to agree to nothin’.” Well, if organizations employ “suppression” as a

union avoidance strategy, they would have “insurance,” too. Suppression as a union avoidance strategy

lands in the middle road between an aggressive, all-out assault and blind trickery. Suppression is often

subtle and very manipulative; it often gives employers additional “insurance” (i.e. extra time to turn

voters, challenge elections, carve out bargaining unit to employer’s favor, “surface bargaining” to avoid a

first contract, providing inexact information in response to the union’s request for an Excelsior list, etc.)

through delays and stall tactics that fall just this short of being illegal. In fact, sometimes the tactics used

are illegal. Nonetheless, suppression – if a person’s willing to play the game – can be a very effective

strategy; just not one that will keep your employees happy and productive or money in your company

(shareholders’) pockets.


Conclusion“Winning isn’t everything, it’s the only thing.” ~Vince Lombardi

Taking a page from SEIU’s own organizing handbook for healthcare titled, The High Road: A

Winning Strategy for Managing Conflict and Communicating Effectively in Hospital Worker Campaigns,

employers can glean important lessons that can readily be applied in developing an effective anti-union

campaign. The handbook is based on a two-year study of experimental approaches to organizing hospital

workers and reveals some surprising insights; among them:

...decisions to join a union are primarily made for pragmatic rather than emotional reason; employee concerns about conflict outweigh their desire for a voice in their workplace; the most effective strategy for unions, even in situations where employer opposition is extremely intense, is to stay on the ‘high road’ with a positive campaign; and the methods that organizers use to manage conflicts in an organizing campaign can dramatically influence the outcome.

Having worked for and engaged in organizing efforts on behalf of a union prior to working in

labor management, the author of this paper is fairly well acquainted with the tactics, tools and strategies

used by organizers in waging a corporate campaign. Union organizers are meeting employers head to

head, and toe to toe in a bloody power struggle to dominate the human chess board that is corporate

America; the weapons are faster and more stealth. Email replaces handwritten letters; PowerPoint

presentations replace posters; and slickly edited masterpieces wipe the floor clean with yesterday’s DVD.

If there’s a message to communicate, it can be texted, twittered or Facebooked in mere seconds.

Therefore, it is absolutely crucial that management use the most immediate and powerful resources it has

at hand: its human capital.

By using a positive (almost Pavlovan) reward system – the employer is able to “unlock” the three

most basic and human motivational factors (fear, pragmatism and relevance) in order to elicit the

“desired” behaviors and attitudes (i.e. loyalty, trust, productivity, efficiency) from its employees. The

implementation of “advanced” strategies such as those discussed in this paper, will produce a much

greater impact within the organization; studies have shown that the use of positive employee relations

result in greater organizational efficiencies and employee satisfaction.


In addition to the strategies outlined in this paper, the importance of union-avoidance training

cannot be stressed enough. Most companies should ensure that their HRM program includes union-

awareness training, which will allow management at all levels to be well-attuned to the warning signs that

signal employee dissatisfaction and impending unionization/organizing activities. However, if statistics

are any indication, many employers are flummoxed when they find themselves in the middle of an

organizing campaign.

Other strategies not discussed in this paper, but equally relevant to the study of labor relations, is

neutral or codified business-like strategy, usually adopted by organizations with existing unions in place.

The emphasis is on neutrality in a union campaign and the decision on whether or not to unionize is left

undisturbed to the employees; and finally, in an accommodation strategy, labor and management have a

cooperative and collaborative rather than adversarial relationship.

30 March 2010


References

About The Economic Policy Institute. (2010). Retrieved from

http://www.epi.org/pages/about_the_economic_policy_institute/

American Federation of Labor-Congress of Industrial Organizations. (1984). Statistical and

Technical Information Report: Washington, D.C.: AFL-CIO.

Boudette, N. (2007, October 10). Honda and UAW clash over new factory jobs. The Wall Street

Journal. Retrieved from http://www.wsj.com

Bronfenbrenner, K. (2009, May 20). No holds barred: The intensification of employer opposition

to organizing. EPI Briefing Paper, 235, p. 1-21.

Center for Union Facts. (n.d.). Retrieved from

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Center_for_Union_Facts

Chalykoff, J. & Cappelli, P. (1986, April 1). ‘Union avoidance:’ management’s new industrial

relations strategy. (conference paper, International Relations Research Association).

Monthly Labor Review. Superintendent of Documents. HighBeam Research. 20 March

2010. Retrieved from http://highbeam.com

Cox, A., Zagelmeyer, S. & Marchington, M. (2006). Embedding employee involvement and

participation at work. Human Resource Management Journal, 16(3), 250-267.

Eiger, N. (1989). Organizing for quality of working life. Retrieved from

http://truty.org/PDFs/Labor/OrganizingforQWL.pdf

Fernandez, M. (2002, May 1, para. 2). Decertifying a union: the employer’s bill of rights.

Retrieved from http://www.hotelinteractive.com/article.aspx?articleID=1492

Greve, C., (2010, March). Union free and staying that way. Ackerman Warehousing Forum,

25(4).

Hewlett, S. (2009, December). Creative, recessionary rewards. HR Magazine, p. 65.


References

Horowitz, C. (2008, June 16). United steelworkers, British union announce merger. National

Legal and Policy Center. Retrieved from http://www.nlpc.org/stories/2008/06/16/united-

steelworkers-british-union-announce-merger

Hughes, C. (1984). Union free: a systematic approach. Dallas, TX: Center for Values Research,

Inc.

Logan, J. (2002). Consultants, lawyers, and the ‘union free’ movement in the USA since the

1970s. Industrial Relations Journal, 33:3, 198.

Logan, J. (2006, December). The union avoidance industry in the United States. British Journal

of Industrial Relations, 44:4, 664-665.

Mason, O. (1991, September). Labor relations and you at the Wal-Mart distribution center #6022,

p. 2, p.36.

Rowe, M. (n.d.). Dispute resolution in the nonunion environment: An evolution toward integrated

systems for conflict management. Retrieved from

http://web.mit.edu/ombud/publications/reso.pdf

Strauss, G. (2009, November). How many of these are anti-union practices: A U.S. perspective.

Labor History, 97, p. 97. Retrieved from http://www.historycooperative.org/pdf.php?

r=3597-1269893187-PDF-65-77094137407A2

Turl, A. (2010, 19-21 February). The Wal-Mart counter-revolution: A company that fears its own

employees. Out of Bounds Magazine/Counterpunch. Retrieved from

http://www.counterpunch.org/turl02192010.html

Webster, M. (2009, June 13). Employee participation. Retrieved from

http://martinwebster.info/2009/06/13/employee-participation.html

References


Wilson, J. (2009, March 4). New study of NLRB data shows marginal employer misconduct in

union organizing campaigns. Center for Union Facts. Retrieved from

http://laborpains.org/2009/03/page/5.

Wilson, P., Esq. (2004). The next 52 weeks: One year to transform your work environment.

Broken Arrow, OK: LRI Management Services.

http://laborpains.org/2009/03/page/5

Research Paper Mar 2010

Documents

Transcript of Research Paper Mar 2010