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

THE SELLING OF AMERICA: BIG BUSINESS FIGHTS OFF BIG LABOR 2

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.

THE SELLING OF AMERICA: BIG BUSINESS FIGHTS OFF BIG LABOR 3 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 bosss 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) unions 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

THE SELLING OF AMERICA: BIG BUSINESS FIGHTS OFF BIG LABOR 4 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--vis the pipeline of co-option of dissatisfied/maltreated workers by idealistic, sometimes self-serving unions and paternalistic, bottomfeeding 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 Labors 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 probusiness and anti-labor (i.e. the 1981 PATCO strike, conservative Reagan-esque NLRB appointments and subsequent rulings, George W. Bushs anti-labor putsch [DHS et al]); the recent shift of power in 2008 vis--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 laborfriendly public policy and a pro-worker environment through an ultra-liberal, pro-union NLRB

THE SELLING OF AMERICA: BIG BUSINESS FIGHTS OFF BIG LABOR 5 (i.e. appointments 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 Americans 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 dont lie unionization within the private sector in the U.S. is down; what isnt 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 its not so much that U.S. workers dont 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

THE SELLING OF AMERICA: BIG BUSINESS FIGHTS OFF BIG LABOR 6 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 laborunion-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 authors 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

THE SELLING OF AMERICA: BIG BUSINESS FIGHTS OFF BIG LABOR 7 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 antiunion 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 unionsit 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 choiceThe 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

THE SELLING OF AMERICA: BIG BUSINESS FIGHTS OFF BIG LABOR 8 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 proactive, (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

THE SELLING OF AMERICA: BIG BUSINESS FIGHTS OFF BIG LABOR 9 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. Bronfenbrenners 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 nonpartisan (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, nonprofit 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. Bronfenbrenners latest study originated from a review of primary NLRB documents (through a FOIA

THE SELLING OF AMERICA: BIG BUSINESS FIGHTS OFF BIG LABOR 10 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 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 authors 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

THE SELLING OF AMERICA: BIG BUSINESS FIGHTS OFF BIG LABOR 11 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 NLRBs 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. workers 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 theres 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

THE SELLING OF AMERICA: BIG BUSINESS FIGHTS OFF BIG LABOR 12 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 sticknew 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

THE SELLING OF AMERICA: BIG BUSINESS FIGHTS OFF BIG LABOR 13 suggests that the intensity of the employers campaign does, in fact, drastically affect the unions win rate, such that the greater number of tactics employed by the employer, the lower the unions win and where the employer chose not to use a quantifiable number of tactics, the unions 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: Whats 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 5percent 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

THE SELLING OF AMERICA: BIG BUSINESS FIGHTS OFF BIG LABOR 14 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 Governments 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, hed be the first to tell employers, There are no magic silver bullets in labor relations. In order to remain unionfree, 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.

THE SELLING OF AMERICA: BIG BUSINESS FIGHTS OFF BIG LABOR 15 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 ones 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 employees 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 employers job to help employees deal effectively and swiftly with their issues or problems; convince employees that they can get as much or more for

THE SELLING OF AMERICA: BIG BUSINESS FIGHTS OFF BIG LABOR 16 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 thirdparty 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. Its like asking someone if theyd 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. Theyre

THE SELLING OF AMERICA: BIG BUSINESS FIGHTS OFF BIG LABOR 17 normal (well, sort of) and they want the good stuffand 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. Its 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 dont 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. dont 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; dont 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

THE SELLING OF AMERICA: BIG BUSINESS FIGHTS OFF BIG LABOR 18 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 organizations 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; companys commitment to remaining union-free, etc.), workplace policies and procedures. Develop a system to track compliance, continuity and consistency.

THE SELLING OF AMERICA: BIG BUSINESS FIGHTS OFF BIG LABOR 19 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.) 2.) 3.) the number of employee involvement practices in an organization (e.g. team briefings, employee surveys asking for feedback, interactions with senior managers, etc.); the proportion of employees taking part in these practices; and 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.

THE SELLING OF AMERICA: BIG BUSINESS FIGHTS OFF BIG LABOR 20 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 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 theyve done all the (employee) opinion and engagement surveys, the small/large group and one-on-one or facilitated meetings, and yes, theyre 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 dont even know where to begin; so this

THE SELLING OF AMERICA: BIG BUSINESS FIGHTS OFF BIG LABOR 21 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 Logans 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 environmentfrom 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 firms 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 leaveDisagreements 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 firms union-free goals, Hughes suggests (sic) that employers place them with your competitorsEither 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, its 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

THE SELLING OF AMERICA: BIG BUSINESS FIGHTS OFF BIG LABOR 22 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:
Its 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 Indianaand then abruptly announced later the following year that only people living in 20 of the states 92 counties could apply for jobs a move that excluded most of the states thousands of unionized laid-off workers. (Boudette, 2007).

Wal-Mart is notorious for its union-busting activities and heres just one more example of why unions and Sam Walton dont 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

THE SELLING OF AMERICA: BIG BUSINESS FIGHTS OFF BIG LABOR 23 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 highestranking executive to the lowest level supervisor) and employees must be fully committed to the success and continued growth of the program(s).
Whatever ones 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:

THE SELLING OF AMERICA: BIG BUSINESS FIGHTS OFF BIG LABOR 24 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 commitmentQC 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. interestbased, 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 complaintsin 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

THE SELLING OF AMERICA: BIG BUSINESS FIGHTS OFF BIG LABOR 25 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 dont 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 managements amusement, they will stop participating. Now theyll 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 doesnt it? Well, truth is, it is. Its 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

THE SELLING OF AMERICA: BIG BUSINESS FIGHTS OFF BIG LABOR 26 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? Thats right. Everyones heard the story about Goldilocks and the Three Bears or is it the Three Little Pigs? Three Blind Mice? Anyways, its 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 its safe to take a nap, go to Grandmas house or visit old Uncle Piggly Wiggly at the market. So whats 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, Dont come knockin here.I wont 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 dont 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 employers favor, surface bargaining to avoid a first contract, providing inexact information in response to the unions 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 persons 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.

THE SELLING OF AMERICA: BIG BUSINESS FIGHTS OFF BIG LABOR 27

Conclusion
Winning isnt everything, its the only thing. ~Vince Lombardi

Taking a page from SEIUs 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 yesterdays DVD. If theres 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

THE SELLING OF AMERICA: BIG BUSINESS FIGHTS OFF BIG LABOR 28 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 unionawareness 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.

THE SELLING OF AMERICA: BIG BUSINESS FIGHTS OFF BIG LABOR 29

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: managements 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 employers 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.

THE SELLING OF AMERICA: BIG BUSINESS FIGHTS OFF BIG LABOR 30

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/unitedsteelworkers-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

THE SELLING OF AMERICA: BIG BUSINESS FIGHTS OFF BIG LABOR 31

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.