UNION ORGANIZING AND
EMPLOYER RESPONSE
 Why Ees Join Unions
 Question is one of instrumentality: will U be instrumental in
attainment of desired job outcomes?
 Decision depends of subjective assessment of expected
benefits to be obtained vs. costs
 Some individuals simply inclined toward individual rather
than collective action
 Evidence
 Nonwhites more likely to join
 Women historically thought to be less inclined to join, no
longer true
 Re: job satisfaction, little doubt that satisfied workers
disinclined to organize, esp re: economic satisfaction
 Er campaigns do influence election voting, esp ULPs
UNION ORGANIZING AND
EMPLOYER RESPONSE
 Why Ees Join Unions
 Evidence
 Most recent evidence indicates that U tactics in campaign
may matter more than Er tactics
 In particular, “rank & file intensive strategy” appears effective
 Representative committee
 Majority of unit “house-called” (person to person contact)
 Use of new issues (union democracy, representative
participation, dignity, justice, fairness; not simply ‘bread &
butter’)
 “Solidarity Days” (escalating pressure tactics)
 But relatively few unions using this strategy
 Some unions reaching out to become part of broader social
movement

U win rate declines dramatically as size of unit increases
UNION ORGANIZING AND
EMPLOYER RESPONSE
 Share of nonunion workers who say they
would vote for a union at their company
1984
1993
2003
2005
30%
39%
47%
53%
Data: Peter D. Hart Associates as reported in
Business Week, 9/13/04; Peter D. Hart Associates,
August 2005.
UNION ORGANIZING AND
EMPLOYER RESPONSE
 Management Response
 Q: Why does mngt usually resist unionization?
 Perceived Advantages and Disadvantages of Being
Nonunion
 Advantages
 Efficiency, flexibility
 Note that empirical evidence suggests, other things equal,
unionized facilities more productive (but unionized firms
less profitable)
 Lower turnover (?)
 Lower staffing levels
 Morale
 Less resistance to technological change
 No time lost to conflict, negotiations, contract administration

Disadvantages
 Flexibility may be illusory
 Use of organizing threat
 Requires first-rate lower-level mngt
UNION ORGANIZING AND
EMPLOYER RESPONSE
 Management Response

“Substitution” Strategy (“Positive” Approach)


Articulation of corporate philosophy that stresses
welfare of individual Ee in overall objectives of firm
HR programs that serve many of same functions as
U




Ee participation programs
Communication
NonU grievance systems
Pay for knowledge
UNION ORGANIZING AND
EMPLOYER RESPONSE
 Management Response

“Suppression” Strategy

U avoidance campaign here is stop-gap measure
 Attempt to define election unit in favorable manner
 Challenge validity of submitted authorization cards
 Attempt to delay election
 Evidence suggests delay works to mngt’s advantage
 “Captive audience” speeches
 Persuasive communication generally stresses costs of
unionization, potential difficulty for U in obtaining
changes, disruptive influence of “third party”
 Illegal behavior
 Illegal behavior has increased, other things equal
UNION ORGANIZING AND
EMPLOYER RESPONSE
 Share of representation elections in which
union supporter is illegally fired is
increasing, as discussed in previous
chapter’s slides
UNION ORGANIZING AND
EMPLOYER RESPONSE
 Management Response
 Choice of Strategy
 Depends in part on financial resources available
 Firms choosing suppression strategy tend to have:
 Low wage Ees, semiskilled, easily replaced
 Low profit, highly competitive industries
 Willingness to litigate

Firms w/some unionized operations place lower emphasis
on U avoidance than firms w/little to no unionization
 Most firms strongly opposed to unionization of white-collar Ees


Top mngt philosophy plays role
Changing social climate and declining U political power
may lead to increased mngt willingness to take on unions
Online Forums
 Websites like glassdoor.com or jobvent.com
feature online forums or bulletin boards for
employees. Is it ethical for a company to
monitor these sites to see what its workers
are saying?
UNION ORGANIZING AND
EMPLOYER RESPONSE
 Union Counter-Strategies
 Neutrality Pact
 Organizing Campaign
 Starts w/organizing issues and either U initiative or Ee
inquiry
 Keys to Er Campaign
 Raise concerns about how U would perform if elected
 Convince Ees that Co deserves second chance
 Appeals to loyalty likely to be more powerful than threats, as
latter is consistent w/image of unfairness U trying to create

Er advantages in Campaign
 Better access to Ees
 Offering possibility of improvements wo/cost of U dues
 Crowds line of legality

Most persons are risk-averse
UNION ORGANIZING AND
EMPLOYER RESPONSE
 Organizing Campaign

Keys to U Campaign





U is fellow Ees, not outsiders
Change is worth fighting for
Ees will be protected from Er reprisals
U officials can be trusted
Internal organizing committee critical
UNION ORGANIZING AND
EMPLOYER RESPONSE
 Organizing Campaign

Framework

Authorization card campaign
 Authorizes U to serve as bargaining representative
 If U obtains signatures from majority of Ees, can demand recognition
directly from Er
 Er will likely refuse request, asserting that Ees have right to an
election
 Filing of petition
 Showing of interest
 30% showing required (same for decert)

Question of appropriate unit
 Board will examine to determine “community of interest”
 In mfg, common to include production and maintenance ees
together in ‘industrial’ unit


Election bar
Contract bar
 Petition is untimely if filed during term of existing CBA, 3 yrs max (6090 days prior to CBA expiration)

Consent election or hearing
 Re: appropriate bargaining unit, date of election
UNION ORGANIZING AND
EMPLOYER RESPONSE
 Organizing Campaign
 NLRB regulation of election
 “laboratory conditions”
 Election will be set aside if accompanied by conduct that NLRB
considers to create atmosphere of confusion or fear of reprisal,
thus interferes w/Ees’ freedom of choice
 E.g., threat of loss of jobs or benefits
 Captive audience speeches within 24 hours of election
 Threat or use of physical violence by U to influence votes

Ee solicitation of other Ees can be done on Co property on
nonwork time
 NonEe organizers can be barred, if nondiscriminatory nosolicitation rule in effect


Ees may typically wear buttons, etc.
Board will not set election aside on basis of false or
misleading statements, for the most part; assumes Ees
can recognize propaganda as such
UNION ORGANIZING AND
EMPLOYER RESPONSE
 Organizing Campaign
 NLRB regulation of election
 Dominion Engineered Textiles (1994)
 Co president spoke on videotape sent to Ees during campaign
 “We need to work together. We need understanding. We
need to cooperate and treat each other reasonably. We
don’t need to be divided, to be pulling in different
directions. We need to apply all our energies toward
working together.”
 “But that will be very difficult to do if we have to meet and
argue with this union all the time. And make no mistake
about it, this will be one long argument with the union. The
URW has continually shown their inability or unwillingness
to deal with issues of change, efficiency, and
competitiveness. Over the past 20 years, the
Rubberworkers have left a path of closed plants.
Companies have gone out of business because they
couldn’t survive the problems of lack of cooperation the
URW brought with them.”
UNION ORGANIZING AND
EMPLOYER RESPONSE
 Organizing Campaign

NLRB regulation of election

Dominion Engineered Textiles (1994)
 Co argued that if attention was focused on U negotiations
and not on making operational changes, then plant would
continue to be in financial difficulty and might be closed
 Supreme Court in 1969 case held Er’s predictions of dire
economic circumstances stemming from U organization
must not contain “any implication that an employer may
or may not take action solely on his own initiative for
reasons unrelated to economic necessities known only to
him…. If such a prediction is made, it must be supported
on the basis of objective fact to convey an employer’s
belief, as to demonstrably probable consequences
beyond his control.”
UNION ORGANIZING AND
EMPLOYER RESPONSE
 Organizing Campaign

NLRB regulation of election

Dominion Engineered Textiles (1994)
 Board found Co president’s comments to be a threat
 Er suggested that plant closure may be precipitated by
mere fact of having to bargain with U, U election victory
would be “devastating” because U would be “major
distraction”
UNION ORGANIZING AND
EMPLOYER RESPONSE
 Decertification

Ers prohibited from initiating discussion w/Ees
concerning decertification procedure, promoting
or participating in effort to repudiate U


Er may respond to Ees’ questions about decert
process
All activity associated w/decert petition must
occur on Ees’ nonwork time wo/any substantial
assistance from Er
UNION ORGANIZING AND
EMPLOYER RESPONSE
 Analysis of Decline in U Membership

Change in Economy and Labor Force


Shift away from mfg, toward South, toward white collar
Decline in U Organizing Activity

Decline in number of elections, average size of elections, percentage won by
unions; increase in decerts
 7,000+ elections in 1980, ~2,500 in 2003
 Unions have won 55% of elections held over last five years


Change in Er Practices



U expenditures per member in organizing campaigns declining
When new plants opened w/new HRM model, essentially immune to
unionization
Changes in Legal Environment
Attitudes of Workers Toward Unions

Individualism
 About 40% of Americans say they feel ‘somewhat positive’ or ‘very positive’ about
unions, compared w/ 38% a decade ago
 Source: Wall Street Journal, 8/15/05

Increase in satisfaction of nonU workers w/jobs, decrease in perceived U
instrumentality (but note most recent data)
State of Unions Today
Union certification elections
1970
1980
1990
2003
2008
7,773
7,296
3,623
2,516
1,635 (unions won 63%; also 296
de-certification elections, of
which unions won 44%)
NLRB data (1970-2003) reported in Business Week, 9/13/04;
2008 data from NLRB Annual Report
Recent Indiana Elections
 JCIM, Kendallville (Ft. Wayne area)/UAW, U won







decert 74-52
USALCO, Michigan City/UFCW, U lost decert 5-2
Conn-Selmer, Elkhart/UAW, U lost decert 105-63
Bon Appetit Management, Indianapolis/UNITE
HERE, U won decert 19-15
Help at Home, Indianapolis/SEIU, U won 38-24
AKAL Security, Indianapolis/UGSOA (United
Government Security Officers of America), U won 2111
Veolia, Schererville/IUOE (Operating Engineers), U
won 51-0
Certainteed, Terre Haute/USWA, U lost 48-16
“The New Union Worker”
 Many of fastest-growing unions in U.S. represent white-collar
professionals, including physicians, nuclear engineers,
psychologists, and judges
 Decaying job security and benefits and effects of global
trade on labor costs have begun to reach into ranks of
professional ees


Pharmacists U represents ees at Kaiser Permanente, who earn
~$54/hr, $10/hr more than non-U pharmacists
Psychologists in NY joined AFT due to frustration w/ changes in
working conditions (managed-care cutbacks) and inability to fight
changes on own
 Most psychologists are independent contractors and thus can’t
form own organization due to anti-trust laws – but they are allowed
to affiliate w/ existing U to benefit from lobbying services

Much of growth is in public sector


Organizing elections at gov’t agencies succeed more than 90% of
time
Today, more than 51% of all U members are defined by
AFL-CIO as white-collar workers
 Source: Wall Street Journal, 9/27/05