Union busting

Pinkerton guards escort strikebreakers in Buchtel, Ohio, 1884

Union busting is a pejorative term used by labor organizations worldwide to describe a wide range of activities undertaken by employers, their proxies, and governments, which attempt to prevent the formation or expansion of trade unions. Union busting tactics range from legal to illegal, subtle to violent. International labor laws exist country to country differing greatly in governance (and protection) of unions and organizing regarding such things as posting notices/communications, organizing inside or outside employer property, solicitations, card signing, picketing, work stoppages, striking, strikebreaking, lockout (industry), dismissals or termination of employment , permanent replacements, employer-controlled trade unions. automatic recognition, ballot elections and more. Article 23 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights declares that everyone has a right to form and/or join a trade union. (UDHR).

History

Great Britain

Following the repeal of the Combination Laws in 1824, workers were no longer prohibited from forming organizations or collective bargaining, although significant restrictions remained. In 1832 the Friendly Society of Agricultural Labourers was formed in Dorset to challenge declining wages (members of the organization agreed to only work for wages of a set amount). In 1834 a landlord complained about the group and key members were subsequently charged and convicted under laws prohibiting the swearing of secret oaths and sentenced to seven years penal transportation to Australia. This sentence invoked a movement to defend the members, who were released in 1836 and 1837. The workers became known as the Tolpuddle Martyrs in reference to the village where the organization began and their treatment.

Presently, UK labour laws are defined within the Employment Relations Act 1999 and the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992. There is no right to strike in UK law. But one of the most significant cases of mass-dismissals in the UK was in 2005 which involved the sacking of over 600 Gate Gourmet workers at Heathrow Airport was viewed as a union busting tactic and caused a great deal of media scrutiny and outrage. Under the direction of Gate Gourmet's HR Director Andy Cooke, according to BBC: "Gate Gourmet sacked more than 600 staff last week in a working practices row, prompting a walkout by British Airways ground staff that paralysed flights and stranded thousands of travellers in the UK. Andy Cook, Gate Gourmet's director of human resources at that time, said "The company had not been looking to cut the size of the protests, only stop the minority engaged in harassment.". Cooke continues to direct labor relations activities from his U.K. labour relations consultancy .

The Arbitration, Conciliation and Arbitration Service abbreviated Acas, is the UK government's independent agency for advice and conciliation. which "aims to improve organisations and working life through better employment relations".

United States

Main article: History of union busting in the United States

History of illegal union firings in the United States.

Union busting in the United States dates at least to the 19th century when a rapid expansion in factories and manufacturing capabilities caused a migration of workers from agricultural work to mining, manufacturing and transportation industries. Conditions were often unsafe, workers often toiled in dangerous environments, women worked for lower wages than men, and children were employed, often for long hours. Because employers and governments did little to address these issues, labor movements in the industrialized world were formed to seek better wages, hours, and working conditions. The clashes between labor and management were often adversarial and hostile and were deeply affected by wars, economic conditions, government policies, legislation, and court proceedings.

Companies may influence unions through bargaining, labor relations, and by other means, but employer-controlled unions in the United States have been outlawed since the National Labor Relations Act of 1935, which prohibit supervisors from joining unions and requires that an employer may neither assist (as in the event of unions competing to organize the company), nor dominate any labor organization. Additionally, the two laws, passed in 1947 and 1959, respectively, were the Taft-Hartley Act and the Landrum-Griffin Act. These statutes guaranteed the rights of private employees to form and join unions in order to bargain collectively. The vast majority of states have extended union rights to public employees.

In 1962 US President John F. Kennedy issued Executive Order #10988 which established the right for public sector employees to form trade unions with certain limitations regarding collective bargaining and a special caveat making it "illegal" to strike (United States Code: Title 5,7311, U.S.). In 1981 President Ronald Reagan exercised his power in that regard after public sector union PATCO or Professional Air Traffic Controllers Organization (1968) went on strike. Reagan fired them and the action caused the dissolution of the union. Although the firing was technically legal, he was criticised at the time for union busting. PATCO reformed to become the National Air Traffic Controllers Association.

In the U.S., unlike the UK and several other countries, the National Labor Relations Act or NLRA provides a legally protected right for private sector employees to strike to gain better wages, benefits, or working conditions and they cannot be fired. However, striking for economic reasons (i.e., protesting workplace conditions or supporting a union's bargaining demands) allows an employer to hire permanent replacements. The replacement worker can continue in the job and then the striking worker must wait for a vacancy. But if the strike is due to unfair labor practices, the strikers replaced can demand immediate reinstatement when the strike ends. If a collective bargaining agreement is in effect, and it contains a "no-strike clause", a strike during the life of the contract could result in the firing of all striking employees which could result in dissolution of that union. Although technically legal, it is viewed as union busting.

Union busters

The term “union buster” is a pejorative term used primarily by trade unions, media, and political organizations supportive of the labor movement to describe persons and organizations that are not. Union busters can be both passive or active. Passive union busters would be those who communicate their opposition to trade unions via radio/telecommunications broadcast and print media to influence the public and promote their economic or political philosophy regarding trade unions. Active union busters would be those that provide services known as union avoidance or preventive labor relations for remuneration to corporate management either anticipating or engaged in union activities such as a comprehensive campaign, card signing, union organizing US, organising model UK, card check, strike action, decertification and also certification elections.

In the UK and EU trade union opposition may occur during automatic recognition campaigns and ballot elections not only by management but by workers with individual union memberships who oppose collective bargaining by the unions to which they do not belong which is seeking company wide recognition. Although trade unions and the Trade Union Congress or TUC oppose use of consultancies during recognition campaigns calling it a union busting tactic , the Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service or Acas promotes that "Employee communications and consultation are the lifeblood of any business... consultation is the process by which management and employees or their representatives jointly examine and discuss issues of mutual concern. It involves seeking acceptable solutions to problems through a genuine exchange of views and information. Consultation does not remove the right of managers to manage – they must still make the final decision – but it does impose an obligation that the views of employees will be sought and considered before decisions are taken".

Trade unions often refer to management consulting firms, , industrial relations consultants Labour law specialist, Industrial psychology specialists , and independent contractors such as unemployed industrial relations personnel and former union organizerswho represent management in non union environments or during ballot elections as union busters.

Most labor/employment attorneys and consultants specialize in multiple disciplines such as supervisory training, bargaining, arbitration and mediation, and compensation analysis. The specialty of union busting (or counter organizing) is not always evident from a consultant's website. Firms and organizations which specialize in countering trade union organizing drives typically work with company management and supervisors to focus on techniques intended to influence worker attitudes regarding collective action. During audits and supervisory training, these consultants may encourage employers to view union interest as a failure of management rather than interest in joining a trade union. Consultants may advise management to solve workforce issues before labour unrest occurs in order to stem the tide of organizing activity with the intention of "making unions or third party representation superfluous." Dr. John Logan, a labor expert currently at the San Francisco State University who was commissioned to write about consultancies by the TUC believes that while union avoidance consultants and law firms pay lip service to "preventive" or "positive" labour relations, most of them are actually hired for the specific purpose of counteracting union organizing efforts.

Labour relations consultants and attorneys are not employed by management only during organizing but oft times before any organizing is apparent. Contemporary consultancies have developed union avoidance programs aimed at non union companies which focus on training managers and supervisors in techniques called "preventive labor relations". Non union corporations spend considerable resources employing professional consultancies to audit their organizations in order to keep a finger on the pulse to understand and solve issues before employees seek union representation. This practice of seeking information and doing supervisory training about how not to commit infractions and ULP's is termed by trade unions as union busting.

Trade unions may also refer to employers as union busters when they undertake supervisory training called positive labor relations in the belief that their employees may look for other jobs or seek outside representation if they believe they are not being treated fairly.

Changing Focus Internationally

There are many Labor Relations consultancies in the United States and worldwide. They specialize in industries such as entertainment (radio, television and motion picture), hospitality (culinary and food service), communications, manufacturing, aerospace, utilities, healthcare, service (public and private) and more. Although many work only in the United States, trade union organizing takes place multi-nationally. According to the AFL-CIO "One of the largest U.S. firms, Labor Relations Institute (LRI) offers a “Guaranteed Winner Package.” If the corporation doesn’t “win”—that is, smash workers’ efforts to form a union—it doesn’t pay.. In both the U.S. and Europe, organizing campaigns increasingly involve immigrant non English speaking workers. Some consultancies specialize in providing services in international markets. As John Logan pointed out one is “assisting clients whether represented by trade unions or not in all areas including transformative changes, collective agreements, labor disputes, works councils and union recognition campaigns with fluency in many languages including Chinese, Spanish, French, and Tagalong..

Internationally, compliance with labor laws within developed countries can be vastly different from emerging countries going through rapid economic growth. Trade union organizers and management must not only know the law but must avoid unfair labor practice charges ULPs. Application and adherence to labor laws may differ worldwide but labour laws continue to expand such as the Labour Law of the People's Republic of China and Indian labour law. Due to the changing global and multinational employment environment and labor relations/employment laws, the modern labor movement turns more and more to professional guidance. Trade union organizing often starts with workers who are untrained or unaware of labour law and may cause unintentional infractions due to inexperience or ignorance of applicable law. Workers desiring trade union representation turn to experienced professional organizers from trade unions. Conversely, employer organizations and management may work with corporate counsel and sometimes temporary professional labour relations consultants which trade unions (fairly or unfairly) call union busters. Internationally, laws may be different in how a bargaining unit is defined for workers with job descriptions involving supervision or management. Because the operative word is “law”, trade unions and workplaces may retain legal counsel to navigate the complexities of local and/or international labor laws in order to avoid unfair labour practice charges (ULP).

Labour Attorneys and Consultancies

Organizations may retain labor/employment attorneys and consultancies based on experience, track record, language skills, and reputation. Since labour laws differ from one nation to another an organization will consider experience with international labour law within multinational corporations.

When trade union organizing occurs, labour attorneys are generally contacted for advise and often turn to consultants with whom they regularly work who can do supervisory training on site. Some companies keep labour relations consultants and attorneys on a retainer and sometimes as full time staff whether union or non union. Still others use external labor/employment lawyers and/or consultancies on an hourly per diem basis.

Conversely, many labour lawyers and consultants may find clients by monitoring government offices such as the NLRB regional offices where US trade unions are required to file RC (Representation Certification) or RD (Representation Decertification) petitions which are public record. These petitions reveal the names of organizations undergoing concerted activity and the name of the union seeking recognition or an election.These petitions are also used by organizations to conduct demographic studies of concerted activity regionally in order to prepare supervisory training in anticipation of organizing. Some companies maintain libraries and offer petition logs online as a courtesy for companies which cannot conduct the research for themselves..

Similarly, UK trade unions are required by the ERA 1999 to adhere to specific procedures regarding trade union recognition such as filing a "Letter of Intent" to the CAC (Central Arbitration Commission) which simultaneously notifies not only the CAC but the employer that statutory recognition is being sought and the filing then becomes public record which labour lawyers and consultancies can access in order to market their services.

Organizations may also use computer search engines such Google and Youtube along with sponsored advertising, websites, social media and professional referrals to find labor/employment lawyers and consultancies which specialize in organizing, counter organizing, and labour laws such as the ERA 1999 (UK) and NLRA (US).

Corporate relations with management and labor

In response to some such government-required action, the company sends apologetic letters to the employees, portraying such actions as an inconvenience or an invasion of privacy rights, the blame for which is laid at the doorstep of the union. Descriptions of the union often include threatening or derogatory connotations, while management is often portrayed as humble, caring, and righteous. For example, Levitt notes that some letters might emphasize the costs of joining a union or the possible loss of jobs arising from a strike.

Labor relations consultants put the union on the defensive by criticizing its leadership and forcing the union to spend hours defending itself during meetings rather than organizing the union's planning efforts or campaign strategy. The workers won't find the time to discuss their own issues if they're sufficiently bombarded with the "twisted disinformation" sown by the union buster.

But the well-orchestrated anti-union campaign is also nuanced and calibrated to human emotion. After all the employees and supervisors are exhausted from the fight over the upcoming election, the union buster may offer a "give us a chance" letter which is a "tearful, apologetic plea" for an apparent truce. It creates an impression that management recognizes its mistakes and has learned its lessons from the organizing campaign, and that in alerting management to the problems, the union — portrayed as a self-serving group of outsiders with their own agenda — can serve no further useful purpose. This offer is typically timed so that its impact is felt just before the election.

Intelligence operations

Either side in a labor negotiation is likely to perform better during confrontations if it is well-informed, or if it can place operatives in key positions. Corporations have resorted to seeking intelligence on union activities, often by employing informants, labor spies, and saboteurs. A plant can be used to disrupt meetings, question the legitimacy and motives of the union, and report the results of the meetings to management. Such behavior is illegal, but difficult to prove in court.

Some actions of operatives are prankish, yet effective. In 1980, union buster Martin Jay Levitt conducted a counter-organizing drive at a nursing home in Sebring, Ohio. He assigned confederates to scratch up cars, then blamed it on the union. The deed occurred as part of a campaign to portray the union as a threat to nursing home residents. Creating and exploiting a prolonged climate of fear was key to destroying the union's credibility.

Intelligence gathering may be ingenious and deceptive. The week before a union election, the labor consultant may announce an innocent-sounding election-week pool among managers and supervisors. Each person contributes a dollar, with the possibility of winning a one hundred dollar prize, by recording the number of "no" votes they're predicting for the union election. The consultant now has a barometer of confidence from all participants. Those who predict a lower number of "no" votes may reflect areas of the workforce into which the union avoidance campaign can pour resources in the days just prior to the election. While participants are likely to view such a poll as nothing more sinister than a sports pool, in reality it circumvents labor laws that prohibit management from conducting straw votes among employees during an organizing drive.

Legal actions

Labor consultants use rules and regulations to impede an organizing drive. Delays and jurisdictional changes may be sought to obstruct union plans for a quick and straightforward campaign. If the union focuses on one division of the company, lawyers may disrupt such plans and dilute the vote by petitioning the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) to include other divisions. If the union seeks to include foreman or "junior supervisor" positions in the bargaining unit, union busting lawyers may file on that issue. Even the jurisdiction of the NLRB to oversee an organizing drive may be challenged. Protracted delays could turn the organizing campaign into a war of attrition, and such battles are almost always won by management.

If the organizing struggle can be made to last long enough, it demonstrates to workers that the union is not in control and they will lose faith in the process. In one delaying effort a lawyer hired a photographer to take thousands of photographs of a factory, purportedly to show that the voting unit was improperly defined. Each photo was introduced into evidence individually, a tedious process that took days.

Many of the methods for defeating unions have been practiced by union busters for a very long time. For example, Harry Wellington Laidler wrote a book in 1913 which reported the use of delaying tactics and provocation by an undercover operative of one of the largest union busters, Corporations Auxiliary Company. They would tell prospective employers,

Once the union is in the field its members can keep it from growing if they know how, and our man knows how. Meetings can be set far apart. A contract can at once be entered into with the employer, covering a long period, and made very easy in its terms. However, these tactics may not be good, and the union spirit may be so strong that a big organization cannot be prevented. In this case our man turns extremely radical. He asks for unreasonable things and keeps the union embroiled in trouble. If a strike comes, he will be the loudest man in the bunch, and will counsel violence and get somebody in trouble. The result will be that the union will be broken up."

Favoritism and division

Consultants may direct management to establish "Vote No" committees of pro-company employees charged with the responsibility of rewarding loyal workers. Such workers may receive special favors, extra time off, and other bonuses. Pro-union workers are forced to undergo ever-tighter scrutiny, and are confronted with scurrilous rumors spread by the anti-union campaign. Whenever the union attempts to hold constructive meetings of potential union members, a group of anti-union employees may be sent by union busting consultants with instructions to disrupt the meeting and put the union on the defensive. The anti-union employees might shout and sneer, or ask hostile, misleading questions. Some of them may be tasked with jotting down profuse notes whenever someone speaks to make pro-union workers uncomfortable. The company gains from any divisions or animosity created by such tactics, for the union can be blamed for driving "a wedge of hate into a once unified work force."

Creating an illusion of progress

After questioning the usefulness and motives of the union, the second imperative of a union avoidance campaign is to humanize the executives in the eyes of workers. The goal is to portray the company as benevolent, compassionate, and caring. According to former union buster Martin Jay Levitt, managers might learn at seminars ways to market themselves through the alteration of perceptions, such as appearing more open and caring by relaxing certain rules.

Management temporarily submits to the guidance of consultants concerning all communications with employees.^{[citation needed]} Examples of management's changes in procedures are publicized to all employees. Through surveys and interviews, the union buster develops an insight into who in management the union likes and trusts. These members of management become the new face of the company during the union organizing campaign while the others are coached on masking or overcoming their dislikeable characteristics. Absent such transformation, their visible role is diminished.^{[citation needed]}

"Give the workers just enough rope so that they believe they are off the leash, just enough to fool them into scorning the union. The golden rule of management control, as I taught it, was: incorporate dissent, institutionalize it. They would find, I promised my disciples, that dissension won't be half as attractive to the masses once the rebels are sitting down with the bosses...the cunning manager should embrace his workplace rebels. Be grateful for them, I offered, for they are your most effective shield against the union. If you can convince the activists that they'll accomplish more, perhaps have more power, without a union, why, you've won the war.

Managers or owners may be asked to visit worksites and exchange jokes, gossip, and laughter with workers. The theme of company-as-family prevails, with the union portrayed as an upstart outsider. Only after a union organizing drive is defeated, might company executives revert to their previous conduct.

Supervisors

United States labor law confers certain reporting requirements on labor consultants who communicate with employees. For this and other reasons, consultants typically remain behind the scenes and operate through first line supervision. If supervisors fail to cooperate, or if they sympathize with the union, they may be fired. Their unique position between management and fellow workers makes the front-line supervisor isolated and vulnerable to exploitation in union-busting campaigns.

Supervisors are usually required to attend daily interviews conducted by well-rehearsed consultants who arrive with a carefully prepared chart for each worker, with all available data on the employee's finances, sexual activities, and loyalty to the company included. Pairs of consultants may present supervisors with a good cop/bad cop routine in order to gain cooperation and information. A promise of confidentiality may be conveyed to the supervisor, but all useful information is routinely passed to executives, circulated as a damaging rumor against pro-union employees, or filed away for future use. If there are questions regarding the performance or loyalty of a supervisor, they may be subjected to interrogations by multiple consultants who will use intimidation and blunt threats of dismissal, which is legal if directed at management employees. Ultimately, many supervisors can be badgered into begging for their jobs—not from consultants or from upper management, but from employees scheduled to vote in the union election.

Unions sometimes seek to include foreman, lead-hand, or layout operator positions in the bargaining unit during a union organizing drive. The tactic may depend upon the job responsibilities actually performed by employees in these positions, but also upon the particular loyalties of these groups. Union busters seek to have a proportionally significant number of supervisory staffers charged with that task, regardless of their position on unions matters; if they are not extended the protection of the bargaining unit, then their demonstrated loyalty to the company and its goal of defeating the union campaign can be made a condition of employment. Thus, positions of work group leadership or lower management often become contested positions in organizing struggles. If the bargaining unit established by the union's petition for a union election does not allow the union buster sufficient management staff to launch a counter-organizing campaign, then the union buster may seek to redefine the bargaining unit through appeals to the NLRB. The National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) allows some latitude for this, in that it declares a supervisor not just to be someone who can hire, fire, or transfer employees, but also someone "who can effectively recommend" any of these actions.

Martin J. Levitt who wrote Confessions of a Union Buster provided an example of supervisor manipulation in his book while he was fighting an organizing drive in a nursing home. The first level of nurses (LPNs) made up a significant proportion of the workforce, and there weren't enough of the next higher level of nurses (RPNs) to effectively launch a counter-organizing campaign. The LPNs had been a driving force behind the union effort because they felt they were "neither paid nor respected as skilled professionals." Levitt recommended to the company lawyer that they contest the inclusion of the LPNs in the bargaining unit before the NLRB, and this was successful. Thus, the pro-union LPNs were declared management for the sake of defeating the union. Levitt then composed a letter explaining this hostile maneuver to the nurses, blaming the action on the federal government, implying that the company had no role in their change of status, and describing the good intentions of the company in complying with the law. The letter then asserted the necessity of loyalty that is required of all management employees.

Levitt then informed the pro-union LPNs that they would have to give up their contacts within the union, ostensibly so that — as part of management — they wouldn't violate federal labor laws prohibiting spying. Levitt states in his book that he used improper, and even illegal tactics whenever it suited him, but he withheld such details from the nurses. In contrast to this assertion of management's innocence in such matters, Levitt portrayed the union as devious and sneaky.

Lockouts

Employers may put pressure on a union by declaring a lockout, a work stoppage in which an employer prevents employees from working. A lockout changes the psychological impact of a work stoppage and, if the company possesses information about an impending strike, can be enacted prior to the strike's implementation.

History of Public Funds used for union busting in the United States

Although nonprofit hospital workers were covered by the original Wagner Act of 1935, they were excluded in 1947 with the Taft-Hartley amendments. However, during the 1960s, hospital workers at nonprofit hospitals wanted to form unions and demand better pay and working conditions. Major American cities were also experiencing hospital strikes which raised the consciousness of labor leaders and government regarding the issue of how to continue life sustaining patient care delivery during work stoppages. Hospital workers and labor leaders petitioned government to amend the NLRA. In 1974, under President Richard Nixon, the National Labor Relations Act was amended to extend coverage and protection to employees of non-profit hospitals. “When the new legislation was considered by the Senate Committee on Labor and Public Welfare, it was recognized that labor relations in the health care industry required special considerations. The Senate Labor Committee sought to fashion a mechanism which would insure that the needs of the patient would be met during contingencies arising out of labor disputes. The new law represented a sound and equitable reconciliation of these competing interests.”

A substantial amount of fees paid to union busters had come from the federal Medicaid program, even though union busting is not an allowed fee. In spite of prohibitions, the hospitals managed to finance union-busting costs by packaging them with training costs. A hospital watchdog agency in Massachusetts ordered six hospitals to reimburse Medicaid $250,000 for anti-union campaigns from 1974 to 1976.

State laws at one time sought to prevent taxpayer funds from being awarded to union busting corporations through government contracts. One such law, passed in Wisconsin in 1979, was struck down by the United States Supreme Court in the decision Wisconsin Dept. of Industry v. Gould. The 1986 Supreme Court decision means that it doesn't matter if the punishment for illegal behavior under federal labor law is limited, those punishments are the maximum allowed and states cannot eliminate such companies from government contracts. Critics charge that, in effect, "federal labor law forces states to hire unionbusters."

Also in the 1970s, the Department of Defense partially financed union busting by its contractors. Such activities appear to be illegal, for they conflict with the NLRA. In 1998, Catholic Healthcare West, the largest private hospital chain in California and a major recipient of state Medicaid funds, conducted a campaign against Service Employees International Union (SEIU) in Sacramento and Los Angeles at a cost of more than $2.6 million. After the Catholic Healthcare West campaign, the California state legislature passed a law prohibiting the use of taxpayer funds for anti-union activities.

However, in a 2007 U.S. Supreme Court decision in Chamber of Commerce of the United States of America et al. vs. Brown, Attorney General of California et al., the court ruled 7-2 that federal labor law pre-empted a California law that limited many employers from speaking to their employees about union-related issues. Justice John Paul Stevens stated that Federal labor law had embraced "wide-open debate" about labor issues, as long as the employer did not try to coerce employees into accepting its point of view. Consequently, the state law is incompatible with federal labor law.

Other efforts to restrict the use of tax dollars for union busting have also been struck down. A major recipient of state Medicaid funds, the Center for Cerebral Palsy in Albany, New York, hired a law firm to fight a UNITE organizing drive. In 2002 the State of New York passed a labor neutrality act prohibiting the use of taxpayer dollars for union busting. The law was passed as a direct result of the campaign against UNITE. In May 2005, a district court judge struck down the labor neutrality law in a ruling that the legal representatives of the Center for Cerebral Palsy described as "an enormous victory for employers."

Workers assisting union busters

Workers may sometimes join union busting efforts for reasons of ideology (see opposition to trade unions), self-interest (such as bribes or aversion to union dues payments) or because of an identification with employers. Another possible reason is retribution for a non-union employee's firing due to expressing his frustration, in a private venue, regarding the iniquitous labor expectations between union and non-union workers by way of the union workers' abuse of their union's protection at his workplace. Conversely, there are unionists who form organizations seeking greater democratic control over trade unions, form factions within trade unions (which may occur in relation to political parties or ideology) or may seek representation of a different trade union (demarcation dispute). Thus, worker involvement against a specific trade union may or may not fall under the usual definition of union busting.

Under United States labor law, if a union already exists in a workplace, workers may request a decertification election conducted by the National Labor Relations Board. Employers and management are prohibited from interfering with employees' choice regarding trade union representation in the workplace, and therefore the employer may not take a direct role in the decertification process. Employers, however, may support or sponsor third party organizations which advocate decertification and other anti-union measures. Because decertification elections depend upon a show of support from the workers, such as submitting dated signatures from 30 percent of a union's membership in support of an election, employer-supported organizations direct their publicity towards workers.

Industrial psychologists as union busters

Nathan Shefferman introduced some basic psychological techniques into the union avoidance industry and the complementary service of union prevention. Building upon his work, professionally trained psychologists in the 1960s focused overtly on combating unionization and began using sophisticated psychological techniques to "screen out potential union supporters, identify hotspots vulnerable to unionization, and structure the workplace to facilitate the maintenance of a non-union environment." These psychologists provided companies with psychological profiles and conducted audits concerning a firm's susceptibility to unionization.

Between 1974 and 1984, one firm established by one industrial psychologist trained over 27,000 managers and supervisors to "make unions unnecessary" and surveyed almost one million employees in 4,000 organizations.

Anti-union employers' organizations in the United States

Main article: Anti-union organizations in the United States

In the United States shortly after 1900, there were just a few effective employers' organizations that opposed the union movement. By 1903, these organizations started to coalesce, and a national employers' movement began to exert a powerful influence on industrial relations and public affairs.

For nearly a decade prior to 1903, an industrial union called the Western Federation of Miners (WFM) had been increasing in power, militancy, and radicalism as a response to dangerous working conditions, employer-employee inequality, the imposition of long hours of work, and what members perceived as an imperious attitude on the part of employers. In particular, members of the WFM had been outraged by employers' widespread use of labor spies in organizing efforts such as Coeur d'Alene. The miners' frustrations had occasionally exploded in anger and violence. But they had also tried peaceful change, and found that route impossible. For example, after winning a referendum vote for the eight hour day with support from 72 percent of Colorado's electorate, the WFM's goal of an eight hour law was still defeated by employers and politicians.

In 1901, angry WFM members passed a convention proclamation that a "complete revolution of social and economic conditions" was "the only salvation of the working classes." To employers the statement seemed tantamount to a declaration of war. Colorado employers and their supporters reacted to growing union restlessness and power in a confrontation that came to be called the Colorado Labor Wars.

But fear and apprehension on the part of employers, who felt unions were threatening to their businesses, were by no means limited to Colorado. Across the nation, the first elements of a network of employers' organizations that would span the coming century were just beginning to arise.

Anti-union organizations played increasingly prominent roles in American politics. In April 1903, David M. Parry spoke to the annual convention of the National Association of Manufacturers (NAM) and he delivered a speech critical of organized labor, asserting that trade unionism and socialism differ only in method, with both aiming to deny "individual and property rights". Parry asserted the natural laws which governed the nation's economy, and he decried any interference with those laws, whether by legislative or other means. Parry asserted that the goals of the unions would inevitably lead to "despotism, tyranny, and slavery", and the "ruin of civilization."

To control this threat to the status quo, Parry advised that the NAM begin organizing employers and manufacturers' associations into a great national anti-union federation. The NAM convention agreed to the recommendation, and created an employers' organizing committee with Parry in charge. Parry began the organizing effort at once.

The prospect of a federal eight hour law was particularly objectionable to the NAM, which declared it a "vicious, needless, and in every way preposterous proposition."

The NAM has fought against organized labor for more than a century through obliquely named affiliated organizations. However, the organization once sought to moderate its image. After the 1937 La Follette Committee investigated employers and their anti-union allies, uncovering widespread abuses, the NAM denounced "the use of espionage, strikebreaking agencies, professional strikebreakers, armed guards, or munitions for the purpose of interfering with or destroying the legitimate rights of labor to self organization and collective bargaining." The brief nod to union rights didn't last.

Other anti-union organizations have also made vocal contributions to anti-union discourse and union busting activities. The Citizens' Alliance was an employers' organization formed early in the 1900s specifically to fight trade unions. It worked with the NAM to strengthen anti-union movements in the early 20th Century in the United States. The Council on Union Free Environment (CUE) had the specific mission of defeating President Carter's labor law reform bill that was designed to make union-organizing efforts more successful by, among other provisions, allowing for elections to occur within 15 days of filing a petition. The Labor Law Study Group, later called the Construction Users Anti-Inflation Roundtable introduced dozens of labor law reform bills in the U.S. Congress, but their primary focus was repealing state and federal laws that established minimum wage standards on publicly funded projects. Associated Builders and Contractors (ABC) is the construction industry's voice and is funded chiefly by non-union builders and related businesses and promoted the "merit shop" which sought to pay each employee according to his qualification and performance. While the group insisted it was not anti-union, the system would preclude workers from exercising many of the worker-related benefits of a union.

Other groups, like the National Right to Work Committee, has lobbied for laws prohibiting compulsory union membership in union-organized shops. Similarly, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce's core purpose is to fight for free enterprise before Congress, the White House, regulatory agencies, the courts, the court of public opinion, and governments around the world and has actively lobbied against the Employee Free Choice Act. The NLPC makes a case for the end of the use of compulsory union dues for political purposes by exposing abuses in political and organizing activities. The Center for Union Facts maintains an anti-union website that provides financial and other records about unions.

The first guide to modern union busting

Nathan Shefferman published The Man in the Middle, a 292-page account of his union busting activities, in 1961. Shefferman described a long list of practices which he viewed as tangential to union avoidance activities but which his detractors have labeled as support operations for these activities. Among these were the administration of opinion surveys, supervisor training, employee roundtables, incentive pay procedures, wage surveys, employee complaint procedures, personnel records, application procedures, job evaluations, and legal services. As part of his union busting strategies, all of these activities were performed with the goal of maintaining complete control of the work force by top management. Shefferman's book not only provided the concepts that animated all future union busting techniques, he also provided language that pro-labor supporters believe mask the intent of the policies.

See also

• Anti-union violence
• Union violence
• Anti-union organizations in the United States
• Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948
• Grabow Riot
• History of union busting in the United States
• Labor spies
• Martin J. Levitt
• Mohawk Valley formula
• National Right to Work Committee
• Opposition to trade unions
• Professional Air Traffic Controllers Organization (1968)
• Right to work
• Salt (union organizing)
• Strikebreaking
• Union Organizer
• Union threat model
• Union wage premium
• Wal-Mart

External links

• The Labor Research Association's Union Busting Watch
• Repression Against the IWW
• Nobusters.org - Exposes the Practices and Tactics of Union Busting