Corporate Front Groups like The Coalition for a Democratic Workplace, Save our Secret Ballot, Chamber of Commerce, Union Facts continue to LIE about the Employee Free Choice Act

The enemies of unions and the lies they tell

Adam Turl looks at the employers' dirty campaign to block legislation that would make it easier to join a union.

WITHIN DAYS of receiving $25 billion in federal bailout money--paid for with your tax dollars--Bank of America hosted a conference call of corporate executives and conservatives to strategize about how to defeat the Employee Free Choice Act (EFCA).

Corporations have declared war on EFCA because of both its specific provisions and the symbolic role it could play in revitalizing the labor movement.

If EFCA passes, union recognition by employers would be automatic whenever 50 percent plus one of workers in a given workplace sign union cards--which is why the process is often referred to as "card check." The legislation would also provide for greater penalties for companies that violate workers' right to organize. President Barack Obama has said he would sign EFCA into law.

The legislation could play a role similar to Section 7(a) of President Franklin Roosevelt's National Recovery Act, which enshrined into federal law the right to organize and buoyed the formation of mass industrial unions. Labor organizers seized the moment to argue that "the president wants you to join the union."

The class-conscious members of America's corporate elite have no intention of repeating this experience.

"[EFCA] is the demise of civilization," Home Depot founder Bernie Marcus said. "This is how a civilization disappears." During the 2008 elections, Marcus declared that corporate executives "should be shot" if they didn't do their part to re-elect at-risk Republican senators who could filibuster and prevent EFCA's passage.

While no corporate executives appear to have been shot as of yet, EFCA's enemies have marshaled a war chest of at least $100 million, according to union estimates. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce has already spent $10 million on its fierce anti-EFCA campaign.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

COMPANIES ARE using every means at their disposal to build opposition. For example, McDonald's publicly directed all franchise owners to lobby Congress against EFCA.

Predictably, Wal-Mart--the largest employer in the U.S.--has also joined the battle. In August, Federal Election Commission complaints were filed, alleging the company illegally instructed employees to vote Republican and against Barack Obama in order to stop EFCA.

On Christmas Eve, the "Beast of Bentonville" even announced it was suddenly settling 63 lawsuits brought by current and former employees--to the tune of $640 million. Why? The Wall Street Journal reported that Wal-Mart decided to pay out in order to improve its image before the battle against EFCA.

Meanwhile, Republican mouthpieces in Congress are mindlessly repeating talking points created by anti-union think tanks and "advocacy" organizations. The lies of "shadowy front groups"--as David Moberg describes them in In These Times--have wormed their way through the mainstream media and begun to shape the debate around EFCA, even though the political terrain should overwhelmingly favor EFCA's supporters.

The names of these employer groups are perfect examples of Orwellian doublespeak: Americans for Job Security, the Employee Freedom Action Committee, and the Coalition for a Democratic Workplace. The longer-standing anti-labor Center for Union Facts is also waging a full frontal attack against EFCA.

Union Facts is headed by D.C. lobbyist Richard Berman (who also heads up the Employee Freedom Action Committee). The CBS news program 60 Minutes once called Berman "Doctor Evil" for his efforts on behalf of the alcohol, fast food and tobacco industries.

In just one week in June 2007, Union Facts spent $500,000 against EFCA. For its part, the Employee Freedom Action Committee, has announced a $30 million anti-EFCA campaign.

One of the biggest fronts, the so-called Coalition for a Democratic Workplace, claims to be a "coalition of workers, employers, associations and organizations" opposed to EFCA. In reality, it includes 500 employer and business organizations such as the American Beverage Association, National Association of Manufacturers, U.S. Chamber of Commerce, American Meat Institute and Mississippi Manufacturers Association.

As Bill Samuel, the director of political affairs for the AFL-CIO, wrote in the Washington newsletter The Hill:

[W]hat should we make of a group that calls itself the Coalition for a Democratic Workplace? That sounds like something I might be in favor of. Are these people really trying to give workers more say in the workplace? Heck, that's what unions do.

Actually, that is most definitely NOT what the Coalition for a Democratic Workplace tries to accomplish. Just look at who its members are. The coalition is made up of groups such as the Retail Industry Leaders Association (RILA), whose biggest member is the notoriously anti-union Wal-Mart; the Associated Builders and Contractors, an association of anti-union contractors; the National Association of Manufacturers; and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.

These groups do have a track record on issues that involve giving workers more say in the workplace. Not surprisingly, they're not for that.

State constitutional amendments can kill Card Check

Congress is ready to reduce the rights of workers, limiting their access to a secret ballot in union elections.  The best defense lies not in Washington, DC, but in the states.

A Senate filibuster of the pending Employee Free Choice Act (EFCA or "card check")  is iffy and would be a delay, not a permanent win, considering the House's prior 241-185 vote and President Obama's strong support. 

The way to kill the bad idea is by shifting the fight to grassroots America.  We can place language in state constitutions that protects secret ballots both in public elections and when workers decide whether to unionize.

Already organized in 10 states, Save Our Secret Ballots (SOS) leads the effort to put this before state voters in 2010.  Americans cherish the right to a secret ballot and want it protected.  Now they can make it so.

Crafted by respected constitutional scholar Clint Bolick at The Goldwater Institute, SOS Ballot's proposal reads:

"The right of individuals to vote by secret ballot is fundamental. Where state or federal law requires elections for public office or public votes on initiatives or referenda, or designations or authorizations of employee representation, the right of individuals to vote by secret ballot shall be guaranteed."

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

UNFORTUNATELY, Employee Free Choice Act enemies have had an impact on the debate, despite the growing support for unions--and the growing disrepute of corporations like Bank of America. Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting (FAIR) and Colorado Media Matters have documented significant disinformation percolating through the mainstream media.

The anti-EFCA head-fixing industry has been based on four key lies. But union members and supporters can demolish their arguments once they have the facts in hand.

Lie Number 1: A majority of workers oppose EFCA.

The Coalition for a Democratic Workplace has released a "poll" claiming that 73 percent of Obama voters (!) oppose EFCA. However, the poll was carefully--and unscientifically--worded in order to insure a negative result. In fact, the poll contradicts a mountain of evidence, including more professionally worded surveys, which show widespread support for unions.

For example, a Hart Research Associates survey found that 78 percent of Americans would favor legislation making it easier for employees to bargain with employers over wages, working conditions and benefits (in other words, the things a union does).

In other surveys, nearly three-quarters of respondents have favored allowing workers to form unions if a majority sign union cards--a central provision of EFCA. And several polls have shown a majority of non-union workers would join a union if they had the chance.

Polls even show that around three-quarters of people support EFCA itself when the key provisions of the legislation are explained.

Lie Number 2: EFCA would abolish workers' right to a secret ballot in forming a union.

EFCA in no way prohibits the use of ballots in forming a union.

The fact is that the 1935 Wagner Act provided for two primary methods for organizing unions--"card check" and the NLRB election process. "Card check" allows for a union to be brought into a workplace when a majority of employees sign union cards. The NLRB election process is a government-supervised election in a particular bargaining unit, held after a certain number of employees sign union cards.

From the 1930s into the 1970s, the majority of unions were organized through the card-check process. But since the onset of the employers' offensive in the late 1970s, companies realized they could force workers to use the NLRB election process in order to draw out organization drives, intimidate workers and peel off union support.

This has been a successful strategy for Corporate America. One academic study of union elections from 1999 to 2004 showed that in cases where a majority of workers supported unions and signed union cards, they were only able to win NLRB elections 20 percent of the time. In truth, the current set-up forces workers--in the face of the bosses' opposition and intimidation--to organize a union twice.

Further, EFCA does not abolish employees' rights to a secret ballot in the NLRB election process. Instead, it gives the choice of card-check or the election process to workers instead of the bosses.

Nevertheless, this lie has spread unchecked throughout sections of the mass media. For example, CNN's Lou Dobbs recently asserted that card-check would "end the secret ballot" in union elections and that the "so-called Employee Free Choice Act" is a "bold threat."

This should prove that Lou Dobbs--for all his talk about defending "hard-working Americans"--is not only a racist immigrant basher, but anti-labor, period.

Lie Number 3: EFCA will expose workers to intimidation by unions.

In December, USA Today wrote, "It is hard to see how ending the secret ballot will do much besides initiating campaigns of subtle, and not-so-subtle, intimidation, as workers contemplate their decision."

This media regurgitation of Coalition for Democratic Workplace talking points turns reality on its head. It's bosses who use intimidation during union organizing campaigns.

A 2007 Center for Economic and Policy Research (CEPR) study found one in five workers were illegally terminated when they attempted to organize a union at their workplace.

The House Committee on Education and Labor reported that in 2005 alone, more than 30,000 workers were receiving back pay from employers that had illegally persecuted them for union activity. This undoubtedly understates the scale of the problem, since proving employer violations is a difficult and time-consuming process.

Even serious business studies have shown that cases of so-called "union intimidation" are miniscule in number.

Lie Number 4: EFCA is, in the words of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, a "job killer."

The idea that EFCA would further strangle an already hard-hit job market flies in the face of economic reality and even the opinion of countless mainstream economists--such as New York Times columnist and Nobel Prize winner Paul Krugman.

One of the factors in the deepening economic crisis is a sharp decline in consumer demand. While the credit crunch is causing companies to scale back investments, economically wounded consumers can't afford to buy goods and services, leading businesses to scale back more or move toward bankruptcy, shedding workers and creating more unemployment, which further curtails demand.

Washington's roughly $800 billion stimulus package was supposed to put a check on this vicious cycle.

As Krugman has argued, since unionized workers tend to have greater job security and receive greater wages and benefits, unions are essentially a "stimulus package" that costs taxpayers nothing. A 2007 CEPR study showed this clearly. Median weekly earnings for union members were $886 (prior to the crisis), but just $691 for non-union workers.

Employer opposition to EFCA isn't about the health of the economy or stemming job loss, even though declining demand means they are increasingly unable to sell goods and services.

In truth, companies are caught in an economic "Catch 22." Under capitalist competition, every employer is compelled to extract as much surplus value as possible out of their workers. Failure to do so means that rival companies will benefit at their expense. As a result, corporate executives must try to maintain dictatorial control over production and exploit labor as they see fit. For that reason, unions are anathema to them.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

CAPITAL IS right to be worried. The "pull-yourself-up by the bootstraps" ideology of the past three decades was dealt a blow by the ongoing federal bailout of the financial system--and the economic crisis makes a rise in class struggle increasingly certain.

Significantly, 2008 saw a second straight year of modest, but definite, union growth in the United States. The Bureau of Labor Statistics reported union density grew from 12.1 percent of the workforce to 12.4 percent--an increase of 428,000 workers for a total of 16.1 million union members.

However, labor and the left can't be complacent. The uptick in union membership, while real, is still far below the historic high of about 35 percent in the 1950s, when labor was able to set industry standards for workers' wages and benefits. Since then, unions have been in a steep decline, not only because of economic restructuring that has cost union jobs, but because labor failed to follow production into the South, where most former slave states are virtually union-free.

Now, the prolonged economic crisis has put hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of union jobs on the chopping block. Hundreds of thousands more unionized manufacturing jobs are likely to be lost. Furthermore, public sector unions--where organized labor had its greatest success in recent decades--will be increasingly hit by budget cuts and job losses as tax revenues plummet at the state and local level.

Despite the pressures of a terrible economy, advocates of EFCA have political momentum. The mainstream political shift towards liberalism has opened up new space for labor and for pro-union legislation like EFCA. Much of the Democratic-controlled Congress is on record of supporting EFCA, and President Barack Obama has probably issued more pro-union statements than Roosevelt. All this makes passage of EFCA possible.

But as the debate around the stimulus package showed, we can't risk allowing the Republicans and the right wing to shape the political debate about EFCA--and there is already plenty of cause for concern.

For example, "realistic" politicians are wavering in their support of Obama's pick for Secretary of Labor, Hilda Solis, because of her past support for EFCA.

Some "progressive" journalists have even suggested dumping the more "controversial" parts of EFCA, like card check, in order to win passage of the legislation. This would needlessly concede the terms of the debate to the likes of the National Association of Manufacturers and the Coalition for a Democratic Workplace.

Most worrisome, it's entirely unclear whether the two labor federations--the AFL-CIO and Change to Win--are willing or able to mobilize the sort of grassroots struggle needed to shift the debate around EFCA and put real pressure on the politicians.

The potential is clearly there for a mass movement for EFCA. A February 17 meeting called by the Chicago Federal of Labor in support of the legislation build drew so many people that hundreds had to be turned away from a union hall that normally seats 1,000.

At the same time, however, the willingness of the United Auto Workers--once the standard-bearer of the U.S. labor movement--to give up its right to strike in support of the government auto bailout, could be a harbinger of even worse "compromises" to come.

The enemies of EFCA are take-no-prisoners CEOs. As they spend millions of dollars and marshal all their resources to defeat card check, it should be clear that they aren't going to go quietly into that long night. So for labor, lobbying and fine words simply won't be enough. It will take protests and pickets that tap into the growing public energy in support of EFCA.

In fact, the way to win EFCA is being shown by our side's most class-conscious fighters.

For example, Republic Windows & Doors workers--represented by the United Electrical, Radio and Machine Workers of America (UE)--are building support for EFCA as they tour the country to spread the lessons of their successful factory occupation last December.

As UE organizer Leah Fried remarked at one such event, "If Republic workers hadn't had a union, nothing would have happened... Laws like EFCA are imperative at a time where corporations are cutting jobs and laying off thousands."

For More Information on EFCA please visit our websites and blog

  http://www.employeefreechoiceactnow.org  

 http://efcanow.blogspot.com/  

 http://efcaunionbustingclub.blogspot.com/  

 http://www.FreeChoiceActNow.Org  

 http://www.LaborUnionResources.Org  

 www.SolisForLaborSecretaryNow.org

Tags: Corporate Front Groups,The Coalition for a Democratic Workplace, Save Our Secret Ballots (SOS), Employee Free Choice Act, Free Choice Act, EFCA, Chamber of Commerce, Union Busting, Union Avoidance, My Private Ballot, American Beverage Association, National Association of Manufacturers, American Meat Institute, Mississippi Manufacturers Association, anti-union, Wal-Mart;  Associated Builders and Contractors

Just SAY NO to the Employee Free Choice Act! WHY?

Because if The Employee Free Choice Act is passed it would NOW eliminate the RIGHT of the Employer to use such UNION-BUSTING Tactics as: Employer Intimidation, Fear of the Unknown, Mandatory Union Busting Meetings, Scare Tactics, Firing of Union Supporters and many other Union-Busting Techniques.

Why Would Any Employer or Corporate Front Group like The Coalition for a Democratic Workplace Want To Give Up This Right?

Since 1935, the law has provided two ways for employees to express the choice to be represented by a union: majority sign-up or a NLRB Election

Organized labor's top legislative goal this year is passage of the federal Employee Free Choice Act, which would allow formation of a local labor union branch if a majority of employees sign union cards. Opponents, who favor continued secret ballots, say the act would invite undue peer pressure to sign a union card. President Barack Obama supports EFCA, but Democrats are short of the 60 Senate votes needed to assure its passage. Here are views, pro and con.

The EFCA would contribute to economic recovery by making it easier for workers to bargain for improved wages, hours and working conditions. It would not take away the right of employees to vote on whether to form a union.

Employee sign-up was legal even before the National Labor Relations Act was passed. When a majority of employees had signed cards or petitions designating a union as their representative, the employer could legally negotiate with the representative. The act was interpreted as giving the company the right to decide whether the employees would choose a union through majority sign-up or through an election conducted on the company's premises.

The process of forming a union with or without the Employee Free Choice Act would remain the same.

The only difference would be if the Employee Free Choice Act should be passed is that:

The EFCA would give employees, rather than the company, the right to decide which method to use.

Spotlight on the Union-Busters

It's time for a closer look at the anti-union consultants who have been a prominent feature of the labor-management landscape since the early 1970s, quietly developing, marketing and fine-tuning their programs and tactics on behalf of employers.

Their basic goal and the fondest wish of those who hire them is, of course, to keep unions out of workplaces or to decertify established unions. When negotiations can't be avoided or delayed any longer, they take a new tack: meet with the union but try to make bargaining as onerous and excruciating as possible.

In extreme cases, the employer-consultant team will not only "go through the motions" of bargaining, but will fabricate some crisis that provokes the union to strike and allows the employer to replace the entire work force with people who are younger, cheaper and "more flexible' (that is, easier to control).

Union people from the local level to the largest internationals have long sought to counter such brazen aggression and regain a level playing field for genuine collective bargaining. Knowing the enemy who may be hiding behind the boss is often the key to success for organizers.

They Work Behind the Scenes



Always assume that the union-busting consultant has sold your boss on a "3-C" strategy: conceal, camouflage, and operate clandestinely. Rarely will the consultant reveal himself during a "preventative campaign," certainly not to anyone eligible to vote in a representation election. Realizing that to occupy center stage is to reveal the employer's and his own motives, the consultant will stay behind the scenes, advising corporate officers and middle managers on what to say and how and when to say it.

The mountain of anti-union propaganda to which workers are exposed during the typical consultant's campaign bears witness to this. For a union, any opportunity to expose the fact that an employer has engaged the services of an anti-union law firm should be seized.

Jackson Lewis: They (Literally) Wrote the Book



Jackson, Lewis, Schnitzler & Krupman, founded in 1958 and headquartered on Park Avenue in New York, is a national "labor and employment law firm" which represents management exclusively. With 20 offices in 11 states, more than 300 lawyers and annual revenues of nearly $40 million, they are formidable indeed.

One of the first outfits to refine the techniques of "coaching" management on preventing unionization, Jackson Lewis is also one of the few bold enough to write a book on the subject. But don't look for "Winning NLRB Elections: Avoiding Unionization Through Preventative Employee Relations Programs" on the shelves at Barnes & Noble. Jackson Lewis won't even sell the book, now in its fourth edition, to individuals, let alone to unions.

The 253-page volume, billed on its back cover as "the best and most comprehensive publications on how to establish and maintain a union-free workplace," actually doesn't reveal more than the broad outlines of what a capable consultant's "bag of tricks" contains. Still, it illustrates much of the basic posture union busters recommend when confronting unions.

The Search for Soft Spots



Just as any good union organizer needs to size up a company early on, so too does the cagy consultant search for evidence of your weaknesses and vulnerabilities. Such information comes from government-required filings such as LM2 forms and other public documents. In addition to the names and titles of union officers, they disclose the locations of union offices, membership size and details of a union's structure and finances.

You can count on the consultant to publicize everything he can find about the union's dues rates and initiation fees. He'll also do his best to distort the reality that dues are necessary to provide collective bargaining and contract administration services, arbitration hearings, education, job training and strike assistance.

In their zeal to portray unions as "outside third parties," consultants will direct payroll departments to deduct the maximum dues amount from employees' checks during an organizing campaign, and then reissue the deducted amount in a separate check. "This is what you can expect every month if the union gets in," they'll proclaim.

This type of paycheck ploy is often used just before a vote on representation. Long before that, your union should have already conducted frank and thorough discussions of dues and especially of how contract benefits won by your union will more than compensate for the amount deducted. Some prospective members may not even realize that dues aren't collected until after a contract is negotiated and ratified by the membership!

Finding Out About Fines

It's a glorious day for your consultant foe when he discovers any history of fines or assessments imposed by your union (or perhaps even some other union) on individual members. He can then circulate a flyer asking, "Can you guess the amount of the highest fine the union ever imposed on one of its members?"

The "quiz" can become a contest in which the worker making the closest guess wins a TV set or some other prize. Even though the chances of getting fined by your union are right up there with getting struck by lightning or winning the big jackpot in the lottery, you should be ready to respond to these questions before the other side brings them up.

We've all read newspapers and seen TV news reports cluttered with references to "union bigs" and "union bosses." Expect to find these terms in the materials generated by consultants; after all, their own prosperity depends upon perpetuating the myth that all unions are run by greedy fat cats whose only concern is squeezing out more dues dollars to pay for limousines and Las Vegas junkets. Remember: the consultant wants his client's employees to think of a union as "just another business, only worse than most."

Spotlight on Union Busters:
Four Weeks and Counting

For both unions and management, the last four weeks of an election campaign are critical. Each side must use its most effective arguments and techniques of persuasion to gather peak support by election day.

While no two organizing or election situations are exactly alike, anti-union consultants always have a basic game plan for an upcoming representational vote. When you learn that an employer has hired lawyers and other professionals who specialize in keeping workplaces "union-free," you can anticipate certain kinds of behavior and plan your own initiatives and responses accordingly.

Let's suppose an election is just four weeks away. At this stage, the union is concentrating on large group meetings, home visits and literature aimed at exposing the employer's vulnerabilities. The standard, "boilerplate" strategy of the union busters is designed to force you onto the defensive. The trick is not to fall into his trap, but to stay on the offensive and maneuver the employer into reacting to what you're doing and saying.

An Election is Set

The National Labor Relations Board regional director has issued a decision and directed an election (or both parties have entered into a stipulated election agreement). When the Labor Board has determined which employees can and cannot vote and makes known such details as voting hours and the location of polling places, a race often ensues between company and union to see who will be the first to notify employees.

The employer's consultant team will begin intensive training meetings for front-line supervisors. Several times a week until election day, they'll gather to discuss and refine the not-so-subtle arts of intimidation, persuasion by instilling fear and divide-and-conquer techniques.

It's important to note that the hearts and minds of foremen and front-line supervisors are often up for grabs in ways that union organizers don't always recognize. By not taking seriously the existence of close personal ties between workers and these individuals, or by being unaware of them, union organizers may be too quick to concede this ground to their opponents.

Professional union busters, aware of such relationships and how they have been affected by them in the past, are quick to search them out. The union, through its in-plant committees, should vie for the support of all - including even those who aren't eligible to vote, but can still influence the outcome of the election.

We're not suggesting that union organizers invite middle management people to group meetings or meet openly with supervisors. But the friendship and trust that has developed over time between some workers and mid-level management can be encouraged in the hope that it may spawn a useful grapevine and an early warning mechanism to give the union an advance look at what to expect.

When the Supervisors Emerge



After all the intense training by the employer's consulting squad, the supervisors will emerge, ready to launch their carefully calibrated propaganda barrage. The initial presentation often will set the tone for the whole campaign.

"We (the good employer) want you to consider all the facts before making a decision that could affect the rest of your lives," they'll say. "Be sure you understand the difference between reality and wishful thinking."

Just as any good union organizer needs to act early to "inoculate" those they seek to organize, so does the anti-union consultant attempt to poison workers' perception of the union. "They're calling your company liars," they'll say - and while they may indeed be liars, you must be careful to avoid saying so unless you can support the charge with solid facts.

Organizers can make a great deal of headway by sharing with workers the contract terms and provisions that have been won for others in similar workplaces or in the same industry. As long as you make it clear that someone else's contract cannot be construed as a promise or guarantee of what will be obtained for them, you'll be well positioned to counter the veiled threats union busters customarily use: for example, "Every wage provision and benefit term currently provided by your employer is subject to change and could be reduced as a result of negotiations."

Speaking of threats, the employer will now raise the specter of strikes, implying that there is no alternative. He'll say something like: "Even though we think of all of you as family, if a strike takes place, we won't rule out hiring replacements."

Self-interest vs. Solidarity

A multifaceted approach is the key to placing pressure on your organizing targets. It is a great advantage to be able to point to examples of a company's vulnerabilities with respect to relationships with other businesses, insurers, banks, creditors and the general public. The employer may be subject to criticism from environmental watchdogs, civil rights advocates, consumer groups or others with broad community interests.

Union busters encourage a "go-it-alone, every man for himself" mentality. They'll argue that individual self-interest should take precedence over all other considerations. An activist-oriented campaign, in which your future membership is directly involved, is the best possible approach.

Spotlight on Union Busters:
Three Weeks Until Election Day

With a representation vote only three weeks away, you can be certain that the employer's union-busting consultants have identified key members of your in-house organizing committee.



Backers of the union may already have been fired or threatened with discharge. At the very least, you can assume that the movements of key leaders in and around the workplace will be severely restricted and they'll be under constant surveillance.

With few exceptions, employers will violate the National Labor Relations Act repeatedly during an organizing campaign. How can the union respond? Given the weakness of the Labor Board as an instrument to secure justice, many employers are completely unfazed when a union responds to discriminatory terminations by filing unfair labor practice (ULP) charges. If you were a fly on the wall during a private meeting of the employer and his consultant, you'd hear them saying things like this:

"What's the worst scenario we're looking at? Even if we're found guilty of committing ULPs, victims of discrimination are only entitled to back pay and reinstatement - and that's assuming that in the interim (which could mean many months or years), they've made a diligent search for work and haven't turned down any job offers."

Even a well-intentioned bureaucracy usually moves at a snail's pace, and the National Labor Relations Board (which administers the Labor Act and attempts to settle disputes over its interpretation) is no exception. And as everyone knows, "Justice delayed is justice denied."

If there are enough strong supporters of the union and you're sure they won't back down in the face of adversity, a union can consider calling an unfair labor practice strike. However, this can be very risky - particularly during an economic slump or a period of high unemployment.

Feasting on Fear of the Unknown - The Boogie Man Strategy


Instilling in employees' minds what companies like to call "the downside of unionism" is a priority item on management's agenda as Election Day nears. In meetings or in writing, they'll exploit workers' fear of the unknown with this type of message:

"We want to discuss with you, our trusted employees, what a company like ours needs to survive and remain competitive in today's economy. In a word, that means flexibility. We're proud of our history and our ability to provide stable jobs, good pay and benefits in the years since we chose to set up our business here. But the determination on whether to stay here has been - and will continue to be - based on sound economic reasoning."

The union will invariably be labeled a "third party" or an "outside party" bent on disrupting friendly, established relationships: "This is not to say that should you choose an outside party to represent you, we would necessarily pick up and move to a new location. After all, to say so at this juncture would be unethical." (Incidentally, it would also be illegal.)

Once again skirting the edges of illegality, your foes will say: "By continuing to work together, without any undue influence from those who would weigh us down with restrictive production requirements and bothersome union rules, we will succeed in meeting our goals." Through such thinly-veiled threats, seeds are planted in every worker's mind: "Will I lose my job next month if the union is voted in?"

FEAR IS THE UNION-BUSTERS FRIEND



Exploiting such fears is at the heart of all "union avoidance" strategies. Less easy to spot are the effects of conflict generated during the organizing process - conflict as distinguished from fear, because the adversarial relationship itself has an impact on undecided workers.

Anti-union consultants advise managements to take actions that polarize the workplace, and then transfer blame to "outside agitators" and "inside troublemakers." A divide-and-conquer strategy, pitting worker against worker based on race, gender, age, seniority, skill levels or a combination of all these factors, can stop organizers in their tracks. From the employer's point of view, the morale of the workforce takes a back seat to the primary objective of defeating the union.

With employees still divided on the need to organize, management can haul out some of its most trusted brown-nosers in the workforce and beam contentedly (from a legally safe distance) as they form a "Vote No Committee." A petition will be circulated saying, "I would like to be counted among the group of employees who want to be recognized as against unionization."

A simple checkmark near one's signature grants the committee permission to print each signer's name on flyers that will soon appear. When they do, some workers who initially chose not to sign will start worrying that they could now be viewed as pro-union. And of course, the non-signers will soon get another chance to sign.

Alert unionists will see this kind of challenge coming and will make sure that pro-union sentiment becomes just as visible and tangible. Lots of workers wearing "Union Yes" buttons, caps, T-shirts and other paraphernalia will demonstrate the growing popularity of the union and the isolation of management's brown-nosing allies.

Spotlight on Union Busters:
Two Weeks Until Election Day



The vote on union representation at our hypothetical workplace is now only two weeks away. Will the workers choose the union, or will they succumb to the false hopes of a "better," union-free future that the employer and his fear-mongering consultants have instilled?

If the union has managed to retain majority support at this late stage, management knows it's time to drop some big bombshells. Some union-busting consultants have become specialists in particular industries or have positioned themselves to challenge the same labor organizations in many locations. The bombshells they lob at the last minute may be fashioned from records they've carefully compiled to identify disgruntled members of an international union.

It doesn't matter if (as is often the case) the "horror stories" happened years ago, involved only a handful of people or simply bear no resemblance to the realities of your situation. Since the consultant routinely portrays union advocates as "outsiders," he has every reason to reinforce this bad-guy image with wildly exaggerated tales of what "this very same union" did a long time ago, thousands of miles away.

As we've noted before, at various stages in an organizing campaign the most activist unions rely on their own rank-and-file members to rally support from those they seek to organize. The stale "horror stories" and the "outsider" stigmas lose their sting when they are countered with sincere, believable testimony of real people who speak from their own experience about union pride and achievements.

Paychecks and promises

Often, in the campaign's final stages, it comes down to this: the payday surprise. As the employer hands out the pay envelopes, suddenly someone shouts: "Hey, what's going on? I've been shortchanged!"



The boss then hands out a second set of envelopes, labeled on the outside: "Enclosed is $20 of your hard-earned money, the minimum amount the union takes from its members' paychecks every month." Union-busting consultants call this all-too-common ploy "the split paycheck stuffer." The National Labor Relations Board deems it an acceptable tactic as long as it's used no less than 24 hours before the voting.

Anti-union leaflets based on the notion that the union had better "put its promises in writing" tend to multiply at this stage. Here is some typical wording as recommended by a prominent consultant:

"Ask the union salesperson for a signed, notarized, legally enforceable guarantee about any of the following:

"1. I guarantee you will get a pay raise of (blank space for amount promised) in your first contract.

"2. I guarantee you will not lose any of your current wages or benefits as long as you are represented by my union.

"3. I guarantee if you are called out on an economic strike, your job will not be filled by a permanent replacement.

"The union won't sign this because it can't make such guarantees. Talk is cheap - VOTE NO!"

Another type of "supervisory handout" that is often held back until the last weeks is what the notorious consultants, Jackson, Lewis, Schnitzler and Krupman (in their $75-a-copy book, Winning NLRB Elections) call "Your Personal Strike Cost Calculator." Over a chart with the heading, "How Long Will It Take You to Break Even after a Four-Week Strike?", columns of figures are stacked up like poker chips portraying ever-growing amounts of "lost wages."

Then there's the "contest" type of flyer, which asks questions like, "What's the largest fine ever levied against a member of the union?" and "What was the length of the union's longest strike?" Ostensibly to protect the "privacy" of contest entrants, entries are numbered and the employee retains a receipt. The correct answers and the winning number are announced right before the election.

Small group meetings and supervisory handouts may also be devoted to "the truth about collective bargaining," or at least the consultant's version of the truth. Management's basic point is that nothing in the law compels an employer to agree to any union "demands." They'll quote with approval the segment of the Labor Act that says an employer's only obligation is "to meet at reasonable times and confer in good faith with respect to wages, hours, and other terms and conditions of employment...but such obligation does not compel either party to agree to a proposal or require the making of a concession."

If the union has done its job of preparing those whom it seeks to organize to do battle with the employer, all the flyers will fall flat and workers will react to the rhetoric at the "captive audience" meetings with skepticism. A viable union campaign isn't built on false promises; it's developed through visible strategies that show how working people can bring the utmost pressure to bear on a company and its corporate allies.

Spotlight on Union Busters:
Both Sides Turn Up the Heat As Election Day Approaches

After all is said and done in a contentious union election campaign, neither side can afford to sit back and relax on the eve of the voting, even when one side clearly appears to hold the edge.



At times like this, expect the unexpected. Figuratively speaking, rabbits will be pulled out of hats. Seasoned union busters will pull out all the stops if they think the union might prevail. And if ever there was a time when anti-union adherents would be likeliest to provoke violence this is it.

Management and their consultants may feel emboldened to encourage a visible demonstration of what they have alleged throughout the campaign - namely, that unions breed dissension in the workplace.

The potential for such management provocation is not always easy to recognize. The attentive union organizer will look for signs of it, such as reports of verbal altercations, sexual harassment, company bullies being transferred into departments where there is a high level of support for the union, and cases of intimidation outside the workplace.

Regardless of how it originates, violence always poses a dilemma. Publicly identifying where the hostility came from may help, but won't resolve underlying fears that the workplace may become a very hostile place if the union wins. At a minimum, the union should promote non-violence and strongly encourage those who might be prone to violence not to be provoked. When conflicts arise organizers should encourage all pro-union workers to "turn the other cheek."

The Full-Court Press

With so little campaign time remaining, activist unions at this stage will have their in-plant committees functioning at full tilt. They will have identified strong supporters, the uncommitted, and co-workers who don't favor a union at all. Since management's consultants have directed the employer to do the same, the endgame for both sides is to sway the group still on the fence.

For the employer, that means intense one-on-one sessions pairing supervisors with undecided members of the bargaining unit. For you and the union, it means targeted home visits in which organizing committee volunteers reach out to those same potential voters.

During the last week there will also be one or more handouts or mailings by the company as well as the union. Each will be timed to reach voters as close to election day as possible. Naturally, management will attempt to push its "trust only us" line of malarkey, while the union will emphasize a "look forward to a better future" theme, complete with outlines of the kind of proposals the union and its member-based negotiating committee plans to present to the company.

The employer may proclaim or imply that he has a "new attitude" and has suddenly realized the need to improve communications with workers. A savvy union response to such a claim would be, "That's why we're here, to keep 'em honest and ensure that your voices are heard."

The 'White Knight' Approach



In a large-group setting, a top management official who has not previously been seen during the campaign may appear. He announces: "Because of the sensitive legal circumstances at present, we are prohibited from making any promises just now. However, be assured that your concerns have not gone unnoticed. If you support us at this most difficult time, major changes will take place in the future."

Whether or not this kind of appeal materializes you should assure those you have been organizing that shortly before election day, there may be veiled promises and vague assurances that are no guarantee at all and that the employer would never dare to put in writing. If management were truly sincere, why fight the union in the first place? Guarantees for workers are what contracts are all about.

The union also needs to pull out all the stops. The last week of the campaign is probably the best time to unveil labor and community support for the organizing drive. Schedule that rally. March up Main Street. Call out every available unionist, religious leader and political leader who would speak out for justice.

At this juncture, even if your chances of winning are slight management may minimize retaliatory moves against union supporters simply because of the fear that a larger social movement has grown out of the attempt to organize their employees. And even a minimal public turnout before the vote can strongly encourage workers who need to know they are not alone in the struggle.

Prior to the vote organizers should know who is scheduled to work and when even though you have done everything you can to publicize the date and times of the voting. You can't leave anything to chance. If you know any union supporters who have the day off make sure they show up to vote, even if it means offering to drive them to the polls yourself. I've seen more than one election in which my own union observers told me that they forgot to vote.

Counting the Ballots

Face it: you go to enough representation elections, you're going to experience a few squeakers. I've always dreaded ballot counts, even when I knew my union was going to win. You stand there trying to keep count while the Labor Board agent separates the ballots into two piles. What's the point in trying to keep an accurate count anyway - so you'll know the results 30 seconds before the tally is officially announced.

In more than 20 years of organizing I have yet to get the count right on my personal check-off sheet. What I have succeeded in doing, however, is determining the outcome before a single ballot was cast.

If we do our homework and regularly interview members of the organizing committee, we'll know how each and every employee stands long before they enter the booth.



If we don't, we risk everything. There is no such thing as a silent majority. If you see certain people turning out to vote, or at least hear them discussing the issues, you can probably predict how they'll vote.





 While Front Groups like the The Coalition for a Democratic Workplace and the Camber of Commerce continue to spread lies about the Employee Free Choice Act such as if it is enacted that it would eliminate Secret Ballot Elections this is the furthest thing from the truth.

The process of forming a union with or without the Employee Free Choice Act would remain the same.

The only difference would be if the Employee Free Choice Act should be passed is that:

The EFCA would give employees, rather than the company, the right to decide which method to use.

The 42 Day Intimidation and Fear Act or The Employee Free Choice Act

For More Information on EFCA please visit our websites and blog

http://www.employeefreechoiceactnow.org

http://efcanow.blogspot.com/

http://efcaunionbustingclub.blogspot.com/

http://www.FreeChoiceActNow.Org

http://www.LaborUnionResources.Org

Tags: Employee Free Choice Act, Free Choice Act, Employee Free Choice Act News, EFCA, Employee Free Choice Act Bill, Union Busting, Union Avoidance,Union Busting Consultants, Corporate Front Groups, The Coalition for a Democratic Workplace, Employee Freedom Action Committee, Chamber of Commerce, Alliance For Worker Freedom, Workforce Fairness Institute, Americans For Job Security, Save Our Secret