This paper examines how a non-unionized public corporation should respond to an active unionization campaign. It presents labor's perspective on why workers seek union representation—including higher wages, better benefits, and workplace equity—and contrasts those motivations with conditions under which workers may prefer to remain unorganized. The paper then outlines the legal and ethical constraints placed on management by the National Labor Relations Board, detailing which employer actions are permissible during an organizing drive and which constitute unlawful interference, restraint, or coercion. The analysis concludes that constructive communication and proactive grievance resolution represent the most legally sound and practically effective strategies available to management.
Big Corporation, Inc. is currently a non-unionized company; however, it is facing an active unionization campaign and must determine how best to respond. There are both ethical and legal restrictions on the actions a company can take in its efforts to address or counter unionization efforts, and it is essential to fully understand these restrictions before engaging in any response. Equally important is understanding the position of the employees participating in the organizing drive. There are likely significant issues or complaints regarding the relationship between management and labor that have prompted the campaign — issues that management will have to address in one way or another. The following sections detail labor's perspective and the constraints on management in order to provide a more comprehensive action plan for Big Corporation, Inc.
There are many reasons workers might prefer to be employed in a unionized company rather than a non-union shop. Likewise, the absence of formal organizational structures among a labor force can also be preferable in certain circumstances. The reasons unionization is seen as beneficial — and at times as detrimental — by labor forces are both philosophical and directly practical.
Practical reasons for unionization currently outweigh the philosophical and ethical rationales, which is the reverse of what was true at the start of the twentieth century. In many industries, there is clear and direct evidence that unionized employees earn higher wages than their non-union counterparts, and this has been the case for several decades (Foster, 2003). Although non-union wages have been rising faster in recent years, union wages remain significantly higher overall and have shown greater stability across industries (Foster, 2003). Union workers also have considerably better healthcare and pension packages than non-union workers, and these benefits have not been as eroded as comparable benefits in non-unionized labor forces (AFL-CIO, 2011). These stronger benefit packages create greater financial and family stability for union employees, producing additional advantages that are less easily measured in quantifiable terms (AFL-CIO, 2011). Taken together, these practical considerations make unionization appear more advantageous in the eyes of many workers.
There are also purely ethical and philosophical reasons that unions are preferred by many workers. Having a union is, in and of itself, an assertion of laborers' rights to be treated as independent negotiating entities that management must contend with. The right to unionize carries historical and social significance that transcends any of the practical or explicitly ethical arguments for organization. Unions are also capable of granting a sense of community and solidarity to workers, which is valued by many employees regardless of the material benefits.
The primary difference in how employees view a unionized versus a non-union workplace lies in the relationship between labor and management. If a strong relationship of respect and open communication already exists without a union, organizing may seem unnecessarily adversarial and an undue complication of that relationship. If, on the other hand, the existing relationship is already adversarial or authoritarian, a union can be viewed as a means for workers to gain equality with management and to earn recognition for the value they contribute. A unionized workplace that emerged from such an adversarial relationship would likely be experienced as a calmer, more open, and more respectful environment, with better opportunities for growth, greater transparency in hierarchy and power structures, and clearer policies toward the core labor force.
Publicly traded companies as well as private entities must meet certain standards regarding workplace environment, safety, and compensation. When it comes to unionization drives and bargaining with union representatives, additional regulations govern what management may and may not do. This section details what is and is not permitted for Big Corporation, Inc. management during the current organizing campaign.
Management is given a fair degree of latitude in how it deals with employees individually and with unions specifically; however, when employees are attempting to form a union, there is very little a company can do to interrupt that process while remaining within the law. It is against the regulations enforced by the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) for employers to engage in any action that amounts to "interfering with, restraining, or coercing employees in the exercise of rights relating to organizing, forming, joining or assisting a labor organization for collective bargaining purposes" (NLRB, 2011). This does not mean that management is left entirely without means of expressing its concerns about unionization, which can be disadvantageous to the business and may affect both management and labor. Documentation of potential negative effects and attempts to resolve grievances without unionization are certainly permissible, but such measures cannot rise to the level of interference, restraint, or coercion — pro-union sentiment cannot be suppressed (NLRB, 2011).
Research has shown that establishing a positive relationship with ample communication between management and labor can be a fairly effective way of dissuading unionization (Freeman & Kleiner, 1990). Aggressive stances against organizing — the kinds of actions that tend to violate NLRB regulations — have been correlated with lower wages and other workplace conditions that actually foster union support (Freeman & Kleiner, 1990). For this reason, management should maintain a constructive and positive approach throughout the campaign.
The actions that management is allowed to take include holding open meetings at which it can present its understanding of the disputed situation and its own desired outcomes to employees, sending management representatives to employee or union meetings to present similar arguments, and meeting with smaller groups of employees or employee leaders in an attempt to negotiate settlements of grievances without resorting to unionization. Any other action that does not violate the terms outlined above is also permissible.
Threats against employees or retaliatory actions — such as shift changes, wage reductions, or other measures designed to disrupt the move toward organized labor — are not permitted. Similarly, statements intended to threaten or discredit the unionization effort should not be issued by management or any other company representative. All communications should reflect the realistic concerns and problems that management foresees as a result of unionization, as well as alternative methods for addressing workplace issues and the concessions management is willing to make in response to labor's concerns.
"Legal steps management may take in response"
Freeman, R., & Kleiner, M. (1990). Employer behavior in the face of union organizing drives. National Bureau of Economic Research. http://www.nber.org/papers/w2805
NLRB. (2011). Employer/union rights and obligations.
You’re 88% through this paper. Sign up to read the remaining 1 section.
Sign Up Now — Instant Access Already a member? Log inAlways verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.