The hocus pocus in union avoidance

The Hocus Pocus in Union Avoidance W O O D R U F F I M B E R M A N

Imberman and DeForest, Inc.

Union victories in National Labor Relations Board representation elections have been diminishing over the years. In fiscal 1968, unions won 57 percent of the NLRB elections; in 1973, only 5i percent, and in 1978, a dismal 46 percent. Why?

Mr. George Meany, late president of the AFL-CIO, earlier this year pas- sionately attributed the union decline to "ant i-union consultants and lawyers • . . who carry briefcases instead of brass knuckles." His denunciations were echoed by Alan A. Kistler, director of organization for the AFL-CIO. He maintained that "anti-union consultants and lawyers are creating a Frankenstein monster that is doing damage to the entire fabric of labor-management relations." Congress has been asked to investigate the matter as a prelude to legislation•

However, basic questions should be asked. Are the anti-union techniques of consultants and lawyers as effective as Mr. Meany contends - - and hence responsible for the decline in union victories? Or are unions gradually losing touch with America's workers?

An accompanying Table cites a number of major companies, chosen from a wide variety of industries. Many of them have elaborate plans for union avoidance in their non-union plants. Many have a spacious armamentar ium of campaign weapons to use in representation elections. Many carry on such activi- ties under the expert guidance of so-called expert consultants and lawyers. With what outcome?

The Table indicates that these companies lose at least 50 percent of their elections; some of them lose 60 to 75 percent, according to the NLRB reports covering the last few years (1972 through 1978). If the hired sages have any major impact on NLRB election results, it does not show up in the record of these companies.

In this connection, it might be of interest to burrow beneath the flow of social urbanities and ascertain just what experienced companies do - - under the advice of consultants and lawyers - - that might have some influence on stymie- ing union organizational efforts. The tactics of union organizers might also be exhibited, so that the picture is in full living color.

JOURNAL OF LABOR RESEARCH Volume 1, Number 2 Fall, 1980

276 J O U R N A L OF L A B O R R E S E A R C H

N L R B ELECTION RESULTS (Jan. 1972 - Dec. 1978)

Total Number Number Won Number Lost Percent Company of Elections by Company by C o m p a n y Won

Addressograph/Mul t ig raph Corp. Allied Chemical Corp. American Bakeries Co. American Can Co. American District Telegraph Co. A M F A C , Inc. A R A Services, Inc. A rmour & Co, Ashland Oil , Inc. Asplundh Tree Expert Co. Avnet, Inc. A. J, Bayless Markets, Inc. Beatrice Foods Co. Borg-Warner Corp. Canteen Corp. Cargill , Inc. Celotex Corp. Chrysler Corp. Cities Service Co. Clark Equipment Co. Colonial Stores, Inc. Continental Can Co. Ferro Corp. Firestone Tire & Rubber Co. Fruehau f Corp. Gamble -Skogmo, Inc. Georgia-Pacific Corp. General Tire & Rubber Co. W. R. Grace & Co. Great A&P Tea Co. Harsco Corp. Hertz Corp. International Harvester Co. ITT Kroger Co. Lear Siegler Inc. Lone Star Gas Co. Mart in Marietta Corp. Mead Corp. F. W. Means & Co. Metropol i tan Life Insurance Co. Michigan Bell Telephone & Tel. Mosler Safe Co. Mounta in States Telephone & Tel. G. C. Murphy Co. National Can Co, Owens-Corning Fiberglas Corp. Pennwalt Corp. Pacific Telephone & Tel. Piggly Wiggly Corp. Portec, Inc. Pul lman, Inc. Ralston Pur ina Co. Rath Packing Co. Red Owl Stores Safeway Stores, Inc. Southwest Forest Industries Sun Oil Co. Swift & Co. Teleprompter Corp. Tenneco Chemicals, Inc. Union Oil Co. of Cal i fornia Uniroyal , lnc. U.S. Gypsum Co. U.S. SteeI Corp. Vulcan Materials Co, Wackenhut Corp. Westinghouse Electric Corp.

18 6 12 33~0 15 6 9 40°7o 31 6 25 19% 18 9 9 50% 37 15 22 40o7o 15 5 10 3370 62 16 46 25~o 16 4 12 2570 17 6 11 3570 2I 9 I2 42~a I3 6 7 48~o 17 2 15 I27a 62 28 34 4570 20 9 11 4570 45 21 24 46% 15 6 9 4070 19 6 13 31~0 63 21 42 33°7o 17 5 12 29% 19 9 10 47% 16 4 12 2507o 22 8 14 367o 17 5 12 297o 98 34 64 3470 23 9 14 3970 I7 8 9 4770

I10 53 57 4870 40 17 23 4270 48 22 26 457o

125 53 72 42°7o 14 4 10 28~0 76 25 51 3370

138 37 101 26o7o 148 56 92 37O7o 48 17 31 35% 17 6 11 3570 34 17 17 50o7o 28 9 19 32°7o 18 8 10 447o 25 12 13 48%

296 134 162 45°7o 32 4 28 127o 17 8 9 4770 44 19 25 43°7o 23 7 16 30O7o 19 9 10 4770 25 8 17 32°7o 16 8 8 50~0 35 9 26 2 5 ~ 28 13 15 4607o 12 4 8 33% I4 3 II 21% 38 18 20 47% 10 4 6 40~o 30 8 22 2670

276 51 225 18% 13 6 7 46°7o 19 6 13 31°7o 27 6 21 22% 55 15 40 2770 i t 4 7 3670 12 4 8 3370 12 5 7 4270 14 7 7 5070 18 8 I0 44~0 15 4 11 2770 27 6 21 227o 62 28 34 45°7o

Source: NLRB Election Reports 1972-1978

WOODRUFF IMBERMAN 277

Before the election

Following the advice of consecrated legal experts, some companies inform employees, upon hiring, that "this company is non-union and we intend to stay that way; if that is not in accord with your thinking, perhaps you ought to seek a job elsewhere." Foremen are instructed to tell their new hires: "This company is nonunion, and you ' re on probation for 30 (60 or 90) days ."

The employee handbook explicitly spells out the non-union philosophy of the company: " W e prefer not to deal with any union or any other 'third party ' . We have maintained this philosophy for _ _ years, and intend to continue it. If you have any grievances or complaints, we have a regular grievance procedure which we recommend that you follow. No union can improve on our grievance procedure ."

Management rules caution that supervisors will be downgraded in their own evaluations if any union propagandists are found in any supervisor's department. Monthly, quarterly, or semi-annual meetings with employees, no matter what other management message is involved, also contain the admon- ition "this is a non-union company" , and that the management not only prefers, but intends to take "every legal s tep" to maintain it that way. The same message is sprayed daily into the plant atmosphere.

Communications

From time to time, any flagrant pecadilloes by any union officer that merit newspaper attention are carefully clipped, enlarged and prominently displayed on plant bulletin boards. The inference is obvious: union officers are crooks or strongarm artists.

Reading materials - - in the form of house organs, comic books, eighth or ninth grade level exhortations - - are regularly made available to employees and/or their families, carrying the same anti-union message.

All employees are told by the plant manager (or president in smaller companies) that the company maintains " an open d o o r " policy according to which, any employee may enter his office (often by appointment after working hours) and voice any dissatisfaction or complaint. This is to assure employees that they are not limited to the formal grievance procedure which requires them to " ta lk it over" with their immediate supervisor first, or that they need a union steward to gain a hearing "a t the front off ice ."

"Surveys" of employee "a t t i tudes" are taken periodically. These paper- and-pencil instruments purport to uncover the general areas of employee dissatisfaction. After a lengthy period in which management has had an oppor- tunity " to evaluate" the employee comments, indication is sometimes given as to what eventually might be done about them. This is undertaken so that union adherents presumably would find no issues to attract sympathizers.

Despite the fact that many companies listed in the Table follow a general pattern like this in their non-union plants (not all companies do everything), a good number of such companies still find that union sentiment spreads like

278 JOURNAL OF LABOR RESEARCH

weeds throughout the plant, and a petition for a union representation election soon blossoms at the local NLRB office. What happens then?

During the Election

When companies do find themselves in an election situation, the employer feels he is now in the midst of the Battle of the Bulge. Bugles sound, and wits and principles tend to scatter. Employers often call for additional soothsayers f rom consulting or law firms. These fabulous and unearthly marvels spit on their hands and get to work in two sectors: first, to change the allegiance of the employee who is enamored of the union, and second, to win the love and affec- tion of those employees who are in doubt. This, supposedly, is a lofty and delicate art.

The first is attempted by a variety of covert hints by the company that the company will be harmed ( "Our customers will leave us") should the union win. The second is done by covert hints that the employer will improve this and that, fatten the pot, and usher in a new Golden Age if the union is rejected. "Sweethear t" letters to the home carry the latter message.

Intertwined with these two major themes are the various " s tun t s " - - posters describing the union's strike record; posters describing the union's other contracts which do not measure up to the union's promises in this plant; posters describing the process of replacing economic strikers with permanent employees, etc.

Then there are the raffles to get out 100 percent of the vote; the posters ("See This Blue Circle? Rub it. If it turns red, the union will deliver 100 percent on its promises."). There are the peanut bags. ("Nuts to the un ion ." ) The fac- simile pennies. ( "Count me on the company side.") The printed mailing piece. ( "Loo k at Page 2. It'll show you what the union can deliver." Page 2 shows a cutout circle signifying zero.)

Other Tactics

Nor should we overlook the rare and more questionable tactics: monitoring union meetings by employees friendly to management; changing the work schedules of union leaders in the plant for the worse; withholding pay raises pending the election outcome; encouraging "Freedom Commit tees" of loyal employees; furnishing "Vote N O " buttons to employees. Then there are the in-house, closed circuit TV programs and the soul-searing movies depicting strike violence.

The stunts are almost innumerable. Although these recipes for union avoidance could fill a cookbook, they are nothing but flaccid souffles. Over and over again, employees are urged to stick with the Old Time Company Religion. Some of the literature that marks the usual campaign - - the letters to the homes, the bulletins, the speeches - - are as logical as the plot of a Marx Brothers movie. And some of the stunts are so absurd that they come close to musical comedy. In one plant where none of the employees could understand English, the corn-


pany ingeniously helped the campaign with what might be regarded as Spanish, German, Old Church Slavic, algebraic symbols and the signs of the Zodiac - - with great success. I heard of one company president who invoked divine inter- cession at employee meetings to the accompaniment of sweet soft music - - also with great success in the election.

In certain dovish, liberal circles, it is fashionable to decry the hubbub and hurrahs of a company campaign. It is often forgotten that the " f ree speech" provisions of the National Labor Relations Act exist to give employers the right to campaign using any legal stunt or speech to convince employees that a union is not in their best interests. After all, the NLRB is designed to protect employees - - not unions - - nor employers.

Union Efforts

On the other hand, it does not follow that all moral excellence and all pure, pristine virtue reside entirely on the union side, or that the motives of union organizers are entirely altruistic and evangelical.

If we look at NLRB decisions striking at union tactics, we find forged employee signatures on union cards petitioning for an election; the mellifluous and misleading union sales talk to the effect that signing a card merely asks for an election and forgetting to mention that the card designates the union as the employee's bargaining agent; the ignoble claim by union organizers that "every employee but y o u " has signed a card asking for an election, so jump on the bandwagon; the illicit promise to forgive initiation fees for any employee signing a card prior to, but not after, the NLRB election; the gasoline and pocket money secretly furnished to employees by the union to "pe r suade" employees into voting union; the monetary rewards held out like carrots to some employee opinion molders if the union wins; the designation of " s t eward" secretly of- fered to some employee leaders if the union wins (which gives those employees "supersenior i ty" and means they are the very last that can ever be laid off); the pre-election booze-and-sandwich parties for employees by some unions; the threat to denounce Chicanos to the U.S. Immigration Service as illegal immi- grants unless they signed union cards and swore to vote right in the election; the distribution of sample NLRB ballots with the "Yes" box marked, implying that the Board approved of the union; the threatened or actual violence against known company supporters and their families; the soaring and false union claims of great wage and benefit gains made at other plants which voted for the union; the fake earnings report of the company trotted out at the last minute by the union to justify astounding wage and benefit demands.

1 could pile up pages of examples that would lead one to suspect that while some consultants and lawyers have no monopoly on hitting above and below the belt, some union organizers are not exactly swathed in the Saran wrap of righteousness either.

When two well-matched giants put up their dukes in an election involving a large number of potential dues-paying employees, such as the United Auto Workers against Rockwell International in 1978 involving about 7,000 engineers


in the Los Angeles basin, the contest turns into a rib-rocking extravaganza for knowledgeable spectators. An amazing collection of materials, stunts and speeches was wheeled out by both sides. The closing display was almost like a thousand Roman candles being fired of f at once - - and the company victory was marked by an Aida-like triumphal march lacking only elephants.

Efforts are Legal

However, the vast bulk of consultants and lawyers, and the vast bulk of union organizers, eschew the illicit and the illegal. They may come close to the line, but rarely venture over it. By and large, they all endeavor mightily to win.

The problem with the union organizers is that most are unaware of the changing composition of the working force. They keep hammering away at the same old issues of more money, more benefits, more job security and union solidarity. The fact is that many non-union plants pay as well as union plants in their area, and provide the same (and sometimes better) benefits. International Business Machines is only one of many such examples; so are Hewlett-Packard, Kraft, Sears Roebuck, Emerson Electric, 3M, Moore Business Forms and many others.

Job security in many plants is no issue since most employers know it is costly to recruit, select and train workers; hence they prize their work force, avoid layoffs and rarely fire arbitrarily. So far as union solidarity is concerned, as Ben J. Wattenberg has pointed out (The RealAmerica) "Af te r all, when you talk about union solidarity what does a 25-year-old Steelworker have in common with George Meany, the late 84-year-old chieftain of the AFL-CIO? Not much . "

This was echoed at the recent AFL-CIO convention by Wayne E. Glenn, president of the 300,000-member Paperworkers International when he told the council, "The average worker does not consider the AFL-CIO as speaking for him, no matter what the ivory tower people say ." Added Fred J. Kroll, president of the Railroad and Airline Clerks Brotherhood, "This federation is not doing enough to instill unionism in younger union members so that it flows over into the unorganized young worker."~

Unionism is concentrated in eight big industrial states, and in certain basic fields such as railroads, trucking, shipping, mining, the mass product ion industries and paper. Indeed, the union shop and the expansion of unionized companies bring in new members almost automatically in many such industries. But so far as the national industrial situation is concerned, only about one worker out of every four finds unions attractive.

The big area of spectacular union growth in the last decade has been the Civil Service, as a result of more hospitable state laws and Federal executive orders and the reluctance of public bodies to put up any opposition. In the general white-collar and professional fields, many experts believe that com-

'See M. E. deForest's study, "Those New Young Employees: Lemons or Lemonade?" in The Per- sonnel Administrator, July, 1979.

W O O D R U F F I M B E R M A N 281

puterization and other factory-like developments in office and professional practice are breaking down the old demarcations that made white-collar workers reluctant to join the "blue collar proletar ia t" .

More women are entering the labor force, and as most observers know, women are (generally) not union-oriented. They dislike the thought of strikes, pickets, violence. Despite the fact that women now constitute about a third of our industry work force, most unions do not employ female union organizers, although the Teamsters ' star organizer, Ms. Vicki Saporta, a graduate of Cor- nell University's School of Industrial & Labor Relations, seems to have shown the way in North Carolina by winning nine of 11 organizing elections in only 11 months in 1978.

Finally the growth in numbers of Spanish-speaking employees has impeded union expansion, since few unions employ Spanish-speaking organizers or have any inkling of Mexican, Cuban, Puerto Rican mentality or culture. Most of these employees have never even heard of George Meany.

Not Mere Au tomata

To blame consultants and lawyers for the decline in union victories assumes that rank-and-file employees swallow anti-union campaign material as avidly as some people swallow patent medicine - - bottle, cork, label and testimonials. I have never found any evidence that such is the case. It is true that employers may sometimes need the sophistication brought by some consultants and lawyers. But that is matched by the same sophistication that some union organizers use in winning 46 percent of the NLRB elections. Reviewing the list of sophisticated companies in our Table, it is obvious that the so-called expertise of the so-called management experts is successful only about half the time - - although at those joyous moments, the company executives, consultants and lawyers heave in wonder at their own merit.

But the bitter goes with the sweet. In at least 60 percent of the instances where there has been a company victory through stunts, hocus-pocus and general razzle-dazzle, there is another election within one to three years. And if a company victory again ensues, there is still another election within one to three years in 60 percent of those firms. The chances of winning the first election are about 50 percent, the second election 40 percent, the third election about 30 percent. 2

Behind these declining batting averages is the fact that unless basic changes take place in the company or plant involved, the union will ultimately envelop the company, despite past company victories. There are few companies that have endured four, five or six (expensive) elections and still have managed to stave off the union threat. Such successes are almost always transient if basic changes are not made.

2See 3. B. Rose's study "What Factors Influence Union Representation Elections?" in Monthly Labor Review, October, 1972. Also Robert Hershey, "Predicting Outcomes of Union Representa- tion Elections" in The Personnel Administrator, January, 1976, and A. A. Imberman, "NLRB Elections: Who Wins and For How Long?" in The Personnel Administrator, September, 1977.


This is not to argue that companies ought to make basic changes merely to keep unions away. There are more important business considerations for mak- ing such changes. Companies satisfied with merely winning an election and then returning to their old ways, overlook the fact that the unionization threat, while serious, is merely a superficial indication that people are not being properly managed and that the business is not functioning at its best potential. How to motivate the workforce to use their best mental and physical potential is a perennial problem, particularly for personnel and industrial relations executives.

Realistic Causes

To find verifiable, realistic causes of why employees do not function at their best, you have only to observe attentively what is before everyone's nose and listen carefully to employees. Let me cite questions that employers might ask that will uncover the sources of employee discontent, and why some employees become angry with their company and not only fall prey to the blandishments of union organizers, ~ but more importantly, why they do not perform well at their jobs.

Why are employees on the third (graveyard) shift almost invariably dissatisfied, as compared with employees on other shifts? Why are employees on the second shift unhappy - - but not dissatisfied? What accounts for rum- blings among the Northern ethnic minorities, but not among the Southern? How good is the housekeeping: working aisles, toilets, eating areas, parking lot? How do female employees regard the housekeeping? Is any overt recognition given to longer service employees - - other than the ubiquitous five-year, 10-year, 25-year pin? Are merit increases truly based on merit with some objective standards, or based on the foreman's subjective evaluation? What about wage differentials? Do they adequately and fairly reflect skill differentials? Are incentive rates too " t igh t "? Do the industrial engineers enlighten the machine operators on how ratings are done? Or how to " m a k e " the rates?

At what point does regular overtime become too much? What is the female reaction to the overtime? How is sporadic (Saturday) overtime handled? Where does seniority figure in the non-union company policies? How are promotions, shift transfers or job transfers handled, particularly as regards minorities? Is there any truth to the charge that foremen often sabotage promotions of good employees from one department to another? Does the fringe benefits package meet the needs of the employees, bearing in mind the distribution of age and sex in the working force?

What about discipline and complaints? Any objective standards? Any im- partial hearing? Is pay in line with community standards in that industry? Who are the professionals on the payroll and how do they differ f rom other employees? At what point does plant size overwhelm employees?

Genuine Problems

Such questions as these could be piled up for pages. These questions aim at un- covering genuine problems connected with employees' performance on the job,


and with their resultant desire for unionization or a strike. The questions are not mere academic exercises. Astute union organizers zero in on these points, and build their campaign arguments precisely on eliminating or ameliorating these frustrating conditions. They understand their electorate, which is more than can be said for many executives vis-a-vis their own plant employees.

So far as management is concerned, it may take considerable expertise and experience to carry out a project of unearthing the disturbing and distressing elements in the work environment - - and dealing with them - - but these efforts produce a great pay-off.

In the short run, genuine efforts to l isten to employees will pinpoint the basic issues that raise the pressure in the boiler and motivate employees to yearn for unionization. In the long run, a n d m o r e basic to a f i r m "s o n - g o i n g l i fe a n d success - - since many companies do live peacefully with their unions - - such efforts to deal with employees' real concerns have brought about decreases in absenteeism and turnover, cuts in spoilage, decline in quality rejects and customer complaints, increases in number of on-time shipments, an improved safety record, increases in production and /o r productivity - - coupled with a decline in anti-management sentiment among the workforce. This diminishes pro-unionization sentiment in non-union plants, or pro-strike sentiment in unionized plants. In so doing, the technique helps the management realize the best potential of the enterprise. Some companies have learned how to do this, or have been taught by one of the few knowledgeable consultants who specialize in this field.

Unfortunately, there are no short-cuts in this process, no simple payroll stuffers or bulletin board cartoons, no artificial motions to be carried on with the left hand while the business of the company goes on, uninterruptedly. The process must be fabricated by thought and painstaking since it is complex, delicate and difficult. But isn't that true of all successful business operations?

Documents

The hocus pocus in union avoidance