New Study Shows Anti-Union Aggression On The Rise Among Employers

As the New York Times is reporting, a new study by Cornell University professor Kate Bronfenbrenner has found that employers threatened to close plants in 57 percent of union organizing drives, and threatened to cut wages and benefits in 47 percent.

Unfortunately, it now appears to be that several employers - many of which have had stable relationships with their employees for years - have begun to follow Wal-Mart’s lead and get far more aggressive with employee groups seeking to organize. Bronfenbrenner writes:

What distinguishes the current organizing climate from previous decades of employer opposition to unions? The primary difference is that the most intense and aggressive anti-union campaign strategies, the kind previously found only at employers like Wal-Mart, are no longer reserved for a select coterie of extreme anti-union employers.

The report, titled “No Holds Barred: The Intensification of Employer Opposition to Organizing,” is being released today by the Economic Policy Institute. From the report:

Overall, 12.4% of U.S. workers are represented by unions, a density far below what would be the case if all workers who wanted to belong to a union could freely do so. In fact, studies have shown that if workers’ preferences were realized, as much as 58% of the workforce would have union representation.

Of course, we know that one of the ways to rectify this would be federal legislation - the Employee Free Choice Act, perhaps??

For more information on the report, including the press release, fact sheet, and the report itself - click here.

Find the New York Times article, plus a video on how when it comes to unions Starbucks has made itself into the coffee drinker’s Wal-Mart, after the jump.

Study Says Anti-union Tactics Are Becoming More Common [New York Times]
May 20, 2009
Study Says Antiunion Tactics Are Becoming More Common
By STEVEN GREENHOUSE

A new study by a Cornell University professor of 1,004 union organizing drives has found that employers threatened to close plants in 57 percent of the campaigns and threatened to cut wages and benefits in 47 percent.

The study, to be released Wednesday, also found that employers fired pro-union workers in 34 percent of the campaigns. And it asserted that management’s antiunion tactics had helped pushed down the unionization rate to 12.4 percent, from 22 percent three decades ago.

Titled “No Holds Barred: The Intensification of Employer Opposition to Organizing,” the report is likely to be heavily cited, quoted, praised and denounced in the debate over whether Congress should enact legislation that would make it easier for workers to unionize.

The study found that “the aspirations for representation are being thwarted by a coercive and punitive climate for organizing that goes unrestrained due to a fundamentally flawed regulatory regime.”

The author of the study, Kate Bronfenbrenner, is director of labor education research at the Cornell University School of Industrial and Labor Relations and has often been criticized by business groups for her pro-union positions.

Randel K. Johnson, vice president for labor, immigration and employee benefits at the United States Chamber of Commerce, noted that numerous unions and pro-labor groups helped finance the study.

“Kate’s long been allied with the union movement and has issued studies in favor of the Employee Free Choice Act the last few years,” Mr. Johnson said. “She is certainly not an objective source.”

Ms. Bronfenbrenner said her research had been reviewed and approved by her peers. “I am an objective scholar,” she said. “There are no neutrals in this field of academia. I used the highest, methodological standards possible.”

She said her study was based on a random sample of 1,004 unionization elections from early 1999 to late 2003 and relied on a review of National Labor Relations Board cases and documents, as well as surveys of 562 lead union organizers.

In 63 percent of the elections, the study found, supervisors used one-on-one meetings to interrogate workers about whether they or co-workers supported a union. (It is illegal under federal law to interrogate workers about such matters.)

In 54 percent, she found, supervisors used the meetings to threaten workers.

Her study found that employers used 10 or more types of antiunion tactics in 49 percent of unionization drives, up from the 26 percent she found in a similar study 12 years ago.

Posted by Corey Himrod on Wednesday, May 20, 2009

Click Here for a Printer-Friendly Version