- Massachusetts AFL-CIO
- Massachusetts Labor
- Education & Training
- Organize or Die!
- Political Education
- About Political Education
- Election Year 2010
- The Mass. AFL-CIO and the Mass. Democratic Party
- Past Election Endorsements
- 2009/2010 US Senate Special Election to Replace the Late Edward Kennedy
- Election Year 2008
- Victory 2008: A Closer Look
- Victory Is Just The Beginning
- 2008 Endorsements
- Obama and Biden - The Ticket to Turn Around America
- McCain: McSame as Bush - Bad for Working Families
- Labor 2008: Massachusetts/New Hampshire 2008 Coordinated Campaign
- Vote NO on Question 1 - the campaign to defeat the ballot initiative to eliminate the income tax
- State Legislative Races
- March 2008 Special Election Endorsements
- 2007: Special Elections
- 2006: The Fight for Working Families
- The Employee Free Choice Act
- Register To Vote!
- Find Elected Officials
- Online Legislative/Government Directory
- The Real Romney Record
- Multimedia
- Links and Resources
- Legislative Action
- Legislative Department
- Labor Voting Records
- Legislative Agenda
- 2009-2010 Legislative Agenda
- Destination Resort Casinos
- Modernizing and Protecting Unemployment Insurance
- Paid Sick Days
- Plant Relocation
- Privatizing Contracts
- Protecting Against the Displacement of Current Employees
- Safer Alternatives to Toxic Chemicals
- Safety and Protection at Utility and Construction Sites
- Temporary Workers' Right to Know
- Workers' Compensation - Private Right of Action
- 2007-2008 Legislative Agenda
- 2005-2006 Legislative Agenda
- Define Member Contribution
- Edward Cohen Plaque
- Indexing the Minimum Wage
- Majority Authorization
- New Families Trust Fund
- Outsourcing
- Plant Relocation
- Proper Expenditure of and Accounting for State Funds
- Protecting Employees
- Regulating Outsourcing
- To Ensure Quality Appointments
- Worker's Compensation
- Workforce Solutions Act
- 2009-2010 Legislative Agenda
- Legislative Issues
- Testimony
- The Employee Free Choice Act
- Mass. House and Senate Web Broadcasts
- Online Legislative/Government Directory
- House Committees
- Senate Committees
- Massachusetts Boards and Commissions
- Labor in the Community
No Holds Barred: The Intensification of Employer Opposition to Organizing
New findings from Dr. Kate Bronfenbrenner provide a comprehensive, independent analysis of employer behavior in union representation elections supervised by the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB). Her research identifies the range and incidence of legal and illegal coercive tactics used by employers NLRB elections and the ineffectiveness of current labor law to protect and enforce workers’ rights during the process. Dr. Bronfenbrenner’s report also compares employer behavior in this study’s period to previous studies that she and her research teams have conducted over the last 20 years. By Kate Bronfenbrenner, Ph.D. Full Report (PDF: 33 pages, 366kb) SUMMARY
Overall, 12.4% of Employers continue to punish workers for supporting a union
In the last two decades, private-sector employer opposition to workers seeking their legal right to union representation has intensified. Compared to the 1990s, employers are more than twice as likely to use 10 or more tactics in their anti-union campaigns, with a greater focus on more coercive and punitive tactics designed to intensely monitor and punish union activity. It has become standard practice for workers to be subjected by corporations to threats, interrogation, harassment, surveillance, and retaliation for supporting a union. An analysis of the 1999-2003 data on NLRB election campaigns finds that:
Employers have increased their use of more punitive tactics (“sticks”) such as plant closing threats and actual plant closings, discharges, harassment, disciplinary actions, surveillance, and alteration of benefits and conditions. While at the same time, employers are less likely to offer “carrots,” such as granting of unscheduled raises, positive personnel changes, bribes, special favors, social events, promises of improvement, and employee involvement programs. These private-sector campaigns differ markedly from public-sector campaigns. Survey data from the public sector describe an atmosphere in which workers organize relatively free from the kind of coercion, intimidation, and retaliation that so dominates in the private sector. Most of the states in the public-sector sample have laws allowing workers to choose a union through the majority sign-up process. Punitive behaviors lead to charges of unfair labor practices
Workers filed Unfair Labor Practice (ULP) charges in about 40% of elections, and the highest percentage of allegations were threats, discharges, interrogation, surveillance, and wages-and-benefits cuts for supporting a union. These findings and previous research suggest that workers file ULPs in fewer than half of elections for three main reasons: filing charges where the election is likely to be won could delay the election for months if not years; workers fear retaliation for filing charges, especially where the election is likely to be lost; and the weak remedies, lengthy delays, and the numerous rulings where ALJ recommendations for reinstatement, second elections, and bargaining orders have been overturned, delayed, or never enforced, have diminished trust that the system will produce a remedy.
Employers tend to appeal most NLRB Administrative Law Judge decisions, and in the most egregious cases the employer can count on a final decision being delayed by three to five years. Of the few cases in the sample where a penalty was imposed, the heaviest penalty was backpay, minus the worker’s interim wages. Many employers resist collective bargaining long after workers form their union
Dr. Bronfenbrenner’s study reaffirms the glaring problems that block workers from exercising their freedom to organize and bargain for a better life, with serious repercussions for our entire economy. »
|


