The Union Avoidance Industry in the United States

Abstract

This paper analyses the development of the union avoidance industry in the United States during the past half-century. Focusing on one leading example from each group, it examines the activities of the four main actors that constitute that industry: consultants, law firms, industry psychologists and strike management firms. Although these firms have experienced a fall in business as unions have declined in strength and numbers - a development that the union avoidance industry has contributed to - they continue to play an important role in the US system of industrial relations. Over three-quarters of employers hire consultants when confronted by organizing campaigns, and large union avoidance firms are increasingly seeking export markets for their expertise. Copyright Blackwell Publishing Ltd/London School of Economics 2006.

Regulation of work and employment: advances, tensions and future directions in research in international and comparative HRM

“…The implications of private equity business models, often believed to be primarily concerned with short-term financial results, upon approaches to HRM remains somewhat unclear (Bacon, Wright, Ball, & Meuleman, 2013;Clark, 2007Clark, , 2011. Furthermore, other actors have now entered the employment relationship; for instance, some debates (see Rachleff, 2012;Richards, 2008) allude to the development of union-free organisations; whereby what could be termed as a 'union avoidance industry' (Logan, 2006) has been developed by consultants, who have now become important industrial relations actors by 'actively and aggressively creating […] demand by encouraging management to fear allegedly catastrophic consequences of unionisation' (p. 652).…”

Fear and Leadership in Union Organizing Campaigns

“…In doing so the activist is often placed directly at risk of reprisal from the employer. Since the 1960s, industrial psychologists have developed methods that have allowed employers to identify possible union supporters, recognize employments susceptible to unionization, and shape the workplace to "support the maintenance of a non-union environment" (Logan, 2006). Employers often use suppression tactics to dissuade workers from engaging in collective action (in pursuit of union recognition) by imposing costs such as isolation from work colleagues, verbal and physical abuse, and dismissal (D'Art & Turner, 2006;Kochan, McKersie, & Chalykoff, 1986).…”

La négociation d’une entente collective en marge du Code du travail : le cas d’un collège privé

“…Il ne fait aucun doute que la reconnaissance et la négociation volontaires de la part de l'employeur procèdent de la logique de la thèse de substitution au syndicalisme (Gollan, 2005;Kelly, 1996;Lewin et Mitchell, 1992;Logan, 2006, Peetz, 2002Taras et Kaufman, 2006). D'entrée de jeu, le comité paritaire a été initié par la direction afin d'élaborer une politique qui permettait d'aménager les conditions de travail.…”

“…Ainsi, le pouvoir réel du regroupement est davantage tributaire du contexte dans lequel s'insère le collège. S'agissant d'un secteur syndiqué, les enseignants bénéficient des conditions négociées par la voie syndicale (Olson, 1966) et se servent de la volonté de la direction de maintenir un milieu exempt de présence syndicale pour obtenir des gains (Gollan, 2005;Kelly, 1996;Lewin et Mitchell, 1992;Logan, 2006;Peetz, 2002;Taras et Kaufman, 2006). Sans services professionnels ni représentants externes élus pour infléchir le cours des négocia-tions, en l'absence de recours à la grève, et avec des ressources financières lacunaires, le seul pouvoir de négociation réside dans la menace de syndicalisation (Taras et Kaufman, 2006).…”