Union Organization Campaigns - Research Paper Example

UNION ORGANIZATIONAL CAMPAIGNS INTRODUCTION Historically, with standards through collective bargaining and industrial action, labor unions have been the impetus through which the government has enacted legislation to establish minimum wages, prohibit child labor, enforce a humane work week, and establish occupational safety and health. According to Harrod and O'Brien (2002), since the beginning of the twentieth century labor unions have been the most prevalent form of stable worker organization with bargaining rights. Through political action, unions have also been pivotal in advancing broader social interests such as the promotion and enhancing of democracy and the reduction of income inequality (Calmfors et al. 2001). Many studies suggest, however, that due to the differences and effectiveness of union organizational campaigns conducted there is significant variation in the ability of individual unions to deliver wage and benefit increases at the firm-level and/or articulate broader demands (Fairbrother and Yates 2003; Moody, 1998, Perry, 1987). From the critical perspective, the overall efficacy of labor union and its ability to deliver entrusted objectives is largely determined with the effectiveness of union organizational campaigns and tactics utilized to achieve desirable goals. Unions can organize corporate campaigns ranging from various on-job actions and litigation to strike and negative publicity campaigns. The overall purpose of evaluating the effectiveness of union organizational campaign, its success or failure is to reveal combinations of tactics useful in specific labor actions that are associated with more coherent strategies for winning employer concessions. This particular paper aims to investigate and analyze the concept of union organizational campaigns, tactics employed by unions to organize labor participants to make organizational campaign effective, determinants of campaigns' effectiveness, and major countermeasures conducted by businesses to confront union organizational campaigns. DEFINING THE CONCEPT OF UNION ORGANIZATIONAL CAMPAIGN Since the late 1970s, scholars have taken notice of unions increased use of union organizational campaigns. Some view it as the means necessary to make labor more mobile and flexible, in order to keep up with how corporations have restructured themselves to compete in the global economy. Business has become "leaner and meaner" incorporating changes to increase productivity and cut costs (Champlin and Knoedler, 1999). Union organizational campaigns are attempts to address these new transformations in the economic environment through focused strategies executed to bring management into bargaining and counter unfriendly labor actions through targeting a company's points of vulnerability in order to decrease its profits (Heckscher, 1988). Others authors see the incorporation of new tactics as facilitating the overall expansion of union membership, resulting in a revitalized worker's social movement. They estimate this will increase the status of unions through increasing the power of unions as a whole. This perspective supports restructuring in order to change values and objectives within unions so that they can gain external benefits, such as increasing membership (Moody, 1998). Reorganization would include forging multi-union connections to coordinate bargaining "across industrial lines to attack the centers of capital" (Moody 1998, p.341). Extended solidarity and mobilization could increase the legitimacy of picket lines, strengthen the ability unions to use their combined leverage to prompt equitable contract negotiations, and may garner widespread public support for workers. There is no consensus on how to define union organizational campaigns. There is also no conclusive classification of what actions and expected outcomes delineate the success or failure of a campaign. Kim Moody's book (1998), An Injury to All: The Decline of American Unionism, credited Ray Rogers as the first to coin the term "corporate campaigns." Also highlighted, were the tactics Rogers used during the Amalgamated Clothing Worker strikes in 1972 at the Farah Manufacturing Company in El Paso. His actions established the basic strategies that other unions would follow when conducting union organizational campaigns. Rogers' techniques "involved a combination of tactics such as consumer boycotts, legal appeals, attempts to broaden the issues from simple labor relations to moral or social matters, and pressures on interlocking sectors of business and financial community in hopes of isolating the offending employer" (Moody 1998, p. 306). In the study, Moody (1998) explored the applications of Rogers' stratagem through case studies of the J.P. Stevens, Farah, Phelp's Dodge, Louisiana Pacific, and BASF campaigns. Moody found that the emergence of these types of approaches came at a time when many involved in union leadership expressed anti-business stances. These attitudes led unions to go "beyond the normal conduct of business unionism" (Moody 1998, p.307). Normal "business unionism" adheres to conduct which is characterized by a reciprocal business/union relationship, emphasizing common interests. This partnership is operationalized through the labor contract, which is the product of collective bargaining. Charles Perry provides an alternate definition, viewing union organizational campaigns as using bad publicity against a business in order to escalate a conflict from self-interest to the context of a social movement occurring in the public sphere (Perry, 1987). E.E. Schattschneider, in his book The Semi-Sovereign People: A Realist's View of Democracy in America, support the position that conflicts must go beyond the scope of self-interest, or as he terms it, "privatization" (Schattschneider 1960, p. 7), to a broader context, "socialization of conflict" (Schattschneider, 1960, p. 7). Schattschneider posits that the socialization of a conflict seeks to expand outsiders' views of the battle from privatized concerns - isolated or individualistic issues, to the ideas of equality, justice, and freedom of association, in this case, freedom to engage in union membership. Socialization of a clash influences mass perceptions and frames the contentious issues in a way the public may more easily identify with and support (Schattschneider, 1960). This heightened atmosphere combined with a rallying public may potentially lead to management conceding to negotiations. According to Perry (1987), union corporate campaigns are successful when they result in bringing management to the bargaining table. Charles Heckscher's characterization of a union organizational campaign is very similar. He sees them as "a tactic of bringing pressure to bear on corporations that mistreat their workers" (Heckscher 1988, p.235). His definition and case studies are narrowly focused to those instances in which unions exposed corporate malfeasance through negative publicity campaigns and public relations techniques that encouraged public support for traditional union goals; for instance, expanded benefits in a newly renegotiated contract. These assessments, however, are not applicable to other situations in which workers would use union organizational campaigns to gain non-traditional advantages in negotiations. One example of a "non-traditional" goal is a campaign focused on the resignation of a hostile board member in order to eliminate opposition to an organizing campaign. The American Federation of Labor-Congress of Industrial Organizations (AFL-CIO) offers an additional definition: "A coordinated campaign applies pressure to the many points of vulnerability to convince the company to deal fairly and equitably with the unionIt means seeking vulnerabilities in all of the company's political and economic relationships - with other unions, shareholders, customers, creditors, and government agencies - to achieve union goals" (Perry, 1987, p. 2). Although this definition offers a concise assessment of what concept of a union organizational campaign is, it does not detail the available methods that may be used to achieve those ends. "Pressuring" a company is not sufficiently illustrated in this definition. Another, more comprehensive and recent explanation of the concept comes from the legal cases Diamond Walnut Growers v. NLRB and Food Lion v. United Food & Commercial Workers International Union. Both cases were brought before the D.C. Court of Appeals in 1997. The definition given at these hearings was that union organizational campaigns: "encompass a wide and indefinite range of legal and potentially illegal tactics used by unions to exert pressure on an employer. These tactics may include, but are not limited to, legal actions, political appeals, requests that regulatory agencies investigate and pursue employer violations of state or federal law, and negative publicity campaigns aimed at reducing the employer's good will with employees, investors, or the general public" (Diamond Walnut Growers v. NLRB, 1997 and Food Lion v. United Food & Commercial Workers International Union, 1997). This relatively new description of union tactics under an expanded definition of a union organizational campaign signifies that changes in union strategy and application have transpired. What was once thought to be an alternative response to a hostile union environment has become a broader classification, including added non-traditional and sometimes illegal measures. The explanation also provides a definitive range of tactics, giving better indicators as to what "pressuring" a company entails. This assessment provides more insight into the term than the one provided by the AFL-CIO. CLASSIFICATION OF UNION ORGANIZATIONAL CAMPAIGNS From the critical perspective, the ultimate goal of a union organizational campaign is for workers to acquire all sought after concessions from business. Concessions may possibly include better contract terms in regards to wages, safer work conditions, pensions, healthcare, work-hours, and/or job security. Another objective may be to initially establish union representation, as with the previously discussed organizing campaign. Outcomes regarding finalizing a contract or being allowed to return to work after a strike or lockout might also be the definition of management concessions. Every campaign is distinct, in terms of contexts and tactics, and has been waged for different reasons; the examples provided demonstrates what defines a positive end-result for unions that participate in union organizational campaigns. However, there is still distinct difference among scholars and unions about what common goals and tactics are features of union organizational campaigns. This definition challenge has resulted in a lack of generalizable applicability of their findings pertaining to case comparisons across different studies and confusion about what constitutes a union organizational campaign in cases that are more recent. Based upon the literature, a reasonable definition of union organizational campaign concept is actions, either legal or illegal, that unions use in an effort to force an employer to make concessions (Holley et al, 2008). Actions, according to this definition include the following elements: litigation, coalition building, pressuring the company's financial associates, on-job actions, exerting pressure on government officials, efforts to compel regulatory agencies investigations of businesses breaches of law, and negative publicity campaigns (Getman, 2010; Holley et al, 2008). The inclusion of the range of tactics provides an improved definition of union organizational campaigns. Litigation generally refers to charges filed by the union against a company (Getman, 2010). These grievances are filed with the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) and accuse the company of particular violations of labor law. Examples of such alleged violations are wrongful termination or demotion, management interference with employees' rights to organize labor unions, or management retaliation towards individuals involved in union organization. Court procedures, or the threat thereof, may operate to persuade the company to seek a mutually beneficial end to the conflict (Getman, 2010). This tactic tends to be a time consuming endeavor; the courts are not generally known for their efficiency and brevity. It also has the potential to be costly for both parties. A second, commonly used action is coalition building. This occurs when a union, in efforts to force business to negotiate, will attempt to find sympathetic individuals or organizations to help support and promote their cause (Munck, 2002). Potential partners may be religious groups, other unions and locals, and/or public figures. Coalitions increase the scope of the conflict to draw in numerous interested parties who may in turn, help to raise exposure of the issue to a wider audience, or pressure the company to engage in discussion. Pressuring the company's financial associates is a third strategy. Financial associates may be lenders, pecuniary institutions, boards of directors, or investors who may be instrumental in bringing management to the bargaining table (Holley et al, 2008). Some events staged in this category are picketing, protest, letter writing, and boycotts (Holley et al, 2008). These actions may affect the company's bottom-line, as with boycotts, or lead to coalition building, for instance with an individual on the board of directors. On-job actions are the fourth approach union organizational campaign strategies. These "actions" may consist of sickouts (the majority of workers call in sick on a given day), wildcat strikes (unauthorized and unexpected strikes lasting from a couple hours to a few days), work slowdowns, wearing union apparel while working, and lunchtime rallies (Getman, 2010). The aforementioned are similar to boycotts in their possible effects, in terms of lessening company productivity, subsequently cutting into its bottom-line. Another tactic that is akin to pressuring financial associates is exerting influence on government officials. This is a way for unions to build alliances with elected officials or people in government institutions. Relationships are fostered in order to influence legislation or to press officials to bring business into negotiations. Additional approaches are efforts to compel regulatory agencies investigations of businesses breaches of law. A union may file a complaint with Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) asserting that workers are at risk in the workplace. They may also bring accusations against the company to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). These normally charge that management are "environmental criminals" who violate environmental regulations (Northrup and Steen 1999). Another agency avenue used is the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), with the purpose of bringing to the surface complaints questioning a company's financial records. The above-mentioned agencies are consequently compelled to investigate allegations against the company. Scrutiny of a business may affect productivity, result in drawn out litigation, sometimes generate fines, or perhaps damage the company's reputation when the findings are released. A final tactic in a union's arsenal is negative publicity campaigns. These campaigns are conducted against a business in order to mar public perception. Byproducts of negative publicity may be increased community support for their effort or the forging of new alliances with other groups who are sympathetic (Clark, 2000). It might spur product boycotts. This action, like all the other tactics, is executed in hopes of expediting a settlement. From the critical perspective, the emergence of different types of union organizational campaigns triggered the development of counter measures attempted by businesses to minimize the effect of union campaigns. For instance, prevention of unionism has been recognized as one of the most employed methods to counter union organizational campaigns (Munck, 2002). Munck (2002) believes there are basically three modern ways that businesses engage in union prevention. First is to maintain positive labor relations offering unorganized workers the same benefits as a union worker. Second is to conduct tough legal campaigns to convince workers their interest might be better served if they vote against unions. Finally, the third option to combat union organization campaign is by breaking the law and firing leading pro-union employees. Simultaneously, union organizational campaigns and particularly their ability to achieve desirable outcomes raise certain concerns among and consequences for employees and businesses involved in these campaigns. When outcomes of union organizational campaign are unsatisfactory for employees and union members, the disappointment inevitably results in job dissatisfaction and a decline in moral, productivity and performance of staff. Pfeffer (1998) refers to this as a "failure to achieve a mutually beneficial relationship and accommodative working arrangement" (p.230). Union organizational campaigns are pursued in three distinct labor action contexts that are originate from Paul Jarley and Cheryl Maranto's research (1990). The first situation is the "organizing campaigns." Operations within this scenario target, "a company's employees for (union) membership which generally culminates into an election conducted by the National Labor Relations Board after an intense campaign effort" (Fairbrother and Yates, 2003, p. 110). It is anticipated that employees will gain union representation from this type of campaign (Jarley and Maranto 1990). The second circumstance is the "strike complement" campaign. This is defined as unions using union organizational campaign tactics while simultaneously engaged in a strike or subject to a lockout (Jarley and Maranto 1990). This endeavor is typically carried out to resolve contract disputes and issues involving working conditions and safety. The third and final context in which union organizational campaign actions generally occur are during 'strike substitute' campaigns (Jarley and Maranto 1990). Strike substitute campaigns are characterized by actions other than strikes or lockouts (when a business refuses to allow their employees into the workplace) that disrupt production and/or makes the worker and employer relationship difficult. ASSESSING EFFECTIVENESS OF UNION ORGANIZATIONAL CAMPAIGNS From the practical perspective, there have been few studies dealing with union organizational campaigns and even fewer questioning their effectiveness. Most researchers mention the general concept of union organizational campaigns within the large framework of labor history, as with Charles Heckscher's writings, as opposed to a small number of scholars who have analyzed specific cases in which a campaign occurred. A definite limitation to studies on the subject is that cases included in most studies were only those that gained media attention, such as the J.P. Stevens, Litton, and Louisiana-Pacific campaigns (Jarley and Maranto 1990; Moody 1998). Unfortunately, this leads to a potential conclusion that the research may have been subject to selection bias, because a prerequisite for inclusion into studies was that the case had to be high profile. Consequently, cases involving few workers and/or those receiving little media attention tended to be left out. Two studies are particularly noteworthy because they present the most extensive analysis of union organizational campaigns. The first is Charles Perry's study, which was a qualitative analysis of the definition of union organizational campaign, strategies and tactics, and contexts. His descriptions of union tactics and accounts of the cases provided the benchmark for other researchers on the issue. It was the earliest in-depth explorations of the practical application of non-traditional methods. Perry surveyed ten campaigns, most of which were also later explored by Jarley, Maranto, and Moody. He found that union organizational campaigns "produced few, if any, 'victories' for those conducting the campaigns" (Perry 1987, p. 123). The second most influential study was Jarley and Maranto's (1990) work. They also engaged in qualitative analysis, but studied a larger number of cases, 28 total. Unfortunately, for the purposes of this paper, their case evaluations only extend to 1988. Furthermore, their study does not examine other characteristics and outcomes, such as the use of illegal or questionable tactics. On the other hand, Jarley and Maranto (1990) did assess the influence of specific tactics on whether or not they encouraged management to enter into negotiations with a union. The examination additionally provided basic contexts in which to evaluate union organizational campaign successes and failures. The labor conflict environments in which they categorized union organizational campaigns were strike complement, strike substitute, and organizing campaigns. The first circumstances explored were strike complement campaigns. These types of campaigns had the highest failure rates and were found to be the most disastrous for winning concessions, primarily because workers were already using their most influential tool, the strike. Strikes are generally a last ditch effort; therefore, initializing a union organizational campaign when workers are already striking may result in negating the advantages of both. Jarley and Maranto (1990) analyzed nine cases of union organizational campaigns undertaken after strikes or lockouts had been initiated; all except for two are categorized as failures. The second context evaluated in the study was the strike substitute campaign. Tactics characteristic in this type of have the potential to interfere with the company's bottom line. An example of this approach is workers refusing overtime hours leading to reduced production. In Jarley and Maranto's case studies, they found only one strike substitute case, International Paper I., which achieved a clear victory resulting in sizable contract gains (Jarley and Maranto 1990). The third labor contexts examined were organizing campaigns. These actions focus on initially establishing union representation and first contracts. Out of the 28 cases observed, nine cases were organizing campaigns, of those; five achieved their goal of obtaining union representation and a first contract. Jarley and Maranto's conclusions state that the best scenario for conducting a union organizational campaign and securing external support is "when they (union organizational campaigns) complement traditional organizing drives" (Jarley and Maranto 1990, p.513). Aside from the influential studies conducted by Perry, Jarley and Maranto, Moody (1998) also weighs in with an assessment of union organizational campaigns. Moody's early studies were also diverse in terms of union's effectiveness in achieving desired outcomes. Moody's analysis primarily identifies the origins of union organizational campaigns, but does not conduct an extensive multi-case study. However, the research revealed that timing, organization, the ability to mobilize the mass public and workers, and the external environment, are all direct contributors to the success or failure of the campaigns (Moody, 1998). Jarley and Maranto (1990) agreed with Moody's emphasis of timing, organization, the ability to mobilize, and external environment as concrete variables effecting campaign outcomes. Despite pointing to these considerations as issues for union management to broach before engaging in union organizational campaigns, none of the authors attributes settlements or negotiations to the use of a particular tactic pertaining to the previously discussed features. Nonetheless, it could be asserted that the timing of a campaign could be advantageous for a union if a company is susceptible to on-job actions, boycotts, and negative publicity campaigns. Conversely, attacking a company in order to interfere with profit and production when it is financially precarious is risky; actions may prompt management to bargain, but they could also push the business into insolvency. Union density and state right to work laws, may effect organization; fewer members might result in less exercisable leverage and resources available for a waging a campaign against a company (Milkman & Voos, 2004). Tactics that may be more difficult to undertake in these circumstances are negative publicity campaigns and litigation, both are costly, and protests and boycotts, which require mass participation. Of course, union density and right to work laws may also weaken the ability for union mobilization as a consequence of low membership rates. Tactics employed by labor may vary depending on the state of the external environment. Unions, according to the literature, must consider the whether or not there will be hostility or sympathy towards their cause and prevalent economic conditions when attempting to elicit either public support or widespread worker involvement (Milkman & Voos, 2004). For instance, if a campaign is initiated during a recession, which causes an uncertain economic environment for business, unions may have difficulties conducting on-job actions or building industry-wide coalitions due to workers fears of losing their jobs. Recession may hinder overall mobilization as well due to potential job loss. Other concerns influencing organization and union organizational campaign outcomes are flexibility in union action and structure when engaged in labor conflict. In the literature, Jarley, Maranto (1990), and Moody (1998) posited that groups that are better organized and structured may possess a greater ability to recruit and retain members and acquire resources. Subsequently, well-structured unions are adept at applying union organizational campaign strategies that target company's weak points and producing union gains. These types of groups additionally engage in self-preservation and more rational resource spending, lending to both longevity of the organization and its ability to undertake extended campaigns and expensive tactics. Moreover, highly organized unions may have established methods of fundraising, or reciprocal relationships with other groups, the government, and public officials. CONCLUSION The primary goal of this paper was to examine the essence and effectiveness of union organizational campaigns and specific tactics to achieve employers' concessions. Literature on labor relations distinguishes several union organizational campaigns, which include negative publicity campaigns, litigation procedures, coalition building, on-job actions and others. The effectiveness of any union organizational campaign heavily depends on the situational context, desirable outcomes and positive or negative end-result. From the critical perspective, it is necessary to conclude that in contemporary business context most labor conflicts are now resolved through traditional negotiations as opposed to union organizational campaigns. Simultaneously, union campaigns tend to use tactics that sidestep labor laws in order to seek support from the public or coerce individuals that are within corporate infrastructure to gain favorable outcomes (Holley et al, 2008). However, businesses have lately illustrated their adaptability and resilience to union organizational campaigns (Clark, 2000). Bearing this in mind, it may be posited that expanding the labor movement throughout sectors and across industries, and gaining cohesive employees' solidarity, are possible viable solutions for increasing labor's power and the frequency with which corporate campaign are applied and victorious. These may be necessary steps towards continuing union organizational campaign success and building labor movement momentum, especially if business continues to adapt to campaign strategies. REFERENCES Calmfors, L. et al. (2001). "The Future of Collective Bargaining in Europe" In Tito Boeri, Agar Brugaviani and Lars Calmfors eds The Role of Unions in the Twenty-First century A Report for the Fondazione Rodolfo Debenedetti NY: Oxford University Press Champlin, Dell P. and Knoedler J. T. (1999). "Restructuring by Design: Government's Complicity in Corporate Restructuring." Journal of Economic Issues. 33. 17 Nov. 2005. Chaykowsky, R. P. and Slotsve, G.A. (2002) "Earning, Inequality and Unions in Canada" British Journal of Industrial Relations 40 (3): 7-34 Clark, P. (2000). Building more effective unions. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press. Fairbrother, P. and Yates, C. (2003) Trade Unions in Renewal. A Comparative Study London: Continuum Harrod, J. and O'Brien, R. (2002) "Organized Labor and the Global Political Economy" In Jeffrey Harrod and Robert O'Brien Global Unions Theory and Strategies of Organized Labor in the Global Political Economy NY: Routledge Heckscher, C. C. (1988). The New Unionism: Employee Involvement in the Changing Corporation. New York: Basic Books Inc Holley, W., Jennings, K., Wolters, R. (2008). The Labor Relations Process. South-Western College Publishing Getman, J. (2010). Restoring the Power of Unions: It Takes a Movement. Yale University Press Jarley, P. and Maranto, C. L. (1990). "Union Corporate Campaigns: An Assessment." Industrial and Labor Relations Review 43(5):505-524. Milkman, R. & Voos, K. (2004) Rebuilding Labor. Organizing and Organizers in the New Union Movement Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press Moody, K. (1998). An Injury to All: The Decline of American Unionism. New York: Verso. Munck, R. (2002). Globalization and Labor. The New "Great Transformation." London and NY, Zed Books Northrup, H. R. and Steen, C. H. (1999). "Union "corporate campaigns" as blackmail: The RICO battle at Bayou Steel." Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy." 22(3):771-848. Perry, Charles R. (1987). Union Corporate Campaigns. Philadelphia: Trustees of the University of Pennsylvania. Pfeffer, J. (1998). The Human Equation. Building Profits by Putting People First. Harvard Business School Press. Schattschneider E.E. (1960). The Semi-Sovereign People: A Realist's View of Democracy in America. New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston. Read More