The Union Busting Playbook

Since we've notified management of our decision to unionize, a lot has happened. We've proudly covered our desks in union swag to let management know where we stand, and we've received a ton of support from the public – and in particular from other journalists. The company refused to recognize our union, despite 80 percent of the newsroom signing on, and decided instead to bring in some "hired guns" to sell us on the evils of unionizing. These "experts" from the Labor Relations Institute, Inc., have been pulling us away from our work on a daily basis to give us the "information" they think we need, or could not find on our own, after months of organizing. They've also retained the law firm Jackson Lewis, one of the oldest, biggest and most infamous union-busting law firms in the country. Jackson Lewis works with some of the nation's largest corporations, charging hundreds of dollars per hour to offer their expertise in "union avoidance." It's a booming, multi-billion dollar industry – and firms like Jackson Lewis and Labor Relations Institute Inc. are at the forefront of it. 

Most employers hire anti-union consultants to fight organizing drives, but even we were a bit surprised to see what lengths management is willing to go to to fight the will of the majority of the newsroom. We want everyone to be prepared for the meetings that they've scheduled for us in the coming days and weeks, and so we've laid out some of the most common things we know we'll surely hear in these meetings. How do we know this? These anti-union consultants use the same "playbook", and while the style and substance may change slightly, we can expect to hear most, or all, of the following:

  • "Unions are outsiders." Employers like to say that unions are "third parties" who will interrupt our direct relationships and impose their own terms and conditions upon us. What they won't tell us is that we are the union, we set the agenda through discussions and surveys, and our contract terms will be negotiated and ratified by us. The union is there to provide analysis, legal expertise and experienced negotiators to help us achieve our goals. Management doesn't want us to organize together in a union because with union representation we get collective bargaining rights, and Law360 will have to negotiate with us over the terms of our pay, benefits and working conditions. 
  • "Unions are old-fashioned." Employers like to say that unions are no longer needed in today's modern workplace. What they won't acknowledge is that our most successful competitors — both Bloomberg BNA and Reuters — are union newsrooms. Some of the most respected newsrooms in the country are unionized — The New York Times, Associated Press, The Wall Street Journal and The Washington Post, among others.

  • "The Union is a 'business'." They often refer to the union as a "business" that is motivated by its desire for our dues, which isn't accurate. Labor unions are tax-exempt organizations that are not businesses and don't generate profit.

  • "You won't be able to talk to management directly anymore." They might say that we have an open door policy at Law360, and that after the union is voted in, that will change. But the Guild doesn't want to harm relationships with our bosses; and will only help you talk to management if you ask for help. Once we elect our own union representatives, we can choose to have them sit in on meetings with management if we want. If we feel comfortable chatting with management on our own, that's great, too. The Guild won't stand in our way.

  • "Dues are $1,000, and you get fired if you don't pay." Union dues will be 1.3846% of our paychecks, and aren’t paid until our first contract is ratified. Dues aren't "billed" in a lump-sum, but are automatically deducted from our paychecks only after we have a contract in place. (All the help we get before then is free.) LRI's consultants told us we could be fired for not paying our dues, but couldn't tell us about that having ever happened at the Guild. Also, there are no hidden initiation fees or assessments at the Guild, which they'll surely try to scare us with. Most importantly, if the contract doesn't improve our salaries, benefits and working conditions enough to justify the dues, we can, and will vote it down. WE negotiate our contract, and decide what we want and need.

  • "Dues could be increased — you never know what could happen." LRI consultants have raised countless hypothetical problems that they can't back up with facts or examples, hoping to scare us out of joining the union. They told us our dues could be arbitrarily increased to support an emergency fund, without mentioning that that fund hasn't been tapped in years. The dues percentage for The NewsGuild of New York has has always been set at the absolute minimum allowed under the the TNG constitution. There has never ever been an increase in that rate (1.3846%) in the union's history. 

  • "Give us another chance." It didn't take long for them to ask us to give management another chance, and to say they'd listen to us next time. What they won't say is that it took an investigation initiated by The NewsGuild and the subsequent settlement by the Attorney General for them to abandon the noncompete agreements. What's more, management has ignored employee concerns for years, and the fact that they're only paying attention now shows the power of collective action. Now they're saying that the threat of unionization is what's suddenly making them eager to treat us better. Essentially, they're acknowledging in a round-about way that nothing would really be changing at all if not for the union.

  • "The company doesn't have to agree with anything." They might say we'll never get to a contract — that if we reject their best and final offer, that's too bad, and 40 percent of contracts stall or aren't signed in a year. What they won't say is that they are required by law to negotiate in good faith with the union and the Guild has only rarely reached impasse. If management wants to stall at the bargaining table, they'll have to answer to all of us. It seems to us that Law360 can't decide if they want to go the "nice guy" or "bad guy" approach. 

  • "Unions will politicize our newsroom." The NewsGuild doesn't contribute directly to political campaigns, nor does it endorse political candidates. Although the Guild pays a small portion of member dues to its parent union – the Communications Workers of America, which makes its own donations and endorsements – Guild members have the right to request a refund of dues that are used for political causes. Furthermore, it is The NewsGuild's tradition to abstain from any endorsement votes held by CWA.

Management may decide to send us all a letter, like the one below. They'll definitely make us attend more of these really uncomfortable meetings. But once we know what to look out for, and if we are prepared for their scare tactics, we have no reason to be fearful. This is what Law360 is paying Jackson Lewis and Labor Relations Institute Inc. the big bucks for, instead of respecting our decision to unionize. The lead-up to the election may get tense, but remember that we have the power. We are the majority, and we've made a decision, collectively, to secure union representation to improve our working conditions. 

 

###

 

SAMPLE ANTI-UNION LETTER

To: Foreign Policy Editorial Staff

From: David Rothkopf

As you probably know, on Friday, May 27, the Washington-Baltimore News Guild filed a petition with the National Labor Relations Board for an election to represent Foreign Policy’s news and editorial staff. This is an important matter, with significant consequences for both FP and our employees.

We in management feel it is our responsibility to let you know FP’s views: We don’t believe a union is needed to ensure that our employees are fairly treated. Treating our employees well and equally has always been a priority and we have worked very hard to be responsive to the needs of our team and to hear your concerns and to enjoy the benefits that come from working in a small organization that is as committed to attracting and cultivating quality journalists as it is to producing world-class content. In the spirit of a small, collaborative and ambitious work environment, our aim is to learn from one another and we have long tried to be very flexible and creative in finding ways to make sure our employees are well-rewarded and that they enjoy a rewarding work environment.

In our view, a union would actually make it harder to achieve these goals. Unions typically try to negotiate contracts that restrict management flexibility and often result in a work environment that ends up less responsive to individual employee needs.

Some of you may wonder why we didn’t voluntarily recognize the Guild as employees’ bargaining representative when the Guild requested recognition on Friday, May 27. We prefer to follow the NLRB’s established processes for an NLRB-supervised, secret ballot election. The purpose of a secret ballot election is to ensure that every employee has the opportunity to consider all the facts and decide individually, in the privacy of a voting booth, whether to vote for or against the Guild. Employees who earlier signed cards authorizing the Guild to petition for an election are not bound to vote for the union; an election guarantees all employees the opportunity to consider the facts and vote their own consciences. This election will take place at our offices in Washington, DC and Brooklyn, NY on Tuesday, June 21 from 11 am to 1 pm.

I want to share some of the specific reasons why all of us in the editorial management team hope that you will indeed vote, but vote against the News Guild:

  • We have always valued our ability to work directly and collaboratively with our staff, and we don’t think you need a union to speak for you or negotiate with FP on your behalf. If the Guild is voted in, you would be authorizing the Guild to represent you in your dealings with FP. That’s an important decision that will affect both our company and our employees.
  • The Guild represents employees collectively as a group and thus may make decisions that you, as an individual, do not agree with or like or that may not be in your individual best interest. For example, unions typically try to restrict flexibility and agility in the workplace. If the Guild is elected, we will have to deal with the Guild representatives, and not employees individually, on wages, benefits, time off, working hours and working conditions.
  • It’s important to understand that the Guild may have promised to deliver certain terms or guarantees with a labor contract to FP’s editorial employees but that no such guarantees can be made. That’s because the Guild, even if elected, would still have to negotiate with FP for any changes or improvements in wages, hours and working conditions. In other words, the only thing the Guild can guarantee is the right to negotiate at the bargaining table, and negotiating first contracts is usually not a simple, easy or quick process.
  • It’s also important for FP’s editorial employees to understand that there are no guarantees as to the outcome of bargaining. What FP would be willing to agree to in a negotiated labor contract would depend on our financial, business and operational capabilities and needs. Neither FP nor the Guild has to agree to any terms that either side finds unachievable, unacceptable or unrealistic. That’s important to remember. While unionizing could lead to negotiations on behalf of FP’s editorial employees, the process does not actually guarantee any improvements in any aspects of your current conditions.
  • We want to make sure that you understand the fees involved in unionizing. The Guild will likely require you to pay dues and fees to the union in a labor contract. Typically, Guild dues are about 1.4% of salary. That is a cost you don’t have to pay now...and you have to ask yourself whether it actually produces a commensurate return for you.
  • We have made great strides in improving the FP workplace over the years but we are under no illusions that our work is done.

That said, we want to emphasize that, of course, how you vote is entirely up to you, and you alone. Representatives of the Guild and FP are not allowed to coerce you or impede you from exercising your rights, no matter how you feel about the Guild or how you decide to vote.

We’ll be talking to you more over the coming weeks and answering your questions to the extent that we can. We will set up conversations with you and your managers and we will have one or more group discussions on this. Again, in this respect, we want you to know that federal labor laws regulate what employers can say during an election campaign, and we plan to communicate lawfully and properly with you. We hope you will do your research, keep an open mind and consider all the facts, and that you will come to the conclusion that it is in your best interest and that of your colleagues to continue the relationship we have – without bringing in the Guild. We sincerely believe that is the very best way forward for us as an organization and for each of you individually—and it is the best way to ensure our ability to continue to produce content that is consistent with the highest values of journalism and the great tradition of almost half a century of FP growth and leadership.