Unionization HR Response This report will cover a number of topics that pertain to the options that exist to response to unionization pressures and attempts within an organization. Tangents that will be touched upon include the alternatives that exist, why those options may seem attractive and/or fruitful, theories that relate to the labor relations process/function, research and data that back up the recommendations and their expected efficacy and the pros and cons of each recommendation. No unionization strategy is foolproof but following the right proactive and/or reactive steps should eliminate the employees feeling they need to or should unionize.

Shutting down unionization efforts can be very tricky but it is not impossible. It is all about finding the weak point in the strategy that is being undertaken and fixating on it. For example, the unionization effort in the Zinnia case study only included the back-end workers and not the front-end. This, combined with the fact that the wages paid are on par with unionized hotels in the area, would be a surefire way to drive a wedge in the effort and cause the front-end employees to push back against the back-end employees for efforts. Being reassured that they are making union-level wages for the area with no union already present would be the impetus needed to get things going back in favor of the Zinnia. Phasing out the hiring of undocumented workers would also be a good idea because unions will likely boil over if they find out about it. In short, it is generally a good idea for people to be (politely) reminded that they have it just as good (if not better) than other similar employers in the same industry.

This leads to a similar recommendation, and that is not to give any appearance that workers are being taken for granted. Even if the labor in question that is subject to unionization efforts is low-skill and finding new people is not all that hard, pointing that out and in any way belittling people that work for you is an easy way to end up with a union flexing their muscle. At the same time, unions often make ridiculous demands and they are often after their own group/political efforts more so than the interests of workers. After all, union dues can be lucrative in many ways including high salaries for union bosses (something that can gently be made clear to potential union members) as well as political efforts being made with union dues, which can rub people the wrong way.

In yet another tangential recommendation, human resources departments should take heed of public relation blitzes that are unfair and/or unreasonable in nature. For example, the recent spate of people working for McDonald's and other fast food chains are demanding $15 an hour. Such a wage level is obscene and entirely out of scale for a fast food chain and the people behind these movements know this full well, even if some of the people holding picket signs do not. However, overreacting and/or reacting in a visceral fashion is less than wise. For example, one particular employee that worked for McDonald's wrote a letter to the Chief Executive Officer of McDonald's and complained about the fact that she worked for the company for years and still made a low wage. Rather than fire her, point out that her lack of promotion was probably for a reason or the fact that she had two children while working a fast food job is not the wisest life choice, the CEO took a more reserved approach. He could easily point out all of the above and he would be right, but he would be excoriated for doing so, let alone if he were foolish enough (no matter how justified) to fire the person (Winograd, 2013).

As far as theories that justify how to deal with unionization efforts, there are a couple that leap out at the author of this report. For example, there is the X & Y theory, which references the dichotomous belief structure that employees are always lazy and need to be strongly regulated and kept in check (theory X) and the belief that employees are good by nature and just need empowerment and encouragement. Low wage job employees are not the best at staying on task and earning their keep, but the ones that are should be encouraged and promoted and the general tone projected to employees should always be positive, never negative (Reed & Bogardus, 2012).

A second point of theory that should be explored is Victor Vroom's...

The idea behind Expectancy Theory is the prism whereby employees act in a certain way in part or solely because of what they expect in return. Indeed, expectations from a work environment vary a lot. Some people want to climb the corporate ladder and others just want to stay at their current level. Some are concerned about wage levels above all else while others crave flexibility (Reed & Bogardus, 2012). A problem with this theory in a modern context is that some employees have a rather odd to unrealistic view of what they are entitled to and why. The way to counteract this is to make clear what expectations are, what the industry- or company-oriented rewards are for a given level of performance or tenure and how this coincides with most other jobs in similar situations. Labor supply and demand and how it influences labor costs and wages is a foreign concept to many people but these laws don't change just because a given employee is not able to grasp it. Human resources personnel need to push back carefully on unrealistic expectations or beliefs and this is especially true when union groups like the SEIU and such are raising the ire and invective of employees who do not know better.
The other alternative is to not push back on the unions at all and let the employees make up their own mind. This may seem like the easiest way out but it can backfire greatly. Unionization efforts must be counteracted in some way or form because labor costs can skyrocket if a union gets its tentacles into a company. However, there are cons to the other approaches as well. For example, making clear that market/labor/supply forces don't allow for the wage/benefit levels thing are proper can backfire even if people are careful because economic wonks that are pro-labor will point to living wage arguments, the fact that the chasm between the rich and poor is growing and not shrinking and so forth. Pros for avoiding activities like Zinnia hiring undocumented workers may cost a bit more in labor but the upside is that a union's affect on wage scales would be a lot worse. The aforementioned pro-about pitting a portion of the company that is unionizing under the nose of a group that is not could backfire into a con if the two groups actually coalesce together and try to unionize as one united force.

Given the above recommendations, pros and cons, the overarching recommendation should be to take a measured approach that has the best overall effect. This solution would not be the same for all firms, as it must be tailored to the firm, the situation, the region and so on. Management should abide by this because a one-size-fits-all or cookie-cutter approach often doesn't work because the template that is being used cannot or should not be applied to the situation at hand. An ancillary but equally important part of any solution is to not have any skeletons in the closet and/or weaknesses that justify the unionization effort being successful. Wages should be at market levels for the region/industry (or better), undocumented workers should not be hired knowingly and so forth. In other words, if a company is clearly not acting in good faith with the employees, those same employees may react very poorly in the sense that they will recoil and react against the firm due to the perceive (or actual) offenses against them. Lies should be stamped out when they are uttered but corrections should be made when the accusations are truly tawdry and ring true.

There is yet another general idea that should be posited and internalized by any executive or human resources manager. It is an unfortunate truth that corporations are demonized and treated as pariahs. Their behavior in the political and social sphere is posed as being against the people and that corporations are mindless and soulless entities that are at odds with the people. However, much of the same arguments that are posed against corporations conceptually can be applied to unions. Unions take in massive amounts of union dues and often pay their leaders exorbitant salaries. Some of these salaries soar well into the six figure range in some of the larger unions. In addition, the aforementioned political actions almost always trend towards the Democrat party even though many union members are apolitical or are not Democrat. Indeed, many union members are conservative (which most Democrats are not), Republican, Liberatiarn…