This paper examines the role of unions in the United States, tracing their decline from 36% of the workforce in the 1950s to 11.3% by 2013. It analyzes key federal legislation governing labor relations, including the Norris-LaGuardia Act, Wagner Act, and Labor Management Reporting and Disclosure Act (LMRDA). The paper details the responsibilities of human resource managers in ensuring compliance with union organizing laws, outlines employee rights under the LMRDA, and discusses the government's role in enforcing labor standards. It concludes with a case study of Amazon's anti-union campaign, illustrating contemporary challenges to the labor movement.
The role of unions has been declining significantly over the past sixty years, according to research in human resource management literature. Leaders in the union movement would naturally like to see a reversal of that trend, but the data reveals a stark picture: in the 1950s, thirty-six percent of all workers in America were union members. That percentage has dropped to 11.3 percent in recent years.
The U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics provides detailed documentation of this decline. In 1983, 20.1 percent of workers were unionized, representing 17.7 million union workers. By 2013, the percentage of workers in unions had fallen to 11.3 percent, with only 14.5 million union workers. Union membership rates vary significantly by sector. The rate is highest in the public sector at 35.3 percent, with 7.2 million union workers. In education, training, protective services (law enforcement and firefighting), and library occupations, the union membership percentage stands at 35.3 percent. Additionally, union membership for men was 11.9 percent compared to 10.5 percent for women.
The history of unions and the legal boundaries governing what human resource managers and company employers can and cannot do extends back to the 1930s. The Norris-LaGuardia Act of 1932 prevented federal courts from issuing injunctions against nonviolent labor disputes and prohibited employers from interfering with workers joining a union. This was the first federal law addressing what employers could do when unions attempted to organize.
The Wagner Act of 1935 established the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) and provided that employers could not interfere with, restrain, or coerce employees who form a union. Moreover, when a union was organizing in a workplace, the employer was required to bargain collectively with representatives of that union. This marked a significant shift in labor relations, granting workers formal legal protection to organize.
Today, human resource personnel must be thoroughly familiar with federal laws governing employee-employer relationships during union organizing campaigns. Employees have a right to unionize and to join together to advance their interests as employees. They also have the right to refrain from accepting a union in their workplace. An employer may not interfere with, restrain, or coerce employees in the exercise of these rights. It is unlawful for an employer to threaten employees, spy on them, or interrogate them regarding union activities. Human resource managers must be well versed in all federal laws regarding union organizing.
Additional restrictions on employer conduct are equally important. Employers cannot promise benefits or other enticements to coax employees to reject a union. An employer may not recognize a union of its own choosing (rather than the union favored by the majority of employees) because that union would be friendlier to management. This prohibition does not apply in the construction industry. Employers also have no legal right to discourage or encourage union activities through discriminatory hiring or tenure decisions. An example of illegal conduct occurs when an employer believes that a certain employee is working toward unionization and then disciplines, demotes, lays off, or otherwise punishes that employee for union activities.
When a union has secured a majority of votes from employees, the employer has a legal duty to bargain in good faith with union representatives. The employer is also legally bound to sign any collective bargaining agreement reached by both parties. Employers must refrain from making certain changes to working conditions or compensation without bargaining collectively with the union.
Human resource professionals should also be aware of the Landrum-Griffin Act, also known as the Labor Management Reporting and Disclosure Act (LMRDA), which was enacted in 1959. This legislation requires unions to hold secret elections and to submit annual financial reports to the U.S. Department of Labor. The purpose of the LMRDA was to regulate the internal functioning of unions and to reduce the possibility of corruption within the labor movement. A notable example of corruption was uncovered when the Teamsters Union was found to be involved with organized crime in the 1950s.
The LMRDA guarantees specific rights to union members, and these rights are spelled out in the Bill of Rights for union members. Union members have the following protections: equal rights to participate in all union activities; full freedom of speech and assembly; a voice in the determination of dues, fees, and union rules; the right to bring legal action against the union or employer; safeguards against improper discipline; and the right to nominate candidates for union offices, run for office, cast a secret ballot, and protest the outcome of elections.
A union may not expel, fine, or harass a union member who is exercising rights under the LMRDA. Additionally, no one in management or in the union may threaten to use force or violence to interfere with a union member exercising LMRDA rights. Any union officer in charge of union funds or property must be bonded to protect the union from losses. Union officials who steal or embezzle union funds are subject to federal fines or imprisonment. Union fiscal officers must keep accurate records for at least five years.
Regarding election procedures, unions must follow strict guidelines. These include holding elections by secret ballot at least every three years; maintaining election records for one year; mailing notice of elections to every union member at least 15 days in advance; refraining from using union funds to promote candidacy; permitting candidates to have election observers; and allowing candidates to inspect the union's membership list at least once within 30 days of an election. These requirements ensure democratic accountability within union governance.
Under the LMRDA, NLRB, and Department of Labor, the federal government has specific roles in overseeing the rights of workers, the rights of employers, and the mitigation of disputes. These regulatory responsibilities have evolved significantly with technological change.
The National Labor Relations Board has recently had to devise strategies and rules regarding what unions can and cannot do regarding social media. Beginning in 2010, the NLRB received complaints about certain Facebook postings by union members that may have violated federal law regarding the secrecy of elections. After investigating, the NLRB determined that unlawful conduct by employers had occurred in several cases. In one instance, a union had videotaped interviews with employees at a nonunion job site about their immigration status and posted those videotaped interviews on YouTube and the local union's Facebook page.
In other cases documented in a 2012 NLRB report, union members had posted comments on Facebook and were subsequently discharged by employers. The firing of an employee for griping about working conditions on social media is not legal, according to the NLRB. Postings by employers were found unlawful when they interfered with the rights of employees under the National Labor Relations Act, which includes the right to discuss wages and working conditions with coworkers. The government has the authority to decide cases before the NLRB resulting from social media disputes.
A notable 2012 NLRB decision involved a BMW salesman who posted photos and mocking comments about fellow employees serving hot dogs at a luxury BMW car event. The salesman had also posted photos and comments about an embarrassing accident at an adjacent Land Rover dealership. The NLRB ruled that he was fired solely for the photos of the Land Rover incident, which was not concerted activity protected by labor laws, and therefore the firing was justified. This decision illustrates the NLRB's nuanced approach to determining which social media activity receives legal protection.
"Modern example of anti-union tactics and legal boundaries"
You’re 82% through this paper. Sign up to read the remaining 1 section.
Sign Up Now — Instant Access Already a member? Log inAlways verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.