By Tim Lally

With a representation vote only three weeks away, you can be certain that the employer's union-busting consultants have identified key members of your in-house organizing committee.

Backers of the union may already have been fired or threatened with discharge. At the very least, you can assume that the movements of key leaders in and around the workplace will be severely restricted and they'll be under constant surveillance.

With few exceptions, employers will violate the National Labor Relations Act repeatedly during an organizing campaign. How can the union respond? Given the weakness of the Labor Board as an instrument to secure justice, many employers are completely unfazed when a union responds to discriminatory terminations by filing unfair labor practice (ULP) charges. If you were a fly on the wall during a private meeting of the employer and his consultant, you'd hear them saying things like this:

"What's the worst scenario we're looking at? Even if we're found guilty of committing ULPs, victims of discrimination are only entitled to back pay and reinstatement - and that's assuming that in the interim (which could mean many months or years), they've made a diligent search for work and haven't turned down any job offers."

Even a well-intentioned bureaucracy usually moves at a snail's pace, and the National Labor Relations Board (which administers the Labor Act and attempts to settle disputes over its interpretation) is no exception. And as everyone knows, "Justice delayed is justice denied."

If there are enough strong supporters of the union and you're sure they won't back down in the face of adversity, a union can consider calling an unfair labor practice strike. However, this can be very risky — particularly during an economic slump or a period of high unemployment.

Instilling in employees' minds what companies like to call "the downside of unionism" is a priority item on management's agenda as Election Day nears. In meetings or in writing, they'll exploit workers' fear of the unknown with this type of message:

"We want to discuss with you, our trusted employees, what a company like ours needs to survive and remain competitive in today's economy. In a word, that means flexibility. We're proud of our history and our ability to provide stable jobs, good pay and benefits in the years since we chose to set up our business here. But the determination on whether to stay here has been - and will continue to be - based on sound economic reasoning."

The union will invariably be labeled a "third party" or an "outside party" bent on disrupting friendly, established relationships: "This is not to say that should you choose an outside party to represent you, we would necessarily pick up and move to a new location. After all, to say so at this juncture would be unethical." (Incidentally, it would also be illegal.)

Once again skirting the edges of illegality, your foes will say: "By continuing to work together, without any undue influence from those who would weigh us down with restrictive production requirements and bothersome union rules, we will succeed in meeting our goals." Through such thinly-veiled threats, seeds are planted in every worker's mind: "Will I lose my job next month if the union is voted in?"

Exploiting such fears is at the heart of all "union avoidance" strategies. Less easy to spot are the effects of conflict generated during the organizing process - conflict as distinguished from fear, because the adversarial relationship itself has an impact on undecided workers.

Anti-union consultants advise managements to take actions that polarize the workplace, and then transfer blame to "outside agitators" and "inside troublemakers." A divide-and-conquer strategy, pitting worker against worker based on race, gender, age, seniority, skill levels or a combination of all these factors, can stop organizers in their tracks. From the employer's point of view, the morale of the workforce takes a back seat to the primary objective of defeating the union.

With employees still divided on the need to organize, management can haul out some of its most trusted brown-nosers in the workforce and beam contentedly (from a legally safe distance) as they form a "Vote No Committee." A petition will be circulated saying, "I would like to be counted among the group of employees who want to be recognized as against unionization."

A simple checkmark near one's signature grants the committee permission to print each signer's name on flyers that will soon appear. When they do, some workers who initially chose not to sign will start worrying that they could now be viewed as pro-union. And of course, the non-signers will soon get another chance to sign.

Alert unionists will see this kind of challenge coming and will make sure that pro-union sentiment becomes just as visible and tangible. Lots of workers wearing "Union Yes" buttons, caps, T-shirts and other paraphernalia will demonstrate the growing popularity of the union and the isolation of management's brown-nosing allies.

Next: What else can you expect from management as the vote approaches?