By Tim Lally

When Congress passed the National Industrial Recovery Act in 1933, the union busters of that era encouraged employers to establish "Employee Representation Plans" (ERPs). These were the precursors of today's "Employee Involvement Programs" (EIPs), "Quality Circles" or "the Team Concept." By whatever name, they amount to the same thing: company unions.

In the early years of Roosevelt's New Deal, ERPs proved so effective in derailing union organizing campaigns that when the National Labor Relations Act was passed in 1935, Section 8(a)(2) banned all such organizations. This was believed to be the key to enforcing the right to organize.

Sixty-five years later, employer organizations and their right-wing allies in Congress just can't seem to leave this issue alone. Though there has been a long-simmering debate over the legal status of EIPs, attempts to weaken Section 8(a)(2) did not begin in earnest until 1994, when the Clinton Administration appointed the Dunlop Commission to review the nation's labor laws. The commission examined both EIPs and union organizing, but never considered the relationship between them. It focused instead on how EIPs benefit business, and whether Section 8(a)(2) should be changed to expand their use.

In 1996, both houses of the Republican-led Congress passed a bill called the "Teamwork for Employees and Managers (TEAM) Act." Had it not been promptly vetoed by President Clinton, this legislation would have reopened the door to legally-sanctioned company unions. This year, the House Education and Workforce Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations spent $1.4 million on a study entitled "Securing the Future of American Families." Despite its innocuous name, it's essentially Rep. Peter Hoekstra's (R-Mi.) attempt to undermine the National Labor Relations Act. Much of the draconian, anti-union legislation that will emerge in the next few years will be directly traceable to this partisan research.

Whether or not conservatives in Congress prevail, and despite a few high-profile cases in which the NLRB struck down employer-dominated "involvement" programs, the trend has been toward more, not fewer, of them. The challenge facing organized labor is to determine the extent to which these groups pose a threat to organizing and to the maintenance of strong union shops.

EIPs and Organizing

Like many other organizers, I've sometimes discovered EIPs to be in place at the very beginning of an attempt to organize a shop. At other times, they are being formed as soon as the organizing campaign has begun. If a union wins an election and the company chooses the all-too-common delaying tactic of challenging the results, there's a good chance the company will institute some form of EIP as a means of defusing sentiment for collective bargaining.

What distinguishes a legitimate grouping of employees from an unlawful company union is often very unclear. The line may be drawn based on which subjects are discussed at meetings. For example, if the group concerns itself only with matters of quality and efficiency, the company will be legally invulnerable. But if matters related to terms and conditions of employment become the focus, the employer exposes himself to legal scrutiny. While unions may file unfair labor practice charges once they learn of such a formation, if that is all they do the damage will only continue.

Organizers who encourage workers not to participate in these programs may encounter some reluctance, since EIPs seem to convey the impression, however limited, that the employer admits a need to improve labor-management relations. Most EIPs are set up with the intention of creating an environment in which workers feel they have some say over how the company is run. In reality, meetings and discussions are carefully controlled so that the employer can not only solicit ideas about efficiency or better customer service, but can also identify and attempt to neutralize union sympathizers and rank-and-file leaders. Management consultants usually warn their clients that the formation of EIPs could backfire and cause legal problems, but they will still encourage them in situations where they feel a union campaign is vulnerable.

If a union doesn't develop genuine, rank-and-file involvement in its organizing campaign, you should expect the employer to manipulate employees' hopes and fears and redirect them into the "approved" version of involvement. One way a union can reveal the true nature of these programs is by using the meetings as a forum for activists to raise issues about working conditions and dignity on the job — issues such as health and safety, abusive supervisors, racial discrimination and sexual harassment (if they'll let you get that far). In any event, exposing these meetings as the sham exercises they most often are can reawaken a dormant interest in the advantages of a real union.

Few experienced labor organizers place a great deal of faith in the NLRA, or trust the National Labor Relations Board to be anything more than a mechanism to get the company's attention. When employers take the advice of their consultants to get involved in forming EIPs and similar groups, they do so in the hope that a more "flexible" (meaning controllable) organization will be established — one that does not present a threat to the company, but rather promises cooperation.

With a sound organizing strategy that employs a variety of tactics, most unions can overcome many obstacles — including the EIP problem. As always, we're eager to hear from readers about their experiences with union-busters in general and EIPs in particular.