"Over the past ten years there has been a notable shift in union organizing strategies. Once the exception, organizing conducted under the umbrella of negotiated neutrality agreements has become the preferred method in the drive to reverse decline and build union density. This approach allows unions to avoid the pitfalls of traditional organizing conducted under the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) framework, which enables employers' aggressive resistance to unionization. Typically, management's anti-union campaigns include: mandatory captive audience meetings where the employer condemns the union, one-on-one meetings with supervisors where workers are grilled regarding their union sentiments, firing of selected active union supporters, and legal delays. Instead, if unions are able to secure a binding commitment from the employer to remain neutral, organizing is relatively straightforward and in most cases the union is able to win majority support and bargaining rights.Pursuit of employer neutrality and the closely associated card check route to certification, where the union is recognized with a majority of workers signing union cards, are not confined to the realm of actual organizing campaigns. Proposed changes in labor law to endorse this approach have elevated neutrality to the top of organized labor's list of political priorities. The spread of neutrality agreements and labor's strong push to amend the law have been spurred by notable cases of organizing success. But this success has invited scrutiny, and attacks from the right and the left. For example, legitimate questions have been raised about the top-down nature of some specific Service Employees International Union (SEIU) neutrality agreements. A careful look at the criticisms aimed at SEIU raises more general questions about the wisdom of those neutrality-based organizing campaigns that neither engage workers in struggle nor build union solidarity. "

Support: Paper