A reader sent along a link to a reprint from HR Magazine, a pro-management newsletter. The article looks at the state of labor. I didn’t find most of the analysis very interesting or new particularly the section about the AFL-CIO versus Change To Win, and the management quotes were pretty standard fare.

This little snippet, though, was interesting. It follows a discussion about "corporate campaign":

A campaign strives to get employers to sign neutrality agreements. In effect, these agreements permit unions to campaign while the employers remain neutral. Usually, the employer agrees to accept a card check to recognize the union without a secret-ballot election if the union produces a sufficient percentage of signatures.

Neutrality agreements also include provisions where the employer agrees that its managers will not campaign against or disparage the union, or that they will only provide facts about the union when they’re asked a question, says Lynn Outwater, managing partner of Jackson Lewis LLP in Pittsburgh.

Why would employers accede to neutrality and a card check that offer a slam dunk for the union? Actually, few do, and acquiescence usually can be attributed to wilting from a blistering campaign.

I love this sentence: Why would employers accede to neutrality and a card check that offer a slam dunk for the union?

It acknowledges what we know–when employers do not conduct a campaign of terror and intimidation, breaking the law as much as possible, and, instead, let workers get a fair chance to decide whether they want to be in a union or not, it’s a "slam dunk." True, it’s the analysis of the writer of the article but it’s probably reflecting a fairly wide sentiment.