Report: Pre-Majority Unionism

Literature Review

By Ike McCreery

This literature review is a working document. Questions, comments, contributions? Email us at [email protected]!

Introduction

This literature review’s goal is to provide organizers and union leaders with a broad and thorough overview of contemporary pre-majority unionism in the United States. It is primarily aimed at organizers, who may carry out the day-to-day strategic and tactical work covered here. Union leadership may be interested, as organizational strategy and investment sets the foundations for organizing and campaign strategy. Those looking across entire industries, sectors, or the economy or those interested in the direction of American labor overall may find use for the materials here as well. But the primary audience remains organizers, rank-and-file and staff, looking to explore, adopt, and win pre-majority strategies.

This literature review aims to assist first in making the decision to pursue a pre-majority strategy (or not), then in how to implement such a strategy. Many of the resources below have concrete, hard-won strategic and tactical insights.

We start with a review of the broad proposals laid out over the last few decades since American labor’s precipitous decline that accelerated in the 1980s. These proposals provide context and assertions about the direction of American labor but by definition only include authors who have been so bold as to put forth such proposals, which may be more a matter of framing than of content.

The case studies provide the core of the report. I’ve highlighted noteworthy case studies; the rest are organized into three parts: campaigns at individual workplaces, regional or industrial campaigns, and finally Southern organizing. (There is overlap among the sections.) My hope is that you can prioritize whichever contexts are most relevant while still having other resources at hand. There may not be direct correlation, as only few industries appear here. The South is relevant not only as its own geography but also as a proving ground for organizing within a particularly hostile cultural and political-economic context.

We finish with adjacent material. Recent management commentary on pre-majority unionism may provide insight into the opposition. Membership-based organizing strategy is highly relevant, if not explicitly so: by its nature, pre-majority unionism must generally rely heavily on membership-based organizing strategy (though majority unionism can and generally ought to as well, as some of the sources show). Finally, the sections on union renewal and “what workers want” provide important insight to broader questions. Where are we now, what has been tried before, and why has pre-majority unionism remained so marginal?

The scope of this review is specifically contemporary pre-majority unionism in the United States. The IWW and the Knights of Labor existed long before the NLRA and laid the foundations for American labor. While these and other historical organizations are important context and inspiration for contemporary pre-majority unionism, this review cannot cover so much. Similarly, pre-majority unionism exists the world over: there are in fact pre-majority legal regimes in many countries around the world, but covering them here is out of scope. The goal remains to assess if and how to pursue pre-majority unionism here (in the U.S.) and now. Finally, as a literature review, we are necessarily limited to what’s been written about: there are many efforts which are not represented here only because they have not been recorded.

A final note on sources: many of the articles here appear in academic journals. Although many are not directly publicly accessible, many public universities make their electronic resources available to the public, often limited to on-campus access. Call your local public university library!

Pre-majority proposals

The proposals in this section take on the broad question of if and how to approach pre-majority unionism. While they differ somewhat in emphasis, they all share a criticism of narrow organizing for NLRB-sponsored elections as a failing strategy. They all instead call for opening union organizing and membership to workers in shops with only minority union support.

Lynd’s 2015 Solidarity Unionism, originally published in 1992, emphasizes the need for a “parallel unionism,” independent worker organizations of two kinds: “shopfloor committees” and “parallel central labor bodies.” He is critical less of election-focused organizing strategies than of the entire bureaucratized labor structure itself, which he accuses of being “government-sponsored monopolies” and seeking labor peace rather than worker power. For discussion of Lynd’s model in action, see Lynd and Gross 2007 and Bossen 2012.

Rathke’s 1999 “Letting More Flowers Bloom Under The Setting Sun” emphasizes “organization-driven” organizing, focusing on “constructing organizational strength,” instead of “campaign-driven” organizing, building only to NLRB-certified elections. For discussion of Rathke’s model in action, see Nissen 2001.

Freeman and Rogers 2002 propose “open-source unionism,” allowing individual workers to join unions regardless of their workplace’s status, to provide services through the internet and retain members beyond a particular employment arrangement. Their recommendations are based on their 1994-5 national survey, finding that workers want different kinds of representations and relations depending on the worker and situation (Freeman and Rogers 2006). For discussion of their model in action, see Nack and Tarlau 2005, Kniffin 2010, and Pinnock 2011.

Atkins and Cohen 2003-4 propose a contemporary formation similar to the Trade Union Educational League of the 1920s, drawing on the UE experience organizing the Plastic Workers Organizing Committee in the early 1990s. This proposal focuses on establishing membership-based organizing committees in regions and industries to lead organizing efforts. It emphasizes specific strategies and tactics, such as the “community run election,” to demonstrate majority support much quicker than an NLRB run election; Section 7 and other legal fights to earn early victories; and establishing democratic organization quickly. In 2008, Cohen and Atkins provide concrete advice and encouragement to organize under Section 7.

Morris 2005 provides a legal evaluation of and strong argument for minority unionism as protected under Section 7 and other sections of the NLRA. It is mostly a legal work, so may be less relevant to day-to-day organizing.

Finally, Lees and Garneau look back at contemporary experiences with “solidarity unionism” and assess a consistent weakness in the ability for unions of this kind to sustain themselves. They comment on what infrastructure unions without contracts must build in order to maintain themselves for the long term.

Although all of these proposals point toward forms of pre-majority unionism, strategic divergences emerge. Work to shift existing union structures or build outside? Focus on providing “what workers want” or create stronger collective structures? Some mixture of the above?

Atkins, Judy, and David Cohen. 2003-4. “A Proposal for a Twenty-First-Century Trade Union Education League: An Attempt to Solve the Crisis of Organizing the Unorganized.” Working USA 7 (3): 44-61.

Cohen, David, and Judy Atkins. 2008. “Your Right to a Union: Build It Now!” Taunton: United Electrical, Radio and Machine Workers of America.

Freeman, Richard B., and Joel Rogers. 2002. “Open Source Unionism: Beyond Exclusive Collective Bargaining.” Working USA 5 (4): 8-33.

Lees, MK, and Marianne Garneau. 2018. “Boom Without Bust: Solidarity unionism for the long term.” Organizing Work.

Morris, Charles J. 2005. The Blue Eagle at Work: Reclaiming Democratic Rights in the American Workplace. Ithaca: ILR Press.

Staughton Lynd. 2015. Solidarity Unionism: Rebuilding the Labor Movement from Below, second ed. Oakland: PM Press.

Rathke, Wade. 1999. “Letting More Flowers Bloom Under The Setting Sun.” In Which Direction For Organized Labor? Essays on Organizing, Outreach and Internal Transformations, edited by Bruce Nissen, 75-91. Detroit: Wayne State University Press.

Rogers, Joel, and Richard B. Freeman. 2002. “A Proposal to American Labor.” The Nation, June 6, 2002.

Case studies

The case studies below form the core of this literature review. They are organized into two subsections: case studies of efforts to organize individual workplaces and those of efforts to organize entire industries, often within a particular geography. Each subsection is further organized by industry. Below are the characteristics that seem to make these industries stand out as testing grounds for pre-majority unionism, to help you find parallels.

All of the case studies below provide concrete, insightful commentary into pre-majority union efforts across a wide range of contexts. Undoubtedly, there is value in looking across contexts, but this is a lot of material. For a practitioner with limited time and energy, my advice is to start with the context(s) which seem most relevant.

The public sector and higher education are contexts in which NLRA coverage is contested. Many public sector workers do not have the right to bargain collectively. Higher education workers make up a substantial portion of public sector workers, and higher education is experiencing a widespread shift toward contingent labor as tenured positions get replaced with adjuncts. Academics also have direct experience in higher education, making the industry more likely to be the subject of writing.

High tech, an admittedly vague-defined and quickly-changing industry, is notable for its newness and the strong anti-union sentiment among its skilled and often highly-paid workers, though Early and Wilson point out that much of this “tech exceptionalism” is management propaganda. The sector has confronted union drives with strong mollification tactics as well as forceful repression. Finally, the two unions that have experimented most in pre-majority efforts in the industry, CWA and UE, are notably experimental in their organizing programs.

Megacorporations, another admittedly vague and changing classification, are [focal points] primarily because they are highly symbolic and structurally important targets. They are massive employers (often among the largest), and their size and decentralized workplace structure make organizing majority unions especially difficult. Megacorporations have special advantages in their ability to change production structure, shutting down entire areas in response to organizing, and outsized political power. They are often highly detrimental to many communities, making them particularly interesting for community-labor alliance efforts.

In manufacturing, pre-majority efforts have mostly taken place in the South, a notoriously anti-union context culturally, politically, and economically. The exception is at General Electric, where a pre-majority effort took off and then collapsed after initiating a majority campaign (Bouchard 2005 and Nack and Tarlau 2005).

The contract labor situation is characterized by contingent work arrangements with very low job security, making traditional union structures nonviable.

Office administrative work has long been gendered and marginalized by mainstream American labor.

A note on source selection: much has been written about many of these cases; I’ve tried to select the most comprehensive, recent, relevant source about each. Sources appear in multiple sections when relevant.

Workplace efforts

Public sector and higher education

Dirnbach, Eric. “United Campus Workers (UCW).” Report: Pre-Majority Unionism. Emergency Workplace Organizing Committee.

Kniffin, Kevin M. 2011. “Organizing to Organize: The Case of a Successful Long-Haul Campaign for Collective Bargaining Rights.” Labor Studies Journal 36 (3): 333-362.

Marvit, Moshe, and Leigh Anne Schriever. 2015. “Members-only Unions: Can They Help Revitalize Workplace Democracy?” The Century Foundation.

Pinnock, Sharon. 2011. “AFGE’s Minority-Union Campaign and the Largest U.S. Organizing Victory in Decades: TSA Workers’ Journey for Rights and Union Representation.” Working USA 14 (4): 527-555.

Megacorporations

Driedger, Nick. 2021. “What worked and what didn’t: A history of organizing at Starbucks.” Organizing Work.

Lynd, Staughton and Daniel Gross. 2007. “Solidarity Unionism at Starbucks: The IWW Uses Section 7.” Working USA 10 (3): 347-356.

Nelson, Sam. 2022. “Our Organizing Must Match the Structure of Our Target.” The Forge, March 24, 2022.

Reich, Adam and Peter Bearman. 2018. Working for Respect: Community and Conflict at Walmart. New York: Columbia University Press.

Tech

Early, Steve, and Rand Wilson. 1986. “Organizing High Tech: Unions & Their Future.” Labor Research Review 1 (8): 46-65.

McCreery, Ike. “Alphabet Workers Union.” Report: Pre-Majority Unionism. Emergency Workplace Organizing Committee.

Nack, David, and Jimmy Tarlau. 2005. “The Communications Workers of America Experience with ‘Open-Source Unionism.’” Working USA 8 (6): 721-32.

Nissen, Bruce. 2001. “Building a ‘Minority Union:’ The CWA Experience at NCR.” Labor Studies Journal, 25 (4): 34-55.

Van Jaarsveld, Dannielle D. “Collective Representation Among High-Tech Workers at Microsoft and Beyond: Lessons from WashTech/CWA.” Industrial Relations 43 (2): 364-85.

Wilson, Gretchen, and Mike Blain. “Organizing in the New Economy: The Amazon.com Campaign.” Working USA 5 (2): 32-58.

Manufacturing

Bouchard, Paul. 2005. “In for the Long Haul: The Non-Majority Union Strategy.” In A Troublemaker’s Handbook II, edited by Jane Slaughter, 236–243. Detroit: Labor Notes.

Waltz, Lynn. 2018. Hog Wild: The Battle for Workers’ Rights at the World’s Largest Slaughterhouse. Iowa City: University of Iowa Press.

Marvit, Moshe, and Leigh Anne Schriever. 2015. “Members-only Unions: Can They Help Revitalize Workplace Democracy?” The Century Foundation.

Nack, David and Jimmy Tarlau. 2005. “The Communications Workers of America experience with ‘open-source unionism.’” Working USA 8 (6): 721-732.

Perold, Colette. “The Carolina Auto, Aerospace and Machine Workers Union (CAAMWU-UE).” Report: Pre-Majority Unionism. Emergency Workplace Organizing Committee.

Wrenn, Jim. 2002. “UE ‘Non-Majority Union’ Organizes The Old Fashioned Way.” Labor Notes, July 31, 2002.

Contract workers

Bossen, Colin. 2012. “The Chicago Couriers Union, 2003-2010: A Case Study in Solidarity Unionism.” Working USA 15 (2): 197-215.

Industrial and geographic efforts

Public sector and higher education

Diedrick, Kate, Karly Safar, and Melanie Barron. 2020. “Fighting Neoliberal Universities in States without Bargaining Rights.” The Forge, October 12, 2020.

Service sector

Rolf, David. 2016. The Fight for Fifteen: The Right Wage for a Working America. New York: The New Press.

McCartin, Joseph Anthony. “The Legacy of Justice for Janitors and SEIU for the Labor Movement.” In Purple Power: The History and Global Impact of SEIU, edited by Luis L. M. Aguiar and Joseph Anthony McCartin. Urbana: University of Illinois Press.

Tech

Bacon, David. N.d. “The Roots of Social Justice Organizing in Silicon Valley.” Race, Poverty and the Environment.

Early, Steve, and Rand Wilson. 1986. “Organizing High Tech: Unions & Their Future.” Labor Research Review 1 (8): 46-65.

Tarnoff, Ben. 2020. “The Making of the Tech Worker Movement.” Logic(s).

Manufacturing

Perold, Colette. “Plastic Worker Organizing Committee (PWOC).” Report: Pre-Majority Unionism. Emergency Workplace Organizing Committee.

Administrative and knowledge work

Bergen, Debra and Eric Dirnbach. “9to5: The National Association of Working Women.” Report: Pre-Majority Unionism. Emergency Workplace Organizing Committee.

Carlsson, Chris and Mark Leger, eds. 1990. Bad Attitude: The Processed World Anthology. London: Verso.

Cassedy, Ellen. 2022. Working 9 to 5. Chicago: Chicago Review Press.

Southern organizing

Diedrick, Kate, Karly Safar, and Melanie Barron. 2020. “Fighting Neoliberal Universities in States without Bargaining Rights.” The Forge, October 12, 2020.

Dirnbach, Eric. “United Campus Workers (UCW).” Report: Pre-Majority Unionism. Emergency Workplace Organizing Committee.

Marvit, Moshe, and Leigh Anne Schriever. 2015. “Members-only Unions: Can They Help Revitalize Workplace Democracy?” The Century Foundation.

Perold, Colette. “The Carolina Auto, Aerospace and Machine Workers Union (CAAMWU-UE).” Report: Pre-Majority Unionism. Emergency Workplace Organizing Committee.

Waltz, Lynn. 2018. Hog Wild: The Battle for Workers’ Rights at the World’s Largest Slaughterhouse. Iowa City: University of Iowa Press.

Wrenn, Jim. 2002. “UE ‘Non-Majority Union’ Organizes The Old Fashioned Way.” Labor Notes, July 31, 2002.

Management commentary

These two articles indicate how management is orienting to minority unionism. Both were published shortly after Alphabet Worker Union went public, and both emphasize Section 7 rights and the possibility for minority representation, but remind that management has no legal responsibility to bargain with a minority union. They cite sources of leverage beyond bargaining such as shop-floor actions, media, and political pressure; caution against giving workers reasons to form minority unions, citing “social justice issues” as a key motivation for workers (this perspective is perhaps overly influenced by AWU); and finally raise questions about the viability of relationships between larger established unions and young minority unions. Overall, this commentary resonates strongly with the labor perspectives throughout this review, indicating that management and labor are thinking along largely similar lines.

Eron, Thomas G. and Hannah K. Redmond. 2021. “What Employers Should Know About Minority Unions.” The Business Journal 35 (9): 8–8.

Marculewicz, Stefan. 2021. “Minority Unions – A Major Concern For Employers In 2021 And Beyond?” Mondaq Business Briefing, January 12, 2021.

Membership-based organizing

Throughout this literature review, a theme emerges: the strong relationship between pre-majority unionism and membership-based organizing. Pre-majority unionism requires a strong, sustained organizing program, be it staff- or membership-led, since there is less legal framework under which the union can establish itself. This is also one of the most important draws of pre-majority organizing: some see this need for constant organizing as a healthy pressure that can keep the effort more lively and relevant.

Many pre-majority efforts build strong organizing programs that rely heavily on members rather than staff, though reasons for building membership-based organizing programs vary. The long-term support of staff organizers can be difficult to secure and sustain, and membership-based organizing can reduce the reliance on outside staff support. Members are often the best recruiters. Some cite the importance of building strong democratic structures, and understand a membership-based organizing program as a keystone of a democratic organization.

These articles provide insight into membership-based organizing programs, regardless of pre-majority unionism. Bronfenbrenner 1997 provides empirical evidence that majority campaigns that use membership-based tactics win more, and Bronfenbrenner and Juravich 1998 doubles down: majority campaigns which use multiple of those tactics do significantly better. The other sources provide in-depth, concrete case studies of organizing programs in which rank-and-file members are central.

Babson, Steve. 1991. “‘Come Join Us’: Volunteer Organizing from a Local-Union Basis.” Labor Research Review 1 (18): 60-71.

Bronfenbrenner, Kate. 1997. “The Role of Union Strategies in NLRB Certification Elections.” Industrial and Labor Relations Review 50 (2):195–212.

Bronfenbrenner, Kate & Tom Juravich. 1998. “It Takes More than House Calls: Organizing to Win with a Comprehensive Union-Building Strategy.” In Organizing to Win: New Research on Union Strategies, edited by Kate Bronfenbrenner, Sheldon Friedman, Richard W. Hurd, Rudolph A. Oswald, and Ronald L. Seeber, 19-36. Ithaca: ILR Press.

Eckstein, Enid. 1991. “Using People Power: A Successful Member Organizing Program Builds New Unions, Strengthens Your Own.” Labor Research Review 1 (18): 72-81.

Nissen, Bruce. 1998. “Utilizing the Membership to Organize the Unorganized.” In Organizing to Win: New Research on Union Strategies, edited by Kate Bronfenbrenner, Sheldon Friedman, Richard W. Hurd, Rudolph A. Oswald, and Ronald L. Seeber, 135-49. Ithaca: ILR Press.

Nissen, Bruce and Seth Rosen. 1999. “The CWA model of membership-based organizing.” Labor Studies Journal 24 (1): 73-88.

Union Renewal

Much of the contemporary experimentation with pre-majority unionism has taken place in the context of “union renewal:” the search for ways to reverse the backslide of American Labor. In 1995, the “New Voices” slate challenged and defeated the incumbent AFL-CIO leadership and put new effort into organizing programs across American labor. Much of the experimentation and writing represented in this review comes from the same time period, the 1990s through the early 2010s.

Bronfenbrenner et al. 1998 and Nissen 1999 represent some of the “union renewal” discussion during that time. Bronfenbrenner et al. 1998 emphasizes more empirical work, with many chapters written by researchers and union practitioners working in collaboration. Chapters particularly relevant to pre-majority unionism are:

Bronfenbrenner, Kate and Tom Juravich. “It Takes More than House Calls: Organizing to Win with a Comprehensive Union-Building Strategy.” 19-36.
Fletcher, Bill, Jr. and Richard W. Hurd. “Beyond the Organizing Model: The Transformation Process in Local Unions” 37-53.
Nissen, Bruce. “Utilizing the Membership to Organize the Unorganized.” 135-49.
Cohen, Larry and Richard W. Hurd. “Fear, Conflict, and Union Organizing.” 181-96.

Nissen 1999 provides a forward-looking approach that is more dedicated to discussing possible future directions than past experiences. Chapters particularly relevant to pre-majority unionism are:

Weinbaum, Eve. “Organizing Labor in an Era of Contingent Work & Globalization.” 37-58.
Rathke, Wade. “Letting More Flowers Bloom under the Setting Sun.” 75-91.
Cohen, Larry, and Steve Early. “Defending Workers’ Rights in the Global Economy: The CWA Experience.” 143-164.

Looking back at this literature and the state of American labor in 2024, one must inevitably ask: After so much has been written, why has so little changed? Given the strong evidence for pre-majority unionism, why is it still so rarely pursued?

Martin 2006 gives us preliminary answers by providing basic explanations for why organizing goals and strategies are so contentious. He provides theoretical explanations as well as historical parallels: established union leadership may prefer to avoid destabilizing existing power structures by recruiting new members or shifting expenditures away from servicing existing members. Furthermore, innovative organizing strategies and tactics are often unfamiliar to existing leadership and may further destabilize their leadership by mobilizing rank and file members.

In a more recent study, Murray provides an extremely comprehensive look at union renewal, covering strategic modernisation (planning and management), union structure (union mergers and organizing strategies), collective action repertoires, and incorporation of “outsiders.” The review is extremely broad but provides a strong overview and tentative conclusions. He provides an optimistic outlook that contradicts Martin’s conclusions: the ongoing renewal efforts should be seen as “rigorous democratic experimentalism, through which new organisational forms and new types of effective collective action will emerge, along with renewed union vigour, whatever its shape” (23).”

Finally, in a very recent journalistic exploration, Nolan draws from his own personal experiences, and his conclusions more closely match Martin’s: established unions do not have the incentives to build strong programs for new organizing (citing “fortress unionism”), and internal organizing is necessary to unseat the entrenched regime.

Bronfenbrenner, Kate, Sheldon Friedman, Richard W. Hurd, Rudolph A. Oswald, and Ronald L. Seeber, eds. Organizing to Win: New Research on Union Strategies. Ithaca: ILR Press.

Nissen, Bruce, ed. 1999. Which Direction For Organized Labor? Essays on Organizing, Outreach and Internal Transformations. Detroit: Wayne State University Press.

Nolan, Hamilton. 2024. The Hammer: Power, Inequality, and the Struggle for the Soul of Labor. New York: Hatchett Books.

Martin, Andrew W. 2006. “Why Does the New Labor Movement Look So Much Like the Old One? Putting the 1990s Revitalization Project in Historical Context.” Journal of Labor Research, 27 (2): 163-85.

Murray, Gregor. 2017. “Union Renewal: What Can We Learn from Three Decades of Research?” Transfer 23 (1): 9-29.

“What Workers Want”

Finally, several surveys of American workers about their desired work relations. The outcomes developed by Freeman and Rogers in their 1994-5 survey (2006) and reinforced by Kochan et al. 2018 gesture toward alternative unionism, if not pre-majority unionism directly:

Workers want more voice (representation and participation) in their workplaces;
Workers prefer cooperative relations with management to adversarial ones;
Workers want unions, but they also want other mechanisms, to maintain agency and choice within a variety of situations.

Freeman and Rogers leverage these findings into their proposal for Open Source Unionism (2002). Kochan et al. (2018) point to the need for more flexible union organizing models: those which don’t require majority support, don’t lose membership when workers shift jobs, and provide different options for voice in the workplace.

Freeman, Richard B., and Joel Rogers. 2006. What Workers Want. Ithaca: ILR Press.

Kochan, Thomas A. 1979. “How American Workers View Labor Unions.” Monthly Labor Review 102 (4): 23–31.

Kochan, Thomas A., Duanyi Yang, William T. Kimball, and Erin L. Kelly. 2018. “Worker Voice in America: Is There a Gap between What Workers Expect and What They Experience?” ILR Review, 72 (1): 3-38.

Quinn, Robert P., and Graham L. Staines. 1979. The 1977 Quality of Employment Survey: Descriptive Statistics with Comparison Data from the 1969–70 and the 1972–73 Surveys. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.