Category: Collective Bargaining

Show All Categories

Collective Bargaining

Steps to Protect Your Non-Union Business Model

Union activity is on the rise and many labor experts believe the organizing efforts at companies such as Amazon and Starbucks are just a step in a growing nationwide movement.  Combine the events of the past couple of years with a shortage in the labor force, and workers everywhere are reevaluating and expecting more from their employers. Unions are using new tools to communicate with employees, and employers need to give more attention to employee concerns if they want to remain nonunion.  This recommendation applies to all employers of employees who are not currently represented by a union.  Employees leading recent union campaigns have said that they want a seat at the table, and feel their voices were not heard as their employers made changes in scheduling, work responsibilities, and safety protocols in light of the pandemic.   Employers of a workforce of any size, even if some employees are already represented by a union, need to consider whether their nonunion employees are vulnerable to a union campaign.  There are steps an employer can take to avoid employee interest in a labor union. Respond to employee concerns such as safety, personal work-life balance, and fair wages. Employers have had to adjust schedules due to the pandemic and employees have become more vocal that their personal needs seem to be secondary to the profit margins of their employers.  In this world of the Great Resignation and labor shortages, no employer can consider itself immune from employee interest in a union.  The term “living wage” has become a mantra. Employers should look at their pay structure and consider whether they should be increasing their pay, not only for retention, but also to show employees that they don’t need a union to get an increase in pay. In the face of union organizing, consider regular, direct communication with employees. In the cases of Amazon and Starbucks, they brought in outside consultants to design anti-union campaigns and to speak to employees about the reasons why they should vote against a union.  However, a concerted employee-to-employee grassroots effort proved more persuasive than were the hired outside consultants.  The consultants messaging was ineffective and came to represent the significant disparity between corporate profit and management pay. Employers should consider ways to increase employee engagement.  Taking care not to create an internal labor union, an employer can involve employees in decisions regarding benefits, scheduling, continuing education and company events.  Companies should consider programs that allow employee involvement in decisions affecting them. In recent union campaigns, employees have communicated with each other using social media, such as Twitter and Facebook, or text messaging.  Employers do not typically use this tool to communicate with employees and have relied on traditional techniques.  Social media is a powerful vehicle for employees and labor unions to communicate with each other.  Employers need to figure out how to engage with their employees.  Employees want a seat at the table, and transparent decision-making may go a long way in avoiding unionization.  Great communication is a critical tool. Make sure employees feel they are being listened to. One of the reasons behind forming an employee labor union is the belief that management is not listening to employees.  Employees who support the unions at Starbucks and Amazon said continuous changes in their schedules due to COVID-19 did not take into account the impact the changes had on personal lives.  Added to this was a sense that company management did not care about individual employees. Listen to your employees and consider additional benefits that discourage employees from seeking union representation.  Employees are asking for new and different benefits, such as pet insurance, bus cards, mental health days, or a health and wellness allowance.  Consider a health insurance plan supplement to include transgender-inclusive healthcare benefits.  Many employees want paid time off to volunteer or would like Fridays off during the summer. Employers should also consider offering flex time and work-from-home opportunities to show employees you are listening to their needs. Remain consistent with brand ideology. Many employers market on a progressive platform, such as being environmentally conscious, supportive of LGBTQ rights, or in support of Black Lives Matter.  In some cases, these progressive ideas attract workers who share their values.  When it is perceived that their employer is acting inconsistently with the social justice values publicized, they become restless and want more say regarding working conditions.  Even stores like REI, which say they put “purpose before profits”, are being organized.  Employees are conflating working conditions with social justice themes espoused by their employer.  Employers should take this into account when making employment policy decisions. Don’t ignore the power of social media. Employees and unions use social media to communicate with prospective members.  Twitter, Instagram, Facebook and text messaging are replacing the traditional communication tools.  Employees talk among themselves at work, which can be a compelling way to get the union message across to others.  Employers should be creative in how they communicate with their employees and be aware of the powerful tool that social media presents for the unions.  Employee meetings and written communications may not be enough to convey the employer’s messages regarding the reasons why employees should not vote for the union. Ensuring employees feel valued is a critical element in staying nonunion. The objective is to listen to employees and demonstrate that as their employer, you have their back. Make an effort to understand interests and needs and demonstrate that the company will listen as needs evolve. The General Counsel of the NLRB has announced that she will seek a ruling from the NLRB prohibiting mandatory employee meetings in which employees “are forced to listen to employer speech concerning the exercise of their statutory labor rights, especially during organizing campaigns. “Employers should increase their efforts to communicate with their employees before they become interested in a union.  One thing that is consistent in all businesses is that employees need to feel their opinions count and that their employer appreciates their contributions to the success of the company.

Collective Bargaining

Employers Beware! NLRB General Counsel Seeks to Restrict Employer Free Speech

The National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) made two announcements recently that should be of concern to all employers with employees not represented by a union.  The first announcement was made by the NLRB General Counsel, Jennifer Abruzzo, who announced that she will seek to overturn an employer’s ability to enforce mandatory employee meetings during an organizing campaign.  This announcement coincides with another announcement by the NLRB stating they have seen a dramatic increase in union activity nationwide and particularly, they are seeing an increase in union representation petitions filed. NLRB General Counsel Declares War on Captive Meetings When an employer is confronted with an organizing effort by employees, an important tool in making the employer’s case to the employees is to hold employee meetings.  Often employees are required to attend the meetings during which an employer’s representative describes the reasons the employer is opposed to a union and why it is not in the employees’ best interests to vote for a union to represent them.  The meetings offer employers the opportunity to present facts and information that the unions do not give to employees.  Employers must be cautious in what they say at these meetings because they cannot make threats about what will occur if the union is voted to be the collective bargaining representative or make threats of disciplinary action that could result for the employees who support the union.  Employers can make many arguments that are not threatening or coercive.  For example, employers can explain the cost of union dues, make clear that the union cannot make the employer agree to any provision in a collective bargaining agreement, and remind employees that a labor union does not create jobs, customers, or work for the employees.  With proper preparation, employee meetings can be an effective way for management to communicate their message and persuade employees to vote against union representation. This important tool may be in danger.  Jennifer Abruzzo, General Counsel for the NLRB, has issued a Memorandum in which she asserts that NLRB cases that allow captive employee meetings should be overturned. In this memorandum, she seeks to restrict employers’ free speech during union organization campaigns. General Counsel Abruzzo stated in her Memorandum that she believes that mandatory meetings in which employees are forced to listen to their employer’s presentation concerning the exercise of their statutory labor rights involve “an unlawful threat that employees will be disciplined or suffer other reprisals if they exercise their protected right not to listen to such speech.”  She asserts that NLRB case precedent, which has allowed such meetings, is inconsistent with fundamental labor law principles and the National Labor Relations Act (the “Act”). Section 8(c) of the Act provides that expression of “views, argument or opinion” that “contains no threat of reprisal or force” is not an unfair labor practice.  Nonetheless, General Counsel Abruzzo asserts that despite this language in the Act, previous NLRB precedent was incorrect in holding that an employer does not violate the Act by compelling employees to attend meetings in which it makes speeches urging them to reject union representation. Therefore, she wrote, mandating that employees attend such meetings constitutes a captive audience, deprived of their statutory right to refrain from listening to such explanations.  She states that employees are compelled to listen by implying a threat of discipline, discharge, or other reprisal.  She argues that employees will feel threatened even though it is not stated explicitly. Ms. Abruzzo intends to seek a change in well-settled NLRB precedent by charging employers who conduct mandatory employee meetings during an organizational campaign with an unfair labor practice.  She wrote that she would propose that the Board adopt “sensible assurances” that an employer must convey to employees in order to make clear that their attendance is truly voluntary.  This would include statements that employees are not required to attend the meetings. Increase in Union Representation Petitions The NLRB announced that during the first six months of the 2022 fiscal year (October 1-March 31), union representation petitions filed at the NLRB increased by 57%.  A representation petition is a petition filed by employees or unions to request that the NLRB conduct an election to determine if employees wish to be represented by a union.  In order for the NLRB to proceed with an election, at least 30% of the employees in the bargaining unit (a group of employees with a clear and identifiable community of interest) must sign authorization cards stating that they wish the union to represent them for collective bargaining purposes. This increase in petitions is not a surprise.  We have seen that employees are increasingly coordinating their efforts to challenge employer practices, working conditions, safety conditions and wages.  The recent petitions filed at various Amazon and Starbucks sites are examples where employees have decided they need a third party to represent them in their demands for improvements in their wages and working and safety conditions. Conclusion This increase in labor activity nationwide is higher than any increase seen by the NLRB in the past 10 years.  Employers should prepare now for the possibility that a union may attempt to organize their employees, rather than wait for a representation petition.  They should identify what changes and steps they should take now to inoculate their workplace from a union’s effort to represent their employees.  Employers should think about improvements in wages, benefits and working conditions that would make employees disinterested in union representation. The NLRB may well accede to Ms. Abruzzo’s request to overturn the well-settled law and find that it is unlawful for an employer to require employees to attend employee meetings, particularly during an organizational campaign where the employers present nonthreatening arguments and reasons why a union is unnecessary.  If the NLRB decides as she is hoping they will, employers will lose a vital tool during an organizational campaign to persuade employees that it is unnecessary and not in their best interests to have a third party represent them.  This possibility, combined with the increase in union activity and employee interest in unions, is a warning to employers that they are not immune to union representation.

Collective Bargaining

Project Labor Agreements are Now Required for Large Federal Construction Projects

Last week, I wrote a blog post predicting that President Biden may be requiring project labor agreements (PLAs) on projects funded by the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Acts, effective November 15, 2021 (link here).  That prediction has now become reality. On Friday, February 4, 2022, President Joe Biden signed Executive Order 14063 (EO 14063).  EO 14063 requires PLAs on federal large-scale construction projects. A “large-scale construction project” means a federal construction project for which the total estimated cost of the construction contract is $35 million or more.  Federal agencies, awarding any contract in connection with a large-scale construction project, must require every contractor or subcontractor engaged in construction on the project to agree, to negotiate or become a party to a project labor agreement with one or more appropriate labor organizations. Any project labor agreement reached pursuant to EO 14063 must: Bind all contractors and subcontractors on the construction project through the inclusion of appropriate specifications in all relevant solicitation provisions and contract documents; Allow all contractors and subcontractors on the construction project to compete for contracts and subcontracts without regard to whether they are otherwise parties to collective bargaining agreements; Contain guarantees against strikes, lockouts and similar job disruptions; Set forth effective, prompt and mutually binding procedures for resolving labor disputes arising during the term of the project labor agreement; Provide other mechanisms for labor management cooperation on matters of mutual interest and concern, including productivity, quality of work, safety and health; and Fully conform to all statutes, regulations, Executive Orders and Presidential Memoranda. EO 14063 contains some exceptions to the PLA requirement.  A senior official within an agency can grant an exception by providing a specific written explanation of why as least one of the circumstances described in EO 14063 exist: Requiring a PLA would not advance the federal government’s interests in achieving economy and efficiency in federal procurement. Such a finding must be based on the following factors: The project is of short duration and lacks operational complexity; The project will involve only one craft or trade; The project will involve specialized construction work that is available from only a limited number of contractors or subcontractors; The agency’s need for the project is of such an unusual and compelling urgency that a PLA would be impracticable; or The project implicates other similar factors deemed appropriate in regulations or guidance which may be issued pursuant to EO 14063. Based on inclusive market analysis, requiring a PLA on the project would substantially reduce the number of potential bidders so as to frustrate full and open competition. Requiring a PLA on a project would otherwise be inconsistent with statutes, regulations, Executive Orders, or Presidential Memoranda. President Biden stated that nothing in the Executive Order prohibits an agency from voluntarily requiring a PLA even though they are not required to do so by EO 14063. EO 14063 is effective immediately and will apply to all solicitations for contracts issued on or after regulations are issued by the Federal Acquisition Regulatory Council (FAR Council).  The Order states that the FAR Council must propose implementation regulations within 120 days of, February 4, 2022. Both union and non-union contractors should be alert to this significant new requirement for large-scale federal construction projects.  Union contractors should be aware that a PLA could apply certain working conditions to the project which are not contained in the contractor’s existing collective bargaining agreement(s). EO 14063 is a dramatic shift from the Executive Order President George H.W. Bush issued in 1992, which was rescinded by President Bill Clinton in 1993, and the Executive Order President George W. Bush signed in 2001, which was rescinded by President Barack Obama in 2009, both prohibiting the use of PLAs for federal construction projects. Please see Phyllis Karasov’s explanation of what a PLA is here.

Collective Bargaining

Project Labor Agreements and Government Funded Infrastructure Projects: What You Need to Know Now

As many construction contractors are aware, the new Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, effective on November 15, 2021, includes significant monies for transportation, roads, bridges, rail, and other infrastructure construction.  President Biden has encouraged public governmental agencies to use project labor agreements (PLAs) on these government-funded infrastructure projects. What is a PLA? A PLA requires that all contractors and subcontractors working on the project, whether union or non-union, sign and be bound by a PLA with the local building and construction trade council for work performed on the project.  Members of a building and construction trades council include most labor unions in the construction industry including the operating engineers union, the carpenters union, and the laborers union.   PLAs are intended to cover the period during which the public project is under construction and ends when the project ends.  PLAs result from a public agency including a requirement for a PLA in a construction project’s bid specifications. For projects which require a PLA, the contractor must sign the PLA and agree to be subject to specified provisions in the collective bargaining agreement of the union(s) which traditionally represent the classification of employees employed by the contractor. For example, the operating engineers’ local union would traditionally represent heavy equipment operators and in this case, an excavating subcontractor would be subject to the wage and benefit provisions of the local operating engineers’ collective bargaining agreement.  Many public agencies have been requiring PLAs for years, but we can expect to see an increase in the number of projects that will require a PLA in light of the current political environment.  One advantage to public agencies is that a PLA promises that none of the union members of the local building and construction trades council will engage in a strike during the project.  Obviously, this commitment from the unions avoids the delays and disruption that a strike can cause to a project. Today, nearly 87% of the construction industry is non-union.  A PLA, which covers both union and non-union contractors, subjects the non-union contractors to many of the requirements of an applicable union collective bargaining agreement.  The contractor or subcontractor is not required to sign the actual collective bargaining agreement; however, the PLA makes the contractor/subcontractor subject to certain provisions of a collective bargaining agreement, such as wages and benefits. Why Should a Contractor or Subcontractor Care? Although many non-union contractors believe that a PLA is not something they need to be concerned about, the fact is that if a non-union contractor wants to work on a public project, they should expect that they may be required to sign a PLA. Contractors who bid and are awarded work on a public job may not always be aware that the job is going to be governed by a PLA. Among other things, a PLA requires the contractor to agree to pay the applicable union wages, to contribute to union fringe funds, to use a union hiring hall, and to comply with both governmental and union rules on payroll and recordkeeping.  Employees of a non-union contractor cannot be required to pay full union dues and become union members, but they can be required to pay a monthly agency fee to the union in lieu of union dues. Union hiring halls are prohibited from discriminating between union and non-union members when referring employees to projects but, obviously, it is not always easy to identify when discrimination occurs. Minority and women affirmative action goals, as well as requirements that a percentage of subcontractors be Disadvantaged Business Enterprises (DBEs), can conflict with a contractor’s obligation to hire from a union hiring hall.  For many contractors and subcontractors, the requirement that they hire employees from a union hall makes it difficult to meet affirmative action and DBE goals. We have worked with many non-union contractors’ signatories to a PLA and have seen how the application of a PLA can discourage the subcontractors a construction company normally works from agreeing to work on a PLA project. In that case, contractors have to find different subcontractors, with whom they have little or no familiarity, but who are willing to sign a PLA. Further, the PLA typically allows union business agents to enter a project and talk to employees, and many non-union contractors do not want to expose their employees to continuous visits from union representatives.  Contractors often view a PLA as an open door to a union petition for representation of their employees. Construction contractors can expect a significant flow of public work as a result of the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act but should be aware that many of these jobs will be governed by a PLA.

Collective Bargaining

The NLRB Gets Tougher on Penalties for Unfair Labor Practices

Several months ago, we settled an unfair labor practice charge filed by an employee against our client alleging retaliation for the employee’s protected concerted activity.  The employee had enlisted the support of other employees in challenging certain pay practices, and it was alleged that the charging party was terminated because of those efforts, rather than for his performance.  We were able to resolve the charge with a settlement agreement. The settlement agreement, consistent with the practice of the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), included posting a notice informing employees that the employer will comply with the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA),  pay back-pay, and a provision in the agreement that our client denied violating the law.  The employee was not interested in reinstatement so that was not a condition of the settlement agreement, although normally it would be included in a termination case.  The NLRB has settled termination cases with these terms for at least 40 years, if not more. Today, that settlement may not have been possible.  On September 8, 2021, Jennifer A. Abruzzo, the NLRB’s General Counsel, issued a memorandum in which she discussed the NLRB’s revision and updating of the remedies available to victims of unfair labor practices.  On September 15, 2021, General Counsel Abruzzo issued a second memorandum, describing the types of remedies that regions should seek in settlement agreements.  Both memoranda signal a significant expansion of the types of remedies that Regional Offices will seek when they determine that a party has engaged in an unfair labor practice, or in a settlement agreement with the NLRB. General Counsel Abruzzo stated in the memoranda that the Board possesses broad discretionary authority to create remedies to fit the circumstances of every case.  She wrote that as part of the make-whole remedy to which victims are entitled, the Regional Office should seek an award of consequential damages to make employees whole for economic losses, apart from the loss of pay or benefits, either in the settlement agreement or after a determination that a party violated the NLRA.  Abruzzo provided examples of economic losses suffered as a direct and foreseeable result of an employer’s unfair labor practice for which the Regional Offices should seek a remedy in a settlement agreement or after a determination that a violation occurred.  Examples include: Compensation for health care expenses that an employee incurred as a result of the unlawful termination of health insurance. Compensation for credit card late fees. Compensation for the loss of a home or car that an employee suffered as a result of an unlawful discharge. Front pay when an employee is not interested in reinstatement. Incorporating default language into a settlement agreement. Requiring letters of apology. Sponsorship of work authorizations for undocumented employees who unlawfully terminated. In cases involving unlawful conduct committed during a union organizing campaign, where an employer engaged in unlawful conduct that interfered with the “laboratory conditions” necessary for a free and fair election, she suggested examples of remedies that Regional Offices could seek from the NLRB: Union access to the employer’s premises or bulletin boards. Reimbursement of the union’s organizational costs. Reading of the notice to employees and the explanation of rights to employees by a management official or by an NLRB agent. Training employees, including supervisors and managers, on employees’ rights under the NLRA. Hiring a qualified applicant of the union’s choice in the event a discharged discriminate is unable to return to work. In cases involving unlawful failures to bargain in good faith with a union or an employer, General Counsel Abruzzo stated that she was considering make-whole remedies that would: Compensate employees for the losses they incurred as a result of their employer’s refusal to bargain or failure to bargain in good faith. Dictate bargaining schedules and require bargaining not less than twice a week at least six hours per session until an agreement or bona fide impasse is reached. Reimburse collective bargaining expenses. Conclusion We already know that the current Democratic majority NLRB is far more pro-union and pro-employee than was the Republican majority NLRB under President Trump.  We had previously been put on notice that the NLRB will begin reversing many of the decisions made under President Trump regarding employee handbook provisions, using company email for union organizing, union access to private property, and other types of cases.  General Counsel Abruzzo’s September 8 and September 15, 2021 memoranda are further evidence of the significant changes which are occurring at the NLRB.  We expect to see much harsher remedies sought from employers in settlement agreements and when an employer is found to have engaged in an unfair labor practice.

Collective Bargaining

The National Labor Relations Board and College Athletes in a New World

In 2015 the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) declined to exercise jurisdiction over a petition filed by a union seeking to represent Northwestern University’s scholarship football players.  The NLRB was unwilling to make an affirmative decision as to whether the Northwestern University scholarship football players were “employees” within the meaning of the National Labor Relations Act  (NLRA).  Last spring, President Biden appointed a new General Counsel who is turning the world of college athletics upside down. On September 29, 2021, Jennifer A. Abruzzo, General Counsel for the NLRB, issued a Memorandum in which she made it clear that she views scholarship football players such as those at issue in the Northwestern University case as employees under the National Labor Relations Act. In her September 29, 2021 memorandum, Ms. Abruzzo explains that certain college athletes can be considered employees because “under common law, an employee includes a person who perform[s] services for another and [is] subject to the other’s control or right of control.” Ms. Abruzzo describes the evidence presented in the Northwestern University case that supports the conclusion that the scholarship football players are employees under the NLRA.  For example: The athletes play football (perform a service) for the University and the National College Athletic Association (NCAA), thereby generating tens of millions of dollars for their institution. The football players received significant compensation covering their tuition, fees, room, board and books. The NCAA controls the players’ terms and conditions of employment, including a maximum number of practice and competition hours, limits on compensation, minimum grade point average and other such rules. Northwestern University controls the manner and means of the players’ work on the field and various dimensions of the players’ daily lives to ensure compliance with NCAA rules. General Counsel Abruzzo further explains how “significant developments in the law, NCAA regulations and the societal landscape” demonstrate that traditional notions that college athletes are amateurs have changed.  She cites the unanimous finding by the U.S. Supreme Court in NCAA vs. Alston that NCAA rules limiting certain education-related compensation that schools can offer athletes violate anti-trust law.  Shortly after that decision, the NCAA revised its rules and announced that the name, image and likeness rules for players at academic institutions are suspended.  Thus, players at academic institutions can now collect payment for use of their name, image, and likeness, which will open the door for them to profit from endorsements, public appearances and other uses of their name, image, and likeness. General Counsel Abruzzo likened the freedom to engage in business enterprises as making players at academic institutions much more similar to professional athletes who are employed by a team to play a sport.  She also described how players at academic institutions have been engaging in “collective action” in a number of areas, such as activism on issues of social justice, speaking out about racism at their colleges, and demanding changes, even going so far as to threaten to withhold their services.  Ms. Abruzzo concluded that activism concerning these types of issues directly concern terms and conditions of employment and therefore is protected concerted activity. Section 7 of the NLRA guarantees employees “the right to self-organization, to form, join or assist labor organizations, to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing, and to engage in other concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection,” as well as the right to refrain from such activities. General Counsel Abruzzo used this Memorandum to announce that the scholarship football players at issue in the Northwestern University case, and similarly situated players at other academic institutions, are employees under the National Labor Relations Act.  Ms. Abruzzo also made it clear to institutions of higher education that she will consider the misclassification of players as “student-athletes” rather than employees as a violation of the NLRA in and of itself. ESPN estimates the top-tier NCAA athletes can earn up to $1 million per year in sponsorships that use their name, image, and likeness.  Professional athlete labor unions have collectively bargained that players receive a percentage of revenues from their team revenues.  A decision that college athletes can form a union and collectively bargain the terms and conditions of their employment will significantly change the landscape of college athletics. President Biden has stated that he seeks to be the most pro-union president.  In Ms. Abruzzo’s September 29 Memorandum, she is following through with the President’s objective and making it easier for college athletes to unionize.

Collective Bargaining

The Changing Landscape of Union Organizing and Worker Activism

Union organizing is down as compared to previous years, but that does not mean employers should believe that support for labor unions has decreased.  NLRB records indicate that the number of representation petitions filed in 2020 is dramatically down from each of the previous four years.  This reduction in representation petitions can be attributed to the challenges for union organizers to personally meet with employees, as well as the fact that for many employees, their primary focus has been on retaining their jobs, looking for jobs, and keeping food on the table.  Joining a union may not be the highest priority for many employees. We are seeing a lot of signals that union activity will be strong once the vaccine is widely available and employers are able to return to their former production and service levels.  Many employees question whether their employers are implementing adequate safety precautions or providing sufficient personal protective equipment.  Some employees have experienced a layoff, are concerned about a layoff, or feel they should be given more flexibility for leaves of absence due to the illness or vulnerability of their family members.  Employees may believe these problems can be addressed by electing a union to represent them.  We have heard that some employees want their employers to advocate for social activism and be involved in championing organizations seeking to promote racial justice, such as Black Lives Matter.  Again, they think a union will buoy these efforts. What steps can an employer take to prepare for a  possible increase in union activity?  Obviously, positive employee relations and human resources practices will go a long way to persuade employees their employer respects and values their contributions and reduce interest in union representation.  Other suggestions include: When the employer becomes aware of employee concerns, respond to them. Employees who feel ignored may be convinced that they need a third party to represent them. Supervisors should have a positive relationship with their employees. Treat subordinates with respect.  Listen to their problems. Management should be visible and show an interest in their employees. Walk through the workplace and talk to employees.  Welcome employees to come into their offices to talk to them.  Employees need to feel their opinions matter. Train supervisors about what they can say about labor unions and union representation. When a union petition has not been filed, there is far more flexibility in what supervisors can say to employees to educate them that a union will not make the workplace any better and that a union cannot carry out most of its promises.  Many supervisors feel uncomfortable when asked by employees about labor unions because they do not understand what they can legally say to employees. Be aware of the representation process when a petition is filed with the NLRB. There is a short time period between the date the petition is filed, and the election is held, so an employer should be ready to act once made aware a petition has been filed, rather than spending several days learning about the process. Supervisors should have their eyes and ears open so they can detect whether employees are interested in a union. Sometimes the petition is a complete surprise, but often, the supervisors are already aware of employee discontent.  Sometimes this discontent can be addressed so that employees do not feel they need a third party to represent them. Listen to the podcast of Phyllis Karasov, with assistance from her colleague Dan Ballintine, to learn about union organizing going on in the Twin Cities, as well as what to expect with union organizing when the pandemic is over.