IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/ilrrev/v55y2001i1p42-59.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Union Organizing under Neutrality and Card Check Agreements

Author

Listed:
  • Adrienne E. Eaton
  • Jill Kriesky

Abstract

Collectively bargained language concerning union organizing has become increasingly common. Typically included in such language is the employer's agreement to remain neutral in the organizing process, or to recognize unions based on card checks by neutral third parties (as an alternative to NLRB elections), or both. The authors examine the content of and organizing experience under 118 separate written agreements of this kind. They find strong evidence that card check agreements reduced management campaigning, as well as the use of illegal tactics such as discharges and promises of benefits, and also substantially increased the union recognition rate. Neutrality alone apparently had much less effect, but agreements containing only neutrality provisions have sometimes led to card check agreements. Two less common provisions of organizing agreements that appear to have increased organizing success were campaign time limits and requirements that employers provide unions with employee lists.

Suggested Citation

  • Adrienne E. Eaton & Jill Kriesky, 2001. "Union Organizing under Neutrality and Card Check Agreements," ILR Review, Cornell University, ILR School, vol. 55(1), pages 42-59, October.
  • Handle: RePEc:sae:ilrrev:v:55:y:2001:i:1:p:42-59
    DOI: 10.1177/001979390105500103
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/001979390105500103
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/001979390105500103?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Adrienne E. Eaton & Sean E. Rogers & Tracy F. H. Chang & Paula B. Voos, 2014. "Choosing union representation: the role of attitudes and emotions," Industrial Relations Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 45(2), pages 169-188, March.
    2. Robert Hickey & Sarosh Kuruvilla & Tashlin Lakhani, 2010. "No Panacea for Success: Member Activism, Organizing and Union Renewal," British Journal of Industrial Relations, London School of Economics, vol. 48(1), pages 53-83, March.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:sae:ilrrev:v:55:y:2001:i:1:p:42-59. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.ilr.cornell.edu .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.