It’s a bitter pill to swallow. Three days after the union election loss at the Mercedes factory complex in Alabama, the sting is still fresh. Losing by 597 votes out of 5,000, after years of groundwork and six months of complete dedication, is a tough blow. Especially when a significant portion of workers initially pledged their support, only to waver in the final weeks.
Understanding exactly what went wrong, and the precise reasons for this defeat, will take time. But while the experience is still vivid, it’s important to share some immediate reflections. Having worked at Mercedes for nearly twenty-five years and participated in numerous unionization attempts, this was the first time we reached a National Labor Relations Board–supervised election to decide on forming a union.
Before going through an election, the full scope of the process and the company’s tactics remain unknown. We lacked a clear understanding of our total workforce, unsure of which roles—students, temporary staff, or contractors—would be included or excluded in any union representation.
Now, we possess a comprehensive employee list, an asset we didn’t have before. While these workers must now bear some responsibility for company decisions that impact them, should Mercedes deviate from their promises—as is anticipated—we will be ready to highlight that, reminding everyone that a union contract provides legally binding guarantees, removing the need to rely on company goodwill.
Worker-Led Strategy: A Foundation, But With Late-Stage Faltering
Our strategy was fundamentally worker-led. This approach, built on past experiences, was always central. For any union campaign to succeed, workers must be at the forefront. Organizers and the international union can offer support and resources, but the driving force, the visible effort, must come from the employees themselves.
Our campaign began as worker-led. However, in the crucial weeks leading up to the vote, as organizers assisted in the final preparations, the worker presence seemed to diminish. Volunteer numbers decreased, and worker engagement with messages and meetings waned compared to earlier stages.
While the initial strategy was worker-led, from start to finish, our execution in maintaining this worker leadership throughout could have been stronger, particularly in the final stretch.
Reputable Leaders: A Strong Core
One undeniable strength of this union drive was the caliber of our leadership group. We assembled the most respected and well-regarded leaders we’ve ever had. These individuals were largely liked and respected by their colleagues.
Importantly, they maintained strong attendance and work performance records. This ensured that any disciplinary actions couldn’t be falsely attributed to their union support. The solid reputation of our leaders was a point of pride throughout the campaign.
Leveraging Team Leaders: Early Success, Late Setback
The strategy was to move quickly by engaging leaders with the mobility to navigate the plant and build networks. Initially, this approach was successful, but it faltered later in the campaign.
We identified workers whose roles allowed them to interact with the largest number of colleagues during their shifts, aiming to accelerate our campaign’s momentum. This was conceptually sound, though we overlooked a couple of crucial factors initially.
Line team members have limited movement and, consequently, less reach. Team leaders, overseeing groups of six to ten, can potentially reach an entire line. They are highly valuable, but also more closely connected to management and are potential candidates for supervisory roles.
In the weeks preceding the most intense union busting efforts, management focused heavily on team leaders. A significant number of team leaders shifted from pro-union to anti-union stances in the weeks before the vote, and subsequently influenced workers on their lines in the two weeks leading up to the election.
Identifying Regular Team Members: Mitigating Risks
While team leaders are important, and some of our strongest advocates were indeed team leaders, ultimately, it’s essential to cultivate a sufficient number of regular team members. This is crucial to buffer against the inevitable management pressure aimed at flipping team leaders, preventing it from having an oversized negative impact. Regular team members might even be in a position to persuade their leaders to stay firm in their union support.
There’s a risk-reward dynamic here. Having team leaders on board is beneficial, but their proximity to management poses a risk. We experienced significant setbacks in this area.
Conversely, our leaders in mobile equipment driving and off-the-line roles were outstanding assets to the campaign. However, during an aggressive anti-union campaign, any off-line position can increase vulnerability to shifting allegiances. The core tactic of an anti-union campaign is to instill fear. Fear of losing less physically demanding jobs to outsourcing, for example, or fear of displacement by more senior workers. It becomes easier to accept the status quo when fear is amplified by misinformation and false rumors.
Many of our off-the-line workers, who were not in leadership positions, became hesitant in the final weeks. They decided their current situation was “good enough” and ultimately sided with the company.
List-Building: Essential for Tracking and Targeting
Creating and maintaining accurate lists is absolutely critical. It’s the only reliable way to know the total number of workers in the plant, pinpoint areas of strength, and strategically focus organizing efforts.
List management was an area where we performed well. Without company-provided data, our estimated employee count was only off by 75 workers in a unit of 5,075. The company’s public figure was 6,100.
Public Campaign: Necessary, But Faltering Late
For a union campaign to succeed, workers must openly demonstrate their union support. This public stance is vital, giving confidence to other workers considering supporting and ultimately voting yes for unionization.
Our union organizing leadership team effectively took a public stance. However, as the campaign progressed, we observed that many workers began hedging their bets, anticipating a potential union defeat and wanting to avoid being publicly associated with the losing side. This was especially true among team leaders and those in specialized roles. These workers were hesitant to sign union authorization cards, despite verbally expressing pro-union sentiments. Ultimately, a significant number of these individuals reversed their commitment.
A worker unwilling to sign a union authorization card is highly unlikely to remain committed. This is a major warning sign. In the final days of the campaign, and while observing the election, it was noticeable that far fewer workers were wearing union hats, buttons, and bracelets, items they had proudly displayed just months earlier.
Public visibility is paramount. Our late-stage efforts in maintaining this public stance could have been considerably improved.
Winning with Kindness: Maintaining the High Ground
Winning over coworkers requires kindness and respect. Personal attacks and name-calling are counterproductive. Maintaining civility is essential at all times.
Our workplace has a popular Facebook group among workers. Navigating this space requires caution. Union supporters must consistently be honest and positive, while the opposition often resorts to falsehoods and negativity.
If you engage in the social media arena, taking the high road is crucial. Many people use social media for entertainment, and it’s easy to fall into unproductive arguments.
While we maintained a positive approach initially, we unfortunately got drawn into negativity later in the campaign.
Diversity of Issues: Adapting to Company Tactics
We were adept at seizing opportunities, but it’s a delicate balance. Highlighting company shortcomings is necessary, but it’s crucial to remember companies can shift tactics mid-campaign, especially if you overemphasize a single issue.
Two-tier pay was a major issue. We believed the company was too entrenched to eliminate it, but they ultimately did. Focusing on this issue, encapsulated in our slogan “End the Alabama Discount,” might have been too specific. Interestingly, we actually gained support after the company eliminated two-tier pay and granted a $2 raise.
We then shifted our focus to the issue of trust in company leadership. Three weeks before the election, the company replaced the CEO, leading to a “give them a chance” sentiment that ultimately swayed the vote. Having a range of issues to address is beneficial, allowing for flexibility when the company reacts to specific criticisms.
Intense Union Busting: Overwhelming the Workforce
Why did we lose? The playing field is undeniably uneven. Weak American labor laws favor the company. The brief six-week period between filing for an election and the vote itself gives the company a significant advantage to exert its power.
For months, our company had been showing anti-union videos weekly, with minimal apparent impact. Once we filed for the election, these videos became a daily occurrence. Texts were sent to employee phones. Anti-union messages were broadcast on the company app and on monitors throughout the plant. The company actively encouraged workers to vote no.
Three weeks prior to the union election, Mercedes replaced its CEO and simultaneously brought in a team of professional union-busting lawyers. These lawyers engaged with workers in group meetings for two weeks, intensifying the anti-union pressure.
Manager Assessment: Targeted Anti-Union Messaging
Plant supervisors had evaluated workers on a scale of one to five based on their perceived union support. Workers identified as soft “yes” votes or undecided were summoned to meetings and subjected to alarming narratives about unions presented by these union busters.
Some of these union busters falsely claimed to be former lawyers, National Labor Relations Board agents, or even former union members. They presented themselves as neutral, but their message was overwhelmingly anti-union.
A consistent theme in these meetings was “Give the new CEO a chance.” Upon returning to their lines, workers encountered further pressure from brainwashed team leaders, reinforcing the “give the CEO a chance” message, creating a powerful and pervasive anti-union sentiment.
Announced at 30 Percent: Triggering Early Company Action
Reflecting on what could have been done differently, announcing that we had reached 30 percent union cards signed might have been premature. While this announcement generated initial excitement, it also likely triggered the company to launch its active anti-union campaign sooner than they otherwise would have.
Furthermore, a chorus of “let’s vote” grew louder, fueled by the legal requirement of 30 percent to file for an election. This became a distraction, diverting focus from the more critical task of building a pro-union majority.
While 30 percent allows for a vote, it’s far from enough to secure a win. The initial buzz from the 30 percent announcement was positive, but perhaps delaying or forgoing the announcement altogether would have been a better strategy. This remains debatable.
At 50 percent support, we made another announcement. At this point, an influential coworker posted on social media, incorrectly stating we were no longer in the card-signing phase but in “vote mode.”
He referenced a ten-year-old agreement with the international union that was no longer valid, but the damage was done. This was a significant mistake. Recruiting new union supporters became considerably more challenging afterward.
Unity and teamwork are paramount in a union drive. Individual actions that contradict the collective goal undermine the very essence of unionism.
Flyers with QR Codes: Public Support Backfire
Looking back, our approach to distributing flyers with QR codes, intended for workers to publicly declare their union support, could have been handled differently. Two months before the election, these flyers allowed workers to sign up to be publicly listed as union supporters. This seemed like an effective way to demonstrate visible, unafraid support.
However, many workers who had willingly added their names to this public list later claimed it was done without their consent. While likely dishonest, these claims can sow doubt among undecided workers.
In retrospect, requiring each worker to verbally or in writing confirm their desire to be publicly listed, and either releasing the list earlier or delaying signature collection to shorten the gap before the election, might have been a more effective approach.
Ultimately, despite facing one of the most aggressive anti-union campaigns in the auto industry in recent decades, uncertain workers succumbed to the company’s message. They took the “give the CEO a chance” bait, opting for the perceived safety of the status quo over worker-led change. They chose to “give him a year.”
But CEOs are transient, and company promises are often hollow. Only through a union and a legally binding contract can workers ensure the company respects its workforce and honors its commitments.
So, whether it takes a year or slightly longer, our organizing committee will be back, advocating for workers and reminding them that there is a better path. The union way.
