Human Rights Avoidance consultants

It's time for a new label

The US labour relations regime often does little to empower workers. When we look at the ongoing attempt by workers at Starbucks to unionise, for example, one of the most surprising things is that after two years no single store in the US has a collective agreement in place. This is despite well over 350 stores having voted for union representation.

Whether one agrees with the objective of union representation in Starbucks or not (and I personally do) surely we can agree that if the workforce chooses representation there is an expectation that this should result fairly quickly in the establishment of a bargaining relationship. Yet the Starbucks example shows that a large employer can successfully drag its feet for years. Inevitably this will make workers feel the exercise is pointless, which is presumably one reason companies do it. The example has also now been used to underpin a complaint to the ILO about the weakness of the US regime.

The other fact about the US that many of us looking from the outside in find surprising is the use of ‘union avoidance’ advisers. These are often specialist departments of legal firms and they are employed specifically to advise companies on how to avoid becoming unionised. Once again Starbucks is in the frame.

Even allowing for how hard it is for workers in the US to get to the point of a bargaining relationship with an employer, companies will spend not inconsiderable amounts of money on specialist advice to try and undermine support for unionisation. Frustratingly, even businesses that claim to “uphold” or “respect” the ILO conventions, or commit to other standards that encompass them, will employ union avoidance advisers.

Imagine if a company was employing a consultant specifically to advise it on how to avoid environmental responsibilities. We all know that this would be vigorously challenged by many investors, and understandably so. Why should we treat workplace rights any differently?

Investors do not need to take a position in favour or unionisation (although some do) but it seems reasonable for them ask that companies do not seek to pay for advice on how to avoid unions.

There is also an important question of a lack of alignment of policy and practice. Where companies maintain memberships of trade bodies, or undertake other lobbying activities, that appear to contradict their stated transition plans investors have once again pushed back very hard. It seems to me that businesses that claim their approach to workplace rights encompasses international labour standards, but that utilise union avoidance consultants are in a very similar place and should be challenged accordingly.

Certainly investors whose policies commit them to support fundamental rights at work, or other standards that encompass them, ought to be doing this in my opinion.

Finally I think we should also get into the habit of thinking/talking about advisers who undertake this work in terms of what they really do: Human Rights Avoidance. Labour rights are, after all, human rights and the sole reason for businesses to utilise the services of such advisers is to seek to convince their employees not to exercise those rights. So let’s start pushing back on Human Rights Avoidance.

(My other thought for a label was Anti-Social Auditors, but that doesn’t work as well!)