Polling Results for Employer Meetings on Unionization

Between August 2-9, 2022, Institute for the American Worker commissioned the bipartisan public affairs firm Forbes Tate Partners to conduct an online survey of 1,000 national likely voters about their views on Employer Meetings on Unionization. The margin of error is +/- 3.53%.

Below are the topline results:

  1. a) Currently, employers are allowed to voice their views on unionization to employees in mandatory meetings – employees must attend these meetings. These meetings take place during an employee’s regularly scheduled work hours and give employees an opportunity to learn about their rights when it comes to unionization. Like any other meetings that take place during work hours, such as workplace safety, benefits, or state of business meetings, the employees are paid for their time. A federal agency has regulated and recognized the legality of these meetings since 1948. Employers are prohibited from threatening, interrogating, or making promises to employees during these meetings.
    Would you say you have a positive, negative, or neutral opinion about these meetings?
  • Positive opinion 41%
  • Neutral opinion 43%
  • Negative opinion 12%
  • Don’t know 4%
  1. b) Below is a breakdown of these responses by political party and union affiliation:
  • Republicans: 37% positive, 43% neutral, 17% negative
  • Democrats:  48% positive, 39% neutral, 10% negative
  • Union: 59% positive, 31% neutral, 10% negative
  • Non-union: 37% positive, 46% neutral, 13% negative
  1. As you may know, there are currently efforts by the National Labor Relations Board to ban or restrict these types of employer meetings. How much would you say you have heard about this effort?
  • A great deal 10%
  • Some 12%
  • Not too much 20%
  • Nothing at all 52%
  • Don’t know 5%
  1. Which of the following comes closer to your point of view?
  • Supporters Statement 57%
  • Opponents Statement 23%
  • Don’t know 20%

Supporters of these mandatory meetings say that they are essential because they allow employees to learn about their labor rights and how the union organizing process works. These meetings are fair and ensure that employees get to hear both sides of what will happen if a union organizes them. These meetings have been routine for decades. If we were to ban these meetings or require they be voluntary, employers would lose the ability to speak to their employees while unions could still contact them, and employees who don’t support the union or simply want more information could be further pressured by labor organizers if they choose to attend an employer meeting.

Opponents of these mandatory meetings say that they are unfair because employers can use this worktime to pressure employees against joining a union and interrogate workers about unionization. Employers use these meetings to misinform workers about unionization and threaten them about joining one. Employers can require employees to attend as many of these meetings as they want and punish those who do not attend.

  1. Overall, which of the following is most likely to benefit from banning or restricting these meetings?
  • Unions 26%
  • Big businesses 23%
  • Workers at companies 15%
  • Company executives 13%
  • Small businesses 6%
  • Don’t know/none of the above 16%
  1. Overall, which of the following is most likely to be harmed from banning or restricting these meetings?
  • Workers at companies 43%
  • Unions 16%
  • Small businesses 10%
  • Big businesses 9%
  • Company executives 6%
  • Don’t know/none of the above 15%