SSN Union Letter to Supporters

Dear SSN Union Supporters,

Much has been said about our union in recent weeks, with SSN leadership questioning our union drive, our intentions, and how the process and surrounding communications unfolded. In an effort of transparency and goodwill, and to clarify several recent mischaracterizations of our efforts, we wanted to offer the following statement to our supporters:

We did not want - and certainly did not expect - our unionization to escalate tensions as it has. We approached management with excitement about how our union could strengthen SSN, an organization we all care deeply about. Given SSN’s mission to “strengthen democracy,” we thought management would welcome our effort to further democratize our workplace. We maintain our commitment to SSN’s mission and vision, though we have been saddened and disappointed by the responses we’ve received from management thus far.

At this point, SSN management has implied that a union is not right for SSN, refused to recognize our union, pushed our union's certification to the Trump National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), signaled they were going to push to reduce the size of our bargaining unit, and hired a law firm that help employers “minimize the risk of unionization” according to their own website. In fact, in SSN leadership’s first response to our union announcement, we received the following discouraging note: “To be frank, I have questions about whether and exactly how staff unionization would benefit SSN, its employees, and the various sets of stakeholders who must work together to make this small, innovative enterprise flourish.” These types of actions and statements are all things that other employers have done to stop or limit the power of their staffs' unions.

We maintain that the easiest (and certainly quickest) way for management to open a good-faith discussion with staff would be to voluntarily recognize our union and to fire their current lawyer. We ask that the lawyer be fired because he is from Ogletree Deakins - a law firm that has a reputation for busting unions. Furthermore, his services would not be needed if we avoided the NLRB process altogether and SSN recognized our union through a third party card check process.

Going into this, our efforts to avoid an election through the NLRB centered around a desire to quickly begin a collaborative relationship, and the knowledge that an NLRB election is a broken and often undemocratic process - something that has been confirmed by several SSN members with much more expertise in this area than us. In fact, the single-minded focus on NLRB elections has been pushed by people like the Koch brothers - this is not the way forward. 

The need for a secret ballot is lessened even more when considering the small, collaborative nature of our staff. We have let each union member express their opinions every step of the way, and importantly, have already publicly proven our collective support through solidarity actions - see this show of solidarity at a staff meeting. We could not have made our supermajority support more clear. 

In comparison, the process of a neutral third party conducting a card check has been shown to be the most democratic way to recognize a union. To be clear, the voluntary recognition process has already included a vote. Eligible employees had the opportunity to cast their vote for a union after months of discussion and without the pressure of management. One research article states that “mandating recognition by majority sign-up will eliminate several of the key undemocratic practices that now characterize NLRB elections.”

Responding to Recent Mischaracterizations

In recent communications, SSN’s Director has also suggested that an anonymous group sent a letter demanding immediate recognition of our union at the end of June and that, “At every step of the way, the anonymous group and its supporters have engaged in public campaigns making false claims about SSN.” This is misleading in several ways - from the start, our communications to the Steering Committee have been positive, collaborative, and cordial, as you will see in the screenshot here.

For one, we gave management 1.5 weeks to recognize our union through a card check process (the norm is 1-2 weeks). If this timeline was too stringent for SSN’s leadership, they could have asked for an extension or offered explanations for why a quick decision was not possible. Neither happened.

Second, yes, we have maintained anonymity through our public Twitter account and union email address. However, not only is this the best way to protect our staff from any potential retaliation, it is also absolutely the norm for union organizing, especially at a small organization like SSN. It is not recommended to publicly expose any union member to management before recognition. In the lead up to an NLRB election, management has the freedom to dissuade union activity, target union supporters, and create a difficult workplace environment. It’s also puzzling to us that management has derided the lack of human to human contact and the anonymity afforded to us by our union communications, yet they have continually emphasized the anonymity of an NLRB election. 

Third, these comments suggest that our communications were hostile from the start and that we have been spouting falsehoods -- neither of which is correct. We have maintained respectful and professional communications and have only called out SSN’s undemocratic and union-busting tactics once we felt we had no choice but to make it public. 

Fourth, there seems to be an impression among senior leadership that how our union communicates, particularly through our Twitter page, is both unrepresentative of our staff and meant to intentionally harm SSN’s reputation. Our union is a coordinated group where each member has a voice and input in the actions of the union - this is the case because each member of the union enthusiastically formed the union around the mission to create a better, more democratic workplace. Our communications have the support from the union as a whole.

We recognize that members of the Steering Committee have stated they have no intent to employ union avoidance tactics - yet intent matters much less than practice. As an organization committed to research-based policy and democracy, we have always advocated for what research shows to be the most democratic and representative way forward. Despite having the supermajority needed to win an election, we would still much prefer management voluntarily recognize us, as it would adhere to the mission of SSN and demonstrate to the staff and to the public that they see value in us and in our union and plan to bargain with us in good faith.

Sincerely,

SSN Union