For the most part, when companies engage in union-busting activities, they want to keep most of what they are doing a secret, even though most of what they do will be known by their target, the workers they want to keep from joining a union.

During the Obama Administration, the U.S. Department of Labor created a rule that required disclosure of the names of third parties that routinely at that time (and to this day) engage in a “persuader role,” in attempting to keep a company’s workers from forming or joining a union. It required disclosure of the names, the kinds of activities, and the amount of money paid to the entity that was engaged in “persuading” workers to vote “no” in a union election.

Simply, the rule was to make it clear what the workers were up against in an organizing drive in their workplace, their company. The workers and their union organizers already faced an uphill fight to unionize a workplace, because the employer had (has) access to the workers during every working hour and can subject them to all kinds of persuasion against organizing a union. That’s what they do.

In recent decades, however, employers have called in their private psychological army, so to speak, by contracting with union-busting professionals, very often connected with, or directly employed by, large law firms. The American Bar Association immediately jumped into the fray, claiming on behalf of their lawyer members that such a rule as the “persuader rule” violates the confidential lawyer-client relationship. Not to worry, however, because the former president, Donald Trump, saw to it that the persuader rule was eliminated, in his war on “regulation” and he also wanted to be in line with his friends at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the other powerful groups whose intention has been to keep the workers in their place, which is down.

Both the employing class and the rich in the U.S. already know the financial capabilities of workers and their unions, the latter of which is required to report to the government on such things (wages, pensions, benefits, expenses) and such things are public record. As in most things Corporate America, these things are not readily available to the general public. And, when such information is made public, it is possible to obfuscate so that it is difficult to discern the reality of it. A few, like the former president, are willing to tell you, “I’m rich. I’m very rich.” He also would tell you that he lives among the billionaires of the U.S. The details of his riches, however, are another matter. He has steadfastly refused to reveal where his money comes from or, even, where his money is. He has vehemently refused to release his tax returns. His attitude seems to rival that of another billionaire, the late hotel chain owner, heiress, and convicted felon, Leona Helmsley, who once said in the presence of her housekeeper, “We don’t pay taxes. Only the little people pay taxes.”

So, the Department of Labor’s persuader rule should not be such a big deal. In a fair and just world, it would be a matter of routine to know who your enemy is and who is paying for the battles. And, how much is being paid for what amounts to an army for hire. It’s not too hard to see why the American Bar Association would demand the elimination of the persuader rule. And, it’s interesting to speculate why President Biden has not moved yet (although the persuader rule is in the PRO Act that has yet to be adopted by Congress) to reinstitute the persuader rule, as a way of helping workers achieve their goal of a decent living.

According to The Daily Poster, “(the) so-called ‘persuader’ rule was designed to spotlight an industry that rakes in nearly $340 million a year advising corporations on how to prevent their employees from unionizing. Biden promised during his campaign to revive the persuader rule, but he so far has refused to follow through on the pledge, which could expose the activities of large corporate law firms who offer ‘union avoidance’ services and whose employees funneled big money to Biden’s campaign and the Democratic Party as a whole.”

In the end, it comes down to who has the most money. With union-busting lawyers and others of that profession, most companies that employ them do not spare the money. In many cases, when the amount spent could be ascertained, the company spent far more money on union-busters than it would have cost to accept the vote of their workers and negotiated a contract with their union. Usually, the employers are willing to spend the money on “union avoidance” or union-busting experts, because they want to express the power that their money gives them. They want their workers to know very clearly that they hold all of the power in the workplace.

The catch, though, is that the power of money and the absolute power of the employer is reduced ever so slightly when the workers are unionized and they are working under a union contract. The contract gives workers some power over their work, their pay, their benefits, their working conditions. We have heard managers and management negotiators say, “You sound like you want to run this place.” The answer is that there is some truth to that. A contract gives workers negotiated rights and the union brings those rights to the bargaining table and to the grievance meetings. That does not constitute the power to run the company, but it is the power to mitigate the absolute, sometimes tyrannical, power of the bosses over the workers, and that’s something. It usually makes unionized workers feel pretty good about going in to work every day.

That’s why it was a sad day for the workers at Amazon in Bessemer, Alabama, when the vote to unionize was so soundly defeated, thanks in large part to the vicious anti-union campaign that was waged by CEO Jeff Bezos and his managers at the warehouse. No small part was played by the “union avoidance” experts, or union-busters, who did their best to defeat the workers’ aspirations. For those who supported the union, joining the union and negotiating a first contract is a way for workers to stand up and be counted, to stand up for themselves and their brother and sister workers. Without a contract, they can’t do that. Without a union, they can’t have the contract they need.

Workers need to know who their adversaries are. It is not just the managers or negotiators in a particular workplace. When the company is big enough to bring in hired guns, so to speak, it’s only fair that identities are on the table. Who are we negotiating with? Where do these people come from? What kind of money is changing hands to accomplish the defeat of a group of workers? From whose hands, into whose hands? These are all relevant questions, and it doesn’t matter whether the employer is a giant corporation or a non-profit that thinks its workers do not need unions.

The persuader rule of the Obama era made sense and it made things in the workplace and, later, at the bargaining table just a little bit more transparent. Knowing the hired adversary’s identity might give workers a little more insight into the character and modus operandi of the opposition. Now would be the time for Biden to bring back the persuader rule. It’s only fair.

BlackCommentator.com Columnist, John Funiciello, is a former newspaper reporter and labor organizer, who lives in the Mohawk Valley of New York State. In addition to labor work, he is organizing family farmers as they struggle to stay on the land under enormous pressure from factory food producers and land developers. Contact Mr. Funiciello and BC.