The Secrecy Game in Union Drives: Why it Works

Is It "Illegal" to Talk About Union Organizing? 

If this question is being asked at your workplace, it's probably intentional. 

tl/dr: The short answer is "no."

Employees whisper in a breakroom while other
voters are excluded from the conversation.

When union organizers are trained, they’re taught that secrecy is critical in the early stage of a campaign. Materials often use phrases like “keep it underground,” “don’t tip off management,” or “move quietly until you’ve built majority support.”

Many union handbooks (e.g., AFL-CIO, SEIU, Teamsters guides) describe the first phase of a campaign as the “quiet” or “committee-building” stage. The organizers advise employees to avoid discussing it until they've mapped the workplace, and figured out who the supporters are. 

All of that has been the case for a long time. 

Countless employers that I talk to believe they know what comes next. Authorization cards are signed, a date is set, then it is assumed that the campaign will begin. 

Shhh. Don't Speak:

Here's where I'm seeing a new twist. 

Since union elections are decided by the majority of the valid votes cast (not the majority of the bargaining unit), it can actually benefit the union to keep the turnout low. Get 10 sympathizers out of 1000 people to vote. Spread the word that the vote "isn't important" or "doesn't involve you" to the rest. The result? No one else (or very few others) vote, and that equals an instant win for the union organizers. 

To put it another way, Under NLRB rules, the union needs a majority of valid ballots cast in the election, not a majority of the entire unit. So if only 20 workers vote in a 1,000-person unit, and 11 vote “yes,” the union wins. That means running a quiet campaign and discouraging participation can sometimes be more effective for the organizers than trying to build majority enthusiasm.

As an employer, you'll want to note that there may not be a time when the campaign seems to be "on."

The election is coming up. You expect the supporters to be talking about union activity. Instead you hear nothing. 

If that seems accurate to you, then in all likelihood, you have employees who are misinformed. They may believe they "can't" talk about it, or that they are "not part of it." The union organizers are nowhere to be found. It's as if nothing at all is happening. 

That's because union organizers are more actively practicing what they call "quiet phase" discipline. It works like this: Try to extend the underground period as long you possibly can. Use fewer texts, and avoid email altogether, because both can be subpoenaed. Instead, use Use Signal or WhatsApp with disappearing messages. Don't show up outside workplaces until later in the campaign, sometimes not at all. 

Old model: Traditional playbooks taught organizers to go public only after the cards are filed with the NLRB, and an election date has been set. From that point on, they would campaign aggressively to maximize turnout.

New tactic: Some unions are realizing they can win more easily by minimizing visibility and turnout. Instead of mobilizing broadly, they keep it hush-hush, file quietly, and try to ride a very small base of votes to victory.

When workers are told they "aren’t in the unit," or that their "role doesn’t matter," or that they "don’t need to worry about it," that rhetoric is designed to suppress turnout and keep opposition low.

It's an effective short-term strategy. 

The bottom line: make sure your workers know it's okay to ask questions, and okay to talk about it. Ensure that your managers have the training they need to talk about it too, within legal limits. 

Long-term, there are risks. 

Risks for the Union

Overplaying secrecy can  also backfire. Employees may feel manipulated or uncomfortable if they’re asked to “keep secrets” from coworkers.

If the union wins, it can also result in a fragile mandate. A union that wins 11–9 in a 1,000-person shop has little real-world legitimacy. It risks decertification later.

Another risk of decertification is the group of employees who feel left out, or were told it "didn't matter," or "didn't concern them." I recently spoke to an employee who believed she was close to a group of co-workers. She had no idea the campaign even existed. So, she was confused and hurt when she discovered that the group had deliberately left her out of conversations about the union, due to her anti-union views. 

Secrecy can also give employers grounds to argue that employees were misinformed before signing cards. Although that argument rarely wins legally, the filing of unfair labor practice charges can tie up forward movement for some time. 

Risks for the Employer

If you ask just about anyone in labor relations, I believe they would agree that the number one risk is that the voters didn't understand before the vote what the union could and could not do for them. For an employer, now would be a time to pull in an educator to meet with both managers/supervisors and voters. Information is power. 

Workplace backlash is also common in these situations. Once employees realize how small the vote was, trust erodes. The problem is, the lack of trust can be (and usually is) directed at both the union and the employer. An unhappy and divided workforce will harm you more than it will the union. 

The law protects open discussion, so it is important not to allow secrecy and misinformation to take root. When they do, no one wins in the long run. For employers, the smartest move is to stay proactive: make sure managers are trained, employees are informed, and the facts are available. When the process is transparent and lawful on all sides, it helps ensure that whatever outcome the workers choose, it carries legitimacy.