"Union Busters" is a Derogatory Term: It's Time to Update Our Rhetoric

The term "union busters" is derogatory. 

For more than 100 years, it has been used to describe anyone who campaigns against unionization. 

There are a lot of politically incorrect terms that have mostly gone by the wayside due to their inappropriateness:

It's time to retire this tired, dated phrase. 

Protesters carry signs that use the phrase "union busters" in July, 1948,
illustrating how archaic and out-of-date the phrase is.
Photo: European/FPG/Archive Photos/Hulton Archive/Getty Images

We can do better. The workforce deserves better. 

The legal rights of all workers allow them to join a union or oppose one. Employers too, as long as they don't threaten, coerce, interrogate, bribe or spy, are also free to express their views if they prefer to maintain direct relations with their employees. 

The term "union busters" was used historically by labor unions, workers, journalists, or political commentators critically to describe people or organizations that try to weaken or stop labor unions.

But the word “buster” implies forceful destruction or suppression, so the phrase suggests that someone is unfairly or aggressively breaking workers’ collective organization. Because of that framing, it carries a negative judgment.

The truth is, a union campaign is a complex process. Unions are allowed, by law, to promise higher wages, better benefits, and job security during an election campaign, even though they have no actual power to guarantee those things, because the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) considers those promises to be pre-election propaganda or unenforceable statements. That means unions are not legally required to keep the promises they make. In reality, the union would have to negotiate for everything through collective bargaining, and there's never any guarantee of specific results.

So if unions can make unrealistic promises with little legal risk, what about employers? Objectively, the law protects both sides, but in reality, it is not applied evenly. The logic behind employers being held to much stricter scrutiny makes sense. They already have power over employees' jobs, so the federal government assumes that stronger limits on employer conduct are necessary to preserve free choice. If an employer used a comparable, negative term to describe a union, it could be construed as threatening. In other words, it's far less likely that you'd hear an insulting slur about unions from an employer.  

It's not harmful for people carefully considering how to vote to hear more than one perspective. Anyone who appears hostile about an employee gathering facts from both sides should be looked at with a fair amount of suspicion. In life, people who resort to dated and derogatory language to discourage others from listening to different views should not be trusted. 

It's time to move on from negative phrasing and focus on what's important: the worker, and what is best for them. 

And what is best for them? It varies. If you're in the midst of a union campaign, be sure to get facts from multiple, credible sources, like the NLRB. That gives you the best chance of making the right decision on voting day.