Recent filings with the Department of Labor’s Office of Labor-Management Standards (OLMS) continue to expose companies that engage “persuader” consultants (i.e. “union-busters”). These LM-20 forms are a crucial mechanism for transparency, required when employers enlist outside labor relations consultants to influence employees regarding their rights to organize and bargain collectively.
The data below, compiled from recent LM-20 filings, reveals multiple instances of employers retaining costly persuader services to manage labor discussions and union drives:
Recent Employer-Consultant Persuader Agreements
- ATI Materials Inc., located at 2021 McKinney Avenue, Dallas, TX 75201, entered into an agreement with consultant Cummings Group, LLC on October 29, 2025. The consulting firm secured a rate of $3,750 per day.
- Cassia Healthcare – Chapel View Health Care Center, located at 615 Minnetonka Road, Hopkins, MN 55343, entered into an agreement with the union-busting firm Government Resources Consultants of America (GRCA) on October 29, 2025. The campaign involves SEIU Healthcare Minnesota & Iowa. The associated NLRB Cases, 18-RC-374773 and 18-RM-374774, were recently checked on November 30, 2025, and are both currently recorded as open.
The Role of LM-20 Filings and Persuader Tactics
The filing of LM-20 forms provides essential transparency into employer-consultant agreements aimed at influencing employees’ decisions regarding union representation. The U.S. Department of Labor mandates these disclosures to ensure workers are aware when outside parties are involved in their workplace’s labor discussions—information that can significantly affect how employees evaluate an anti-union message.
Unfortunately, the labor relations industry’s compliance with these transparency rules is often low, and enforcement needs significant improvement. Consultants are required to file the LM-20 within 30 days of entering into an agreement, but late and non-filing remains a pervasive issue that undermines the LMRDA’s goal of informed worker choice.
How Anti-Union “Persuaders” Operate
Anti-union “persuaders” can significantly impact the outcome of unionization drives. These consultants are highly compensated and employ a range of tactics to thwart union organizing efforts, often involving manipulation and intimidation. Workers should be aware that the high rates paid to these consultants come directly from the employer’s budget, demonstrating a significant investment in discouraging union activity.
These common persuader tactics include:
- Disseminating False and Misleading Information: Consultants often spread inaccurate information about unions, their finances, and their potential impact on worker benefits to sow fear and distrust.
- Employing Intimidation Tactics: This frequently involves mandatory captive audience meetings, where anti-union messages are delivered by management or consultants during work hours, making attendance compulsory and dissent difficult.
- Engaging in Surveillance: Consultants may monitor union activity, look for weak points in the organizing committee, and target pro-union employees for further “persuasion” or, in some cases, disciplinary action.
- Conducting One-on-One Meetings: They may train supervisors to hold individual meetings and collect personal employee information that can be leveraged against organizing workers during the campaign.
The disclosure of the employer-consultant relationship via the LM-20 form is the right of every worker. Knowing the employer has hired an expensive outside professional—whose sole purpose is to “persuade” against unionization—allows workers to assess the source and intent of the anti-union campaign and make a more informed choice.
