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-busting consultants). 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 article has been updated with the new information you provided. Here is the revised text:
Recent filings reveal new instances of employers retaining the services of union-busters:
- Eagle Materials/Mountain Cement (Dallas, TX) enlisted Independent Center for Worker Education on July 29, 2025, for a rate of $3,750 per day. In an August 20 election, workers voted to unionize with IBB, with a tally of 40 for the union to 26 against.
- Sibelco (Crystal Plant) (Spruce Pine, NC) enlisted East Coast Labor Relations, LLC on August 10, 2025, for a rate of $3,800 per day, in a campaign involving UMW 140.
- HCA Ft. Dalton-Destin Hospital (Fort Walton Beach, FL) engaged a persuader on August 18, 2025, at a rate of $275 per hour, in a campaign with NNOC. In a September 11, election, employees voted to unionize, with a tally of 215 for the union to 115 against.
- California Community Foundation (Los Angeles, CA) enlisted Labor Information Services, on September 10, 2025, at a rate of $325 per hour.
The Role of LM-20 Filings and Persuader Tactics
The filing of LM-20 forms provides 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. Unfortunately, the labor relations industry’s compliance with these transparency rules is low, and enforcement needs significant improvement.
Anti-union “persuaders” can significantly impact the outcome of unionization drives. These consultants employ a range of tactics to thwart union organizing efforts, including:
- Disseminating misleading information about unions and their potential impact on worker benefits.
- Employing intimidation tactics such as mandatory captive audience meetings where anti-union messages are delivered.
- Engaging in surveillance, monitoring union activity, and targeting pro-union employees.
- Conducting one-on-one meetings and collecting personal employee information that can be leveraged against organizing workers.