John Logan’s Corporate Union Busting in Plain Sight reads like a Hollywood script: scrappy workers versus villainous corporations, democracy under attack, and big bad companies scheming to keep employees under their thumbs. But in the real world, the story is far more complicated—and Logan’s version ignores the most significant piece of the puzzle: many workers simply don’t want unions.
The Truth About Union Decline: Workers Are Opting Out
Logan wants readers to believe union membership is dwindling because of “ferocious corporate opposition.” But here’s a reality check: if anti-union employer behavior were the driving force behind low union density, we’d see union victories surge now that the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) is more pro-union than in decades. Instead, union membership has barely budged.
The often-cited EPI claim that “60 million American workers want a union” sounds impressive—until you realize this supposed demand hasn’t translated into membership growth.
When given the choice, workers are increasingly skeptical of what unions offer. In industries like retail and hospitality, flexibility matters more than rigid contracts. Workers are weighing their options and deciding that a union might not be the golden ticket organizers claim it to be.
No Contracts? Blame the Unions, Not the Companies
Logan paints Starbucks, Amazon, and Trader Joe’s as relentless anti-union machines, stalling contract talks and refusing to bargain in good faith. But let’s take a step back: if unions have such strong worker support, why haven’t they been able to deliver results?
Take Starbucks. There's still no contract over three years after workers at some stores voted to unionize. Is this all because of corporate “union busting”? Or could it be that Workers United has fumbled negotiations, prioritized media theatrics over serious bargaining, and so far failed to prove they can deliver better wages and benefits than Starbucks already offers? The company has been clear: they’ll negotiate with each store individually, which is perfectly legal.
The union, on the other hand, has pushed for centralized bargaining—something that isn’t required under labor law. If Starbucks is truly the villain, why hasn’t the union managed to get a single deal inked?
“Union-busting” Is Just Another Word for Employer Free Speech
Logan takes issue with companies communicating with their employees about unions. But let’s call this what it really is: giving workers the whole picture.
Employers have every right to explain the potential downsides of unionization, just as unions have every right to pitch their own case. The assumption that workers are easily “intimidated” into rejecting unions is deeply patronizing. People are capable of making informed decisions, and the fact that union wins aren’t happening at the rate organizers expect suggests that workers aren’t being “tricked” or “scared”—they’re just not convinced.
Weak Labor Laws? Try Again—The System Is More Pro-Union Than Ever
Logan’s claim that U.S. labor laws are “disastrously weak” is laughable. Under the Biden administration, the NLRB has stacked the deck in favor of unions, making it easier than ever for workers to organize and harder for employers to push back.
Take the Cemex ruling: it essentially allows the NLRB to force companies to recognize unions without even holding an election if an employer is accused of unfair labor practices. That’s a seismic shift in labor law, yet Logan still insists that corporations have all the power.
And let’s not forget: the NLRB has been aggressively targeting companies with complaints, courts are increasingly ruling in favor of labor, and unions have been handed a series of regulatory wins. The idea that employers can “break the law with no consequences” ignores the multi-million-dollar legal battles companies face when fighting unionization efforts.
Corporations Have a Right to Defend Themselves
At the heart of Logan’s argument is a troubling premise: that companies shouldn’t be allowed to resist unionization. He treats basic corporate advocacy—hiring attorneys, pushing back against union demands, communicating with employees—as somehow illegitimate. But here’s the thing:
Businesses, like unions, have every right to advocate for their interests.
Workers are not passive pawns in this fight. They’re active participants who get to make a choice. And when unions can’t win without the government tilting the playing field in their favor, maybe—just maybe—the problem isn’t “union busting.” It’s the unions themselves.
Bottom Line: The Market Has Spoken
If unions were truly the better option, they wouldn’t need new laws, government intervention, or claims of corporate wrongdoing to stay relevant. Workers would be flocking to join them. Instead, union membership remains stagnant, even as labor activism is at its highest level in years.
Logan’s article isn’t analysis—it’s activism. Instead of blaming corporations for union failures, maybe labor leaders should be asking a harder question: why aren’t workers buying what unions are selling? Until they figure that out, all the finger-pointing in the world won’t change the fact that organized labor’s biggest problem isn’t employer opposition—it’s worker indifference.
