Americans’ support for unions is surging. Increasing numbers of workers are fighting to unionize and negotiate fair contracts, and Americans are heavily siding with workers during labor disputes.1 In response, a growing number of public officials are vociferously supporting workers in organizing fights and pushing back against aggressive anti-union rhetoric used by corporations and antiworker politicians.
By using the bully pulpit—a public official’s ability to gain attention and sway key actors through public speech and private convenings because of their prominent position—officials are increasing workers’ confidence that their demands will be respected. At the same time, they are leveraging the bully pulpit to remind corporations that the government will hold lawbreakers accountable. Yet public officials and policymakers at all levels can do more to advocate forcefully for workers throughout the entire span of a unionization and contract bargaining process, particularly when corporations are undermining worker efforts or receiving financial incentives from the public.
Antiworker lawmakers have dominated public discourse during organizing drives and labor disputes in recent decades, undermining workers’ confidence that their fights were winnable and that their rights would be respected. For example, in Mississippi in 2017, then-Gov. Phil Bryant (R) spoke vehemently against unionizing efforts at a Nissan assembly plant in Canton, arguing, “If you want to take away your job, … just start expanding unions.”2 In 2024, Gov. Henry McMaster (R-SC) vowed in his State of the State address to fight “to the gates of hell” to keep unions out of South Carolina.3
These lawmakers attempt to convince workers that unionizing will run counter to their interests, threaten companies with financial penalties should workers win their organizing drives, and even attack efforts to enforce workers’ basic rights. Often, workers also face vehement opposition from their employers. Anti-union employers spend hundreds of millions of dollars annually hiring union avoidance consultants. In more than 40 percent of union elections, U.S. employers are charged by the federal government with engaging in illegal anti-union activities such as retaliatory firings, discipline, and threats.4
To prevent anti-union politicians from undermining workers’ efforts, pro-worker elected officials should encourage workers to exercise their rights, push lawbreaking corporations to come into compliance, and ensure public investments create good jobs.5 This moves beyond offering up general rhetorical support for the right to organize or supporting labor law reforms such as the Protecting the Right to Organize Act. Policymakers must also wade into specific labor fights where corporations are undermining workers’ voices and leverage their influential positions to encourage the spread of best practices. This helps ensure workers can exercise their rights without employer intimidation or fear of retaliation.
The Biden-Harris administration has been a leader in this space, meeting with autoworkers on the picket line and offering support for workers organizing at Starbucks, Tesla, Toyota, and Amazon.6 Similarly, at a 2023 hearing dedicated to calling on Starbucks to end these anti-union practices, Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions (HELP) Committee Chair Bernie Sanders (I-VT) accused the company of waging “the most aggressive and illegal union busting campaign.”7
The need for strong public showings of support is more important than ever. The Biden-Harris administration is working to ensure that beneficiaries of the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, Inflation Reduction Act, and CHIPS and Science Act produce high-quality, union jobs. The bills’ lucrative federal investments in U.S.-based production of semiconductors, electric vehicles, water, wind, and solar infrastructure undermine antiworker arguments that going union will cause corporate flight.
Already, workers at companies that are likely recipients of these federal investments are in motion to unionize. For example, thousands of workers at a Chattanooga, Tennessee, Volkswagen plant won an election to unionize in April and are working to secure a first contract.8 Yet the fight to organize is an uphill battle. Despite an early showing of majority support, Mercedes-Benz workers at an Alabama plant eventually lost a May election in the face of strong opposition from their employer and antiworker politicians.9 Ahead of the vote, Gov. Kay Ivey (R-AL), with five other Southern state governors, released a public letter suggesting that unionization would cause automakers to shut down plants; the Alabama House of Representatives speaker called the workers’ union “a dangerous leech,” and the state’s commerce secretary raised the threat of layoffs. 10
For federal investments to deliver on their promise of high-quality jobs, pro-worker policymakers must use their positions to promote collective bargaining. In fact, these jobs become high-quality when workers bargain over wages, benefits, and working conditions.
Calls to respect workers’ rights should be emphasized repeatedly, but they cannot just come from the very top. When investments are announced, federal agencies, along with state and local leaders from the targeted communities, should highlight government expectations and companies’ specific commitments to support good union jobs. This level of support must continue publicly, as well as in private communications, throughout the entire process: when workers start to organize, engage in voting, and negotiate a first contract. Government leaders play a central role in educating businesses receiving these investments. Many of these businesses have little experience with union labor or the new standards. Outreach will help these companies understand their obligations to respect workers’ rights and how unions help attract and retain a qualified workforce.
To encourage pro-worker policymakers to be more aggressive and to use their bully pulpit authority to hold corporations accountable, this issue brief reviews evidence on the effects of the bully pulpit on worker opinion and behavior. It also examines union drives where organizers believe political rhetoric made a difference.
The power to influence
While few academic researchers focus specifically on the power of politicians’ rhetoric to influence union organizing campaigns, long-standing research on American presidents’ ability to advance their own political agenda highlights the powerful effects of rhetoric and negotiation.11 The ability to persuade is often most visible when a president negotiates with Congress to win support for their legislative priorities, block opposing initiatives, or initiate legislative compromise. Yet executive branch rhetoric can also influence public opinion and communicate government priorities to business interests.12
Throughout the 20th century, pro-worker presidents lent their rhetorical support to worker organizing efforts and spoke out against unfair corporate practices. Often, this approach was paired with efforts to arbitrate the truth of what was happening on the ground, spark formal or informal negotiations between employers and workers, and ensure both parties were coming to the table in good faith. President Theodore Roosevelt angered coal mine operators in 1902 when he pushed them to negotiate with striking workers, asked his labor commissioner to investigate working conditions that led to the dispute, and ultimately convened an arbitration process that led to the strike’s resolution.13
President Franklin Delano Roosevelt famously declared, “I welcome their hatred” in reference to reckless banking and monopoly interests that opposed his economic agenda, including policies to support “fairer wages, the ending of long hours of toil, the abolition of child labor, [and] the elimination of wild-cat speculation.”14 President Roosevelt also signed the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA)—the current federal law governing private sector bargaining rights—that declares it the policy of the United States to “encourag[e] the practice and procedure of collective bargaining.”15
President John F. Kennedy famously stated, “My father always told me that all businessmen were sons of bitches, but I never believed it until now.” His comment was in response to steel executives increasing prices shortly after the president helped facilitate negotiations with labor, which resulted in workers reducing their wage demands due to inflationary concerns.16
In recent decades, political leaders have continued to serve as mediators between workers and employers. In July 1997, Pennsylvania nursing home workers at a company with a “history of labor law violations as well as health and safety problems” were organizing with the Service Employees International Union. After months of tense negotiations, then-Gov. Tom Ridge (R-PA) finally offered his support.17 He hosted meetings with company and union representatives and assigned a mediator to represent the state’s interests at negotiations. Union representatives and workers argued the mediator significantly helped their campaign. In a similar vein, Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL) has expressed support for workers during an organizing campaign and has sometimes advanced policy solutions that, he argues, will strengthen worker voice while reducing conflict between labor and management.18
Yet, at the same time, antiworker lawmakers have become increasingly aggressive in their rhetoric. In 2015, Boeing workers at a new factory in Charleston, South Carolina, attempted a renewed unionization campaign with the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers (IAM). Then-South Carolina Gov. Nikki (R) pushed back against the campaign, saying: “You’ve heard me say many times I wear heels. It’s not for a fashion statement. It’s because we’re kicking them [unions] every day, and we’ll continue to kick them.”19
Anti-union political rhetoric at Boeing’s South Carolina facilities
At a Boeing plant in South Carolina, antiworker politicians used the bully pulpit to help defeat a union campaign. In early 2015, workers at a plant in Charleston, South Carolina, were attempting to organize a union with the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers (IAM), commonly referred to as the Machinists.20
The company was previously the subject of a National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) complaint filed by the IAM, District Lodge 751. The Machinists alleged that Boeing violated federal labor laws and that the company’s decision to transfer the production of its 787 Dreamliner airplane away from its West Coast plants to the nonunion South Carolina facility amounted to retaliation against union employees and intended to chill future strike activity.21
In a radio advertisement, then-Gov. Nikki Haley (R-SC) referenced the NLRB complaint and urged workers to vote down the union: “The IAM didn’t think we could build airplanes, and they didn’t want Boeing to build airplanes in South Carolina. Don’t ever forget they tried to use the National Labor Relations Board to shut us down. But now the IAM is back and they want to take away a piece of your success. Please don’t let them.”22
In the end, workers canceled the vote, arguing that “political interference” and “misinformation” from state officials such as Gov. Haley thwarted workers’ preferences.23 Mike Evans, the local organizer at the plant, said, “I hold the Boeing Co., South Carolina Gov. Nikki Haley and their surrogates responsible for creating an atmosphere of state-sanctioned hostility toward unions and union organizers.”24 He argued that such a hostile atmosphere “intimidated workers to the point we don’t believe a free and fair election is possible.”
And when the United Auto Workers (UAW) attempted to unionize Nissan workers in Mississippi in 2017, then-Gov. Phil Bryant (R) leveraged the bully pulpit. In the week before the vote, he said, “If you want to take away your job, if you want to end manufacturing as we know it in Mississippi, just start expanding unions.”25 He reiterated his message on Facebook with a picture of what appears to be a vacant manufacturing facility in Detroit: “I hope the employees at Nissan Canton understand what the UAW will do to your factory and town. Just ask Detroit. Vote no on the union.”26
This year, in his State of the State address, Gov. Henry McMaster (R) argued that “generations of South Carolinians … face a clear and present danger from the big labor unions” and vowed to fight “to the gates of hell” to prevent unions from coming to South Carolina.27
Tennessee lawmakers bullied workers and pressured Volkswagen to prevent a union
Workers at a Chattanooga, Tennessee, Volkswagen facility voted overwhelmingly in favor of unionizing this spring, standing in stark contrast to a previous effort to unionize a decade earlier that was thwarted by the company and anti-union politicians.28 While unionized manufacturing work is a rarity in the South, initially, it looked as if pro-union workers would be successful in the 2014 effort. Prior to the election, most workers at the plant had signed union membership cards, and Volkswagen declared its intention to remain neutral.29
Yet area politicians resisted the effort and encouraged workers to vote against the union. Then-Sen. Bob Corker (R-TN), former mayor of Chattanooga, called the unionization campaign a “job destroying idea” and claimed it would hurt the South “for generations to come.”30
He further argued that the success of the plant rested on workers rejecting the union: “[If] workers vote against the UAW, Volkswagen will announce in the coming weeks that it will manufacture its new midsize SUV here in Chattanooga.”31 State Sen. Bo Watson (R), who represents the district where the plant is located, said if workers voted in favor of the union, any additional incentives for Volkswagen to stay in Tennessee would have a “very tough time” passing in the Legislature.32 According to City University of New York professor Abraham Walker, these statements “inflamed fears that unionization would cause the plant to close or at least cancel its planned expansion, and in doing so, destroy Chattanooga’s increasingly auto-dependent economy.”33
Anti-union politicians also criticized Volkswagen, particularly for its neutral position on workers’ effort to join the union. Sen. Corker said Volkswagen would become the “laughingstock in the business world” if the union election succeeded, and state Sen. Watson “publicly stated that the incentives were being approved on the condition that VW not voluntarily recognize the UAW.”34
At the same time, then-President Barack Obama privately expressed dismay with these anti-union efforts to sway workers but did not go far enough. According to legislative aides, President Obama said that everyone was in favor of unionization except for local politicians who “are more concerned about German shareholders than American workers.”35 Yet he made these remarks at a closed-door meeting with members of the U.S. House of Representatives. When he visited an Amazon fulfillment center in Chattanooga to deliver a speech about jobs for the middle class and the recent auto bailout, he said nothing of the organizing efforts underway at the Volkswagen facility.36
Initially, Volkswagen showed interest in voluntarily recognizing the union without an election. In the end, though, the company accepted antiworker politicians’ demands to not recognize the union based on workers’ signed membership cards and acquiesced to a separate election.
According to union organizers, anti-union politicians’ rhetoric likely changed workers’ preferences and contributed to the union’s defeat.37 Local organizer Richard Bensinger said, “It’s impactful when a politician, particularly a popular one and a well-known one, says, ‘If you vote for the union, you’re going to lose your job.’” Bob King, the UAW president at the time, argued the threats to shut down the plant were “really crippling” and created a “tremendously chilling impact” on workers. Larry Steele, a local organizer, said it was nearly impossible to “inoculate” workers from this barrage of threats from local politicians.
A new model for the bully pulpit
Fortunately, pro-worker policymakers are not just calling for labor and management to come together to resolve their differences during labor disputes. Increasingly, they are also expressing support for workers’ demands and vocally defending the need for workers to receive a share of the wealth they help create.
In part, this stronger rhetoric signals that political actors are responding to the public’s increasing support for unions. Support for unions among the American public in recent years is the highest it has been in decades, with a 67 percent approval rate.38 Approximately half of nonunion workers say they would join a union if they could.39
President Joe Biden made history last fall when he visited members of the UAW union on the picket line in Belleville, Michigan, during the union’s strike against Ford, General Motors, and Stellantis. This marked the first time a sitting president has visited a picket line.40 In his remarks to striking workers, President Biden made the administration’s support for workers’ demands clear: “You deserve what you’ve earned, and you’ve earned a hell of a lot more than you’re getting paid now.”41
Workers reported a marked difference from previous outreach. “It does make it national and it does bring attention,” said LaShawn English, a Michigan-based UAW region director.42
The Biden-Harris administration has offered support for workers organizing unions and exercising their right to bargain, calling these efforts “democracy in action” and offering support to specific organizing efforts, such as those at Starbucks, Tesla, Toyota, and Amazon.43
A pivotal moment occurred in April 2024 when workers at the same Volkswagen plant in Chattanooga, Tennessee, finally succeeded in unionizing.44 With a turnout of nearly 84 percent, workers voted 2,628 to 985 (73 percent) in favor of unionization.45 Ahead of the election, a coalition of six Southern governors released a statement urging workers to reject the union because it would threaten jobs in the state. However, the Biden-Harris administration stood on the side of workers, saying: “I believe American workers, too, should have a voice at work. The decision whether to join a union belongs to the workers.”46
Indeed, outspoken support for organizing can help to shape the public narrative around organizing fights and put pressure on companies to come to the table. After months of resistance to bargaining with newly organized employees, Starbucks recently announced with Starbucks Workers United that it would come to the table to bargain and agree to a fair process for organizing.47 Pressure on the company had ramped up, including in a Senate HELP Committee hearing on the NLRB’s numerous complaints against the company. At that hearing, Committee Chair Bernie Sanders (I-VT) accused Starbucks of waging “the most aggressive and illegal union busting campaign in the modern history of our country.”48
The bully pulpit may also play a key role in ensuring that the Biden-Harris administration can deliver on the core of its economic agenda. At the heart of the Biden-Harris administration’s economic strategy lies a commitment to high-quality union jobs. Federal investments to strengthen the country’s physical, digital, and clean energy infrastructures while creating good jobs include new standards and incentives baked into the spending programs. Nevertheless, the federal government is still refining its review and monitoring processes to make sure high standards are upheld across the board.49
The Biden-Harris administration, along with state and local officials, has been quick to celebrate how these investments can translate to good union jobs for working people across the country. For example, Gov. Josh Shapiro (D-PA) lauded $750 million in federal investments to support a clean hydrogen facility in Philadelphia, stating, “This investment is a game changer for our Commonwealth and for the energy economy—and in southeastern Pennsylvania, that means we’ll create 20,800 good paying union jobs in plumbing, pipefitting, electrical work, engineering and so much more.”50
However, policymakers must move beyond generalized support for high-quality union jobs to push companies receiving funds to uphold job quality commitments and comply with workplace laws throughout the lifetime of the investment. For example, federal policymakers have closely monitored the commitment of Blue Bird—an electric school bus builder in rural Georgia that received a federal grant—to respect workers’ rights as they organized, won a union election, and negotiated a first contract.51 The Biden-Harris administration also announced the semiconductor producer Micron Technology would meet with the Communications Workers of America to discuss labor peace for production workers at its publicly supported facilities in New York and Idaho.52 And the administration successfully lobbied for unionized labor in constructing the new Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co. semiconductor facility in Phoenix, Arizona, whose founder has long been openly opposed to working with unions.53
Pro-worker lawmakers support workers’ organizing rights at Blue Bird
Workers at Blue Bird, an electric school bus builder in rural Georgia receiving a federal grant, voted to unionize in May 2023.54 With Georgia’s private sector unionization rate hovering around just 3 percent, workers at the company faced an uphill battle in exercising their rights.55
Workers at the plant sought to unionize since the 1960s but faced vehement company opposition.56
However, this time, Blue Bird received a grant worth billions of dollars from the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) Clean School Bus Program, created through the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act. The grant for zero- and low-emissions buses included requirements that federal funds not be used to fight worker organizing efforts.57 Federal policymakers and worker advocates pressured the company to live up to its job quality commitments.58 Rep. Sanford Bishop (D-GA) wrote in an open letter to Blue Bird workers: “I have been a longtime supporter of the USW and its efforts to improve labor conditions and living standards for workers in Georgia. I want to encourage you in your effort to exercise your rights granted by the National Labor Relations Act.”59
According to union organizers at Blue Bird, the program provision put pressure on the company to soften its anti-union rhetoric. Organizer Alex Perkins said, “Compared to other companies we’ve had to deal with around this area, Blue Bird practically didn’t even have an anti-union campaign.”60
Blue Bird workers voted 697 to 435 (62 percent) to join the United Steelworkers, with an 80 percent turnout rate.61 Following the vote, the Biden-Harris administration released a statement expressing support for the workers: “Congratulations to the workers at Blue Bird in Fort Valley, Georgia, on their vote to unionize and join the United Steelworkers. … The fact is: the middle class built America. And unions built the middle class.”62
However, the work to unionize was not complete. Workers and the company had to negotiate a first contract governing wages, benefits, and work conditions. Last spring, in response to an EPA request for more information from bus manufacturers’ job quality and workforce development practices, Blue Bird reported that it was “working diligently with the United Steel Workers Union (USW) to establish our first Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA), following a majority vote in favor of unionization in May 2023.”63
Some workers questioned the company’s commitment to reaching an agreement, reporting strict new workplace regulations and heightened enforcement.64 Research shows that it takes more than a year, on average, for a union to obtain a first contract following certification.65
In order to help ensure that the election win translated into a first contract, federal appointees maintained pressure on the company to live up to its commitments. Acting Department of Labor Secretary Julie Su met with company CEO Phil Horlock in Georgia earlier this year encouraging the company to bargain in good faith and reach a contract with workers before the first anniversary of the vote.66 When workers and the company achieved this goal—with a contract providing at least a 12 percent raise to all workers and a more than 40 percent raise to the lowest-paid employees—the White House released a statement congratulating “members of the United Steelworkers and to Blue Bird for proving once again that meeting our clean energy goals is an opportunity to create good-paying union jobs for American workers.”67
Yet unionization rates are low in many of the emerging industries that will receive public support, such as electric vehicle battery and semiconductor production.68 Federal investment is also flowing across the United States, including in Southern states, where local political representatives are often anti-labor, and among foreign manufacturers with little experience with unionized labor in the United States.
The government should use public rhetoric and direct outreach to ensure compliance with workplace laws, such as the NLRA, and specific job quality standards and broader good jobs principles to which companies agreed by participating in federal assistance spending programs. This will help the government uphold its commitment to protecting workers’ rights in these industries and throughout the economy broadly.
This sort of rhetorical push is not a one-time or one-person exercise. It requires work across the government at the executive and agency levels, as well as ongoing public emphasis in interviews with the press. Advocates should use official speeches, high-level convenings, and private conversations to coax, convince, and pressure companies to respect workers in motion.
Strong public rhetoric can also help improve industry norms, as companies better understand the importance of respecting workers’ rights and creating good union jobs to the government’s industrial investment strategy. In fact, this message also can be aimed at international audiences so that foreign companies and their home governments understand the expectation to comply with labor standards on their U.S. investments and how doing so will help them recruit and retain a well-qualified workforce.69
Finally, this type of work requires ongoing focus. Rhetoric and oversight can help workers win union elections, ensure workers and employers negotiate a first contract, and verify that the employer abides by these terms. Indeed, many applicants for federal investment funds are making commitments to respect workers in production facilities that have not yet been built. The work to ensure these companies comply with the standards set forth today will not be completed for years to come.
Conclusion
For decades, antiworker politicians used their bully pulpit to aggressively undermine workers seeking to unionize—with great success. Pro-worker elected officials should use the bully pulpit to encourage workers to exercise their rights, push lawbreaking corporations to come into compliance, and ensure public investments create good jobs. From Fort Valley, Georgia, to Phoenix, Arizona, pro-worker politicians have already charted this new path of encouragement. Building on this momentum will ensure workers can climb the ladder of economic mobility.