In their public communications, executives of Borders Books and Music say that while they oppose unions at Borders, they respect the right of employees to investigate the option, and they believe the best path to discouraging unionization is through open and honest communication.

The factual record is quite different. In reality, Borders anti-union strategy features bullying, emotional manipulation and retaliation against pro-union employees, and the refusal to bargain in good faith with stores that go union.

This pattern has been repeated in many of the 12 stores that have held union elections. The most notorious incident received a lot of press coverage: it occurred in Philadelphia, where a pro-union employee was summarily fired. Filmmaker Michael Moore publically intervened on her behalf, while the IWW labor union picketed stores nationwide; however, there have been other, less well-known incidents during election campaigns and contract negotiations.

An Illegal Firing in Ann Arbor

Before employees in Ann Arbor voted 51 to 4 for unionization, store managers hatched a plan to intimidate and divide employees from one another. Foolishly, they discussed this plan in a public place - a bar across the street from the store - and non-employee union supporters heard every word, and later testified to the National Labor Relations Board, which subsequently ordered that Borders restore back-pay to a fired union supporter.

At the "clandestine" pub meeting, the General Manager started out by saying that it was likely that the union would be voted in, and that once voted in, it was their job to get rid of it. After a silence, three of the four managers present began discussing how to union bust. "We've got to act like assholes," one manager opined. They discussed several employees, denigrating their characters and work, marvelling at their sense of entitlement to their jobs. In reality, these employees had very positive work records.

The Cafe/Multimedia manager said that they should start by alienating the cafe from the rest of the group. They later began doing this by first telling everyone in the cafe that they couldn't accept tips because the rest of the staff didn't think it fair.

Once the employees caught wind of this rumor they circulated a nearly unaminous petition for the cafe workers to be allowed to receive tips. Backed into a corner with his own lies, the General Manager allowed the cafe workers at store #01 to receive tips for the first time.

They further advanced their union-busting goals by firing a long-term employee for what was clearly a misinterpretation of policy on his part. Borders later paid him back salary as restitution for their blatant union-busting on recommendation from the NLRB.

The NLRB decision also formed the legal basis for the successful strike in Ann Arbor.

Harassment in Stamford

In the Stamford store, after the union drive became known to Borders, a number of executives, along with trainers from other stores, descended upon the store. The trainers and the executives - including Director of Human Resources, Murray Coleman, a British ex-cop who sold his services to Borders after learning of the union campaign on the internet - proceeded to monitor and harass the store employees during the course of several weeks, following them around the store as they performed their duties.

According to charges filed by employees with the National Labor Relations Board, Coleman singled out one employee in particular for abuse: Samarpana, the "leader" of the union drive in the store. According to Samarpana's testmony, on multiple occasions Coleman yelled at her while she was performing her job:

On January 17, 1997, during the afternoon, I was in the basement speaking to the receiving clerk while I filled boxes with books to bring upstairs. It was known throughout the store that I was in favor of the union. As I spoke with the receiving clerk, Mr. Coleman came down the stairs. He left, and a minute later came back to the stairs and yelled at me: 'Samarpana, what are you doing down here? We: don't pay you to talk - get up on the floor and stay there; you've got no business here.' I was badly frightened and shocked by such harsh treatment. Four days later, I was helping a customer find a book in poetry. (This Is part of our job - to help customers in any section of the store.) Mr. Coleman walked by and came back and threateningly told me: 'Get back to your section. There are customers in children's.' Mr. Coleman tried to restrain my movements within the store and to restrain me from speaking with other employees and literally from doing my job, which is to help all customers. I am a very serious employee and have never had any problems with management before.

Unknown to Samarpana, store managers had sat down with Borders executives and planned her elimination from the staff. An employee of the Stamford store contacted the Borders Union Web site and told us this:

'Do any of you know what did happen in #38 Stamford... One of Borders Managers there had an idea to move Samarpana out of the childrens section. This idea was shared during a dinner with the GM, another AM, Murray Coleman and the head of Store Ops. The idea was greeted with positive overtones and it was actually played out. This was done purposefully to get rid of Samarpana the Union leader at #38 and it worked.

When Samarpana informed an AM she liked that she was leaving, that AM informed the GM, who, typical to her loud, and over-zealous personality, screamed with delight, 'We did it!'

Come on guys, get with it and do something. If there ever was a store that was Union Busting, #38 was at the head of the line. '

According to another employee, Borders' focus seems to be on degrading us and humiliating us to the point where we feel like we have no rights all, including the right to unionize. Borders made our store an emotional battleground; their tactic was to make it all into a personal attack�

It's no surprise that given this treatment, employees voted 27 to 10 against the union, seemingly just to get peace restored to their workplace. Unfortunately, after the anti-union vote, Borders retaliated against the pro-union employees who remained in the store:

During the campaign BGI used a lot of unfair tactics and told a lot of lies and we lost... The union filed objections and I supported them to the point of testifying to the NLRB. Borders responded wih harsher working conditions such as 4 and 5 hour shifts behind the register, arbitrary changes in schedules & selective disciplining of pro-union employees... Conditions got so bad that 4 employees quit in three days, many without having new jobs lined up.

The most glaring example of this came when a vocally anti-union employee yelled loudly at me in the store 'Jon why dont you just quit?' and launched into a tirade against unionizers. When I complained to our GM she initiailly said 'It's not a performance issue I'm not getting involved.' Only after I repeatedly asked and brought forward a witness to my harassment did she agree to 'talk' to this employee.

Crocodile Tears in Seattle

In what can only be described as a "good cop/bad cop" routine, Borders has historically not only relied on bullying in its anti-union campaigns, but also on tugging at the heartstrings of employees.

In Seattle, employees narrowly voted against union representation. Support had been strong at the start, but gradually eroded during the anti-union campaign which featured visits by Borders CEO, Bob DiRomualdo; Director of Employee Relations, Jim Lathrop; President of  Borders Stores and Borders Online, Tami Heim; and others.

Heim reportedly cried in every meeting, and a few of the store's Assistant Managers joined in. In the first mandatory all-store anti-union meeting, it was announced that the popular General Manager  was leaving. The employee organizing committee, in its communications, had made clear that the union campaign was based on economic issues, not on problems with the management. Borders response was to make it all personal:

As the events of the past two weeks have unfolded, we feel it is time to give our response. Several people have told us that the recently issued manifesto and the petition should not be taken personally, that 'this has nothing to do with the managers of the store -- we are sending a message to corporate.' In response to that statement, we do take this very personally!!!!! We sought Borders out because it is a very unique company, a company that has a staff as diversified as its product line. While we each got into this business for different reasons, we as a group enjoy the fact that this is a personal business, a business of people...

By signing cards petitioning for union representation you have in effect said, 'Sorry, Sharon, Tom, Dean, Katie, you're not doing your job, we want someone else.' You may not have realized that is what you did, but you did. If that is what you feel, then fine, we did the best job that we could...

We have something very special here; we are not going to lose it. We are going to do everything we can to educate you, so that when properly informed, you will choose to vote NO on June 3rd.

While Heim and the assistant managers tugged on heartstrings, Jim Lathrop attacked; according to an employee:

Neither the crc or oc are outspoken against the union, in fact they are both on the fence. Actually our crc might be leaning towards yes now because Jim Lathrop yelled at her a few days ago when she jokingly asked if she should get a lawyer.

Six weeks after the staff voted against the union, an employee reported that stress levels in the store were at an all time high:

...We were quite saddened at Mark's (old GM) leaving. Most folks believe he really wanted to be transferred, but as he had only been in Seattle 6 months, I remain skeptical.

The 'open door' policy is a myth in Seattle. [the new GM]... ALWAYS keeps her door closed. There are constantly management meetings going on. We never see managers on the floor.

This wouldn't be so bad if we weren't so incredibly short staffed. And I mean INCREDIBLY. We were short 4 booksellers and one cafe and music seller prior to our election. Naturally the powers that be said they couldn't hire anyone during the whole union process...

The booksellers are stretched so thin that over half want to quit. Hell, I bet that number is around 75%. But you know what? I bet that is what [the new GM] wants. She would like any bookseller who was here for the election drive gone. regardless on how you voted. No one likes working there anymore...

...Four people have come up to me and said they wish they voted for the union. Those four would have changed the outcome.

Bad Faith Contract Negotiations

In stores that voted the union in, Borders negotiating style has been characterized by stalling, refusal to bargain on economic issues, and intimidation of union negotiators and of employees who sit in on negotiations.

In negotiations at the Bryn Mawr store, Borders representatives walked out of a negotiation session. An employee present reported:

That's right they walked but only after Jim Lathrop called one of our UFCW negotiators an 'asshole' and a 'jerk' and [Jackson, Lewis attorney] Mark Shiffman remarked that our negotiating committee '...doesn't know what's going on.' Seems that being told three or four times that we would not respond to their counter-offer until we could see their entire proposal was not enough. They insisted that we respond and claimed that the Local did not know how to negotiate a contract...This incident will be used by Borders in other stores as an attempt to smear the Union. The truth of the matter is that we were willing to take the remainder of their proposal today and then caucus until we had a complete counter-offer to give them. They walked.

The source of contention in several negotiations has been Borders refusal to provide information in a timely fashion, and refusal to engage in bargaining over economic issues until the very last possible moment. The negotiating syle of Borders executive Jim Lathrop, and of the attorneys from the law firm Jackson, Lewis, has been repeatedly characterized as belligerant and disrespectful. An employee present at negotiations for the World Trade Center store reported:

We had a 4 hour negotiating session today that got pretty heated at times.

In our last negotiation session, Oct. 27th, we asked Lou Silverman (Jackson, Lewis Attorney who lives up to his reputation quite well) to send us a complete counter-proposal in advance of today's session so we would have time to review it before talks today. They failed to do so, and presented their counter-proposal to us at the table today. We were angry at this, as we had sent them volumes of information--indeed, virtually everything they asked for in terms of economics, health care options, etc.

When our attorney expressed his surprise at their lack of an adequate response, Silverman said that they had merely agreed to 'try' to get us their counter-proposal in advance, and they did try and couldn't do it in time. We felt that this was merely a stalling technique on their part.

The counter-proposal they brought forth today, however, lacked any information on economic proposals. We expressed to them quite clearly that this was not sufficient. Silverman then said that in his experience, he felt it was 'more efficient' to discuss language first, economics last. We disagreed with this, and told them that we want to negotiate this as a complete package, as any economic gains (or lack thereof) will have a tremendous effect on what our committee would consider in non-economic language. And as our attorney explained, judging from the experiences of the other stores' contract talks thus far, their idea of 'efficiency' in negotiations is not something we care too much about. This caused a little spat, which ended unresolved.

Later, Jim Lathrop showed his true colors with a little display of belligerence and disrespect that he's becoming well known for. We were discussing a certain issue, and our lead negotiator asked an employee at the table to elaborate on the issue from the shop-floor perspective. When the employee began to do this, Lathrop cut him off and said 'No, I'm talking to him, not you' (referring back to negotiator). Our attorney was very put off by this, as was everyone on our side of the table. Our attorney asked Silverman to tell his client to please show some respect and professionalism at the table, and that this type of behavior was completely uncalled for. SIlverman said 'I didn't hear anything disrespectful.' and things got very heated.

After that, things were tense at the table for most of the rest of the session. We did come a small bit closer toward an agreement on a few larger issues, but nothing too close yet. Meanwhile, we feel that discussing the contract language without a discussion of economics is like trying to drive a car without the wheels. And their counter-proposal today seemed far behind some of the agreements reached in Chicago.

In Chicago, Borders not only refused to engage in economic bargaining, but also threatened an employee present on the negotiating team:

Last wednesday, 6/11, we meet with the company again. After some opening pleasantries, Borders got down to the brass tax: no wage increases; no cuts in health care costs; no Sunday premium; no extra holiday; no cross-training premium; no 40 hours a week... I've given up trying to argue with these guys. Its obvious that they've convinced themselves that their way is the right way and any information contrary isn't applicable. Nonetheless, I noted to the Borders team that the two independents down the street from us start their employees at higher wage and offer them better health care coverage than those at our store. Sure, we do better than B&N, but not better than the independents that Borders is running out of business. It was then suggested to me by [Jackson, Lewis attorney] Mark Shiffman that I go get a job at an independent. Jim Lathrop added that as I was obviously so disloyal to Borders that I didn't deserve a raise.

The tip of the iceberg

The preceding examples, of course, are only a small selection of what has transpired over the past six years: there have been union votes at twelve stores and serious union campaigns at a dozen others, and there are more stories yet to be told.

We, the current and former employees who constitute the online community at BordersUnion.com, respectfully request that Borders executives and their attorneys generate no new stories of egregious anti-union behavior, now that the Borders employee organizing campaign is in full-swing again. If you do, everyone will know.