The Billion-Dollar Blockade: US Companies Spend $1.5B Annually to Ward Off Unions
Table of Contents
The Cost of Opposition
Corporate America is spending upwards of $1.5 billion every year to ensure its workforce remains non-unionized. According to a new report released Wednesday by the Economic Policy Institute (EPI), this massive financial outlay is directed toward a specialized ecosystem of union-avoidance consultants, high-priced law firms, and litigation services designed to derail organizing campaigns before they can gain traction.
The figures highlight a sophisticated industry built around ‘persuader’ activities. The EPI estimates that $442 million of that total spend goes specifically to consultants who specialize in the art of union avoidance. These firms are often brought in during the heat of an election or at the first sign of a grassroots organizing drive, utilizing tactical playbooks to shift employee sentiment.
Amazon has emerged as a primary example of this trend. Based on filings with the US Department of Labor, the e-commerce giant spent $26.6 million in 2025 alone on union-avoidance consultants. In a response to the findings, an Amazon spokesperson defended the expenditure, arguing that the company is simply ensuring employees have access to the truth. “It’s important that our teammates and partners understand the truth,” the spokesperson stated via email, claiming the consultants provide “objective facts” about the implications of third-party representation.
A Systematic Erosion of Density
The financial investment in union-busting is not just about individual warehouses or storefronts; it is part of a broader, decades-long trend of declining union density in the United States. Margaret Poydock, a senior policy analyst at the EPI and co-author of the report, suggests that the proliferation of these specialized law firms has played a pivotal role in this decline. In 1983, union density sat at 20.3%; today, that figure has plummeted to just 10%.
This decline persists despite a surprising shift in public sentiment. Recent Gallup polling indicates that nearly 70% of Americans now approve of labor unions, creating a stark disconnect between general public support and the actual organizational capacity of workers on the ground.
The report specifically calls out Littler Mendelson, a powerhouse law firm that has represented brands like Starbucks, Delta Air Lines, and Amazon. Littler Mendelson doesn’t just litigate; it operates its own Workplace Policy Institute. Through this arm, the firm has actively tracked and opposed legislation intended to broaden worker protections. This includes fighting California’s AB5—a bill aimed at stopping worker misclassification—and supporting Proposition 22, which allowed gig-economy apps to maintain the classification of drivers as independent contractors rather than employees.
The Legal War of Attrition
For workers who do manage to win a union election, the struggle often shifts from the ballot box to the courtroom. Teke Wiggin, a strategic coordinator at LaborLab and co-author of the report, argues that the current legal framework allows employers to leverage a massive power imbalance. The goal, Wiggin suggests, is often to bend the will of workers through sheer endurance.
The data suggests a pattern of systemic delay. A previous EPI study found that employers are charged with violating labor law in 41.5% of all union elections. These violations often manifest as delay tactics and endless appeals, which stretch the timeline for reaching a first contract. On average, it now takes 465 days for workers to secure a first contract after winning an election—though in some cases, the wait is significantly longer. Starbucks serves as a primary example, where workers have still not reached a first contract since the first US store successfully unionized in 2021.
“These law firms and consultants are essentially exploiting loopholes and weaknesses in our federal labor law,” Poydock noted, suggesting that the financial resources available to corporations allow them to effectively litigate against the fundamental right to free association.