TRADE UNION DESK: Access all workplaces

Divide, delay, distract, and demoralise: These are the ‘four Ds’ of union busting and they are in regular deployment across this island, writes John O’Farrell of the Irish Congress of Trade Unions (ICTU).

There is a well-documented aversion of US tech titans to workers having a voice or a choice about who represents them. Sometimes, it is made abundantly clear by obvious populist-plutocrats like Michael O’Leary, winner of the ‘world’s worst boss’ poll at the 2018 International Trade Union Confederation World Congress, for firing workers who formed a union and barked that ‘hell would freeze over’ before there would be unions in his company – though Ryanair subsequently signed an agreement with Unite the Union and Fórsa in 2018, representing respective workers based in the UK and Ireland.

They now have a ‘Freedom of Association Policy’ which asserts that: “Ryanair fully respects and supports workers democratic rights to participate or not participate in trade unions without fear of intimidation, pressure, or reprisal. We support the International Labour Organization’s (ILO) Declaration on Fundamental Rights and Principles at Work, including the ILO declaration on the freedom of association and the right to collective bargaining.”

Ryanair’s most recent annual profit, for the year ending March 2024, was €1.92 billion, a 34 per cent increase compared to the previous year. Reported profit for 2025 was down slightly to €1.61 billion, a decrease blamed on a reduction in average fares. Its CEO’s remuneration package was €3.83 million.

Collective bargaining has clearly not dented the airline we all hate but must fly. Which questions the costs that certain businesses pay to keep unions out. Union busters are high-paid consultants that companies hire to keep their employees from unionising. Their core methodology is the ‘four Ds’:

• Divide: Isolate union organisers and pit employees against each other;
• Delay: Drag out unionisation, through informal stalling tactics or formal legal processes;
• Distract: Shift employees’ attention away from union issues by introducing new projects, or creating artificial deadlines, effectively diverting focus from union organising; and
• Demoralise: Make the workplace uncomfortable or hostile for union supporters, potentially through intimidation, unfair disciplinary actions.

An ICTU survey of 150 union officials in 2024 found familiar patterns. 95 per cent of union officials stated that employers delayed or stonewalled responding to unions. 80 per cent of union officials evoked employers’ efforts to reduce union demands through pay and work conditions improvement or the establishment of alternative forums to unions. 92 per cent of union officials reported victimisation of union member and activists, followed by the recourse to management consultants to avoid unions and the monitoring of employee communications.

This is not only bad for staff morale, evidence shows it is damaging our economy’s productivity. As NERI’s Lisa Wilson recently observed, “improving productivity is not just about capital and skills. It also depends on how work is experienced and structured”.

“The 2024 UK Skills and Employment Survey which includes a robust sample from Northern Ireland offers some of the clearest evidence yet that how much worker voice and participation have in their job matters, not just for well-being but for motivation and organisational performance.”

In other words, a successful company works well for both directors, shareholders and its employees when all three groups feel part of the same story. “Strengthening trade unions and independent worker representation is an essential component of the Good Jobs Bill and is backed by evidence. It is not just the results from this survey. There is broad consensus within the literature that trade union voice offers the most effective and meaningful means of employee influence,” asserts Wilson.

Barriers to trade union access to workers who seek representation are a bad bet. Easier access saves everyone time, money and bureaucracy. For the ‘Good Jobs’ Bill coming shortly to the NI Assembly, keeping it simple is the best option. The method proposed in Labour’s GB Employment Rights Bill is fraught with opportunities for bad faith employers to employ the ‘four Ds’.

A better option has been in New Zealand law since 2000 and has worked well for both employers and employees to “build productive employment relationships through the promotion of good faith in all aspects of the employment environment and the employment relationship”. On that, there ought to be no division.