In today’s news and commentary, a new report finds that U.S. employers spend $1.7B on union avoidance each year and the International Court of Justice declares the right to strike a protected activity. 

A report released by the Economic Policy Institute (EPI) this week found that U.S. employers spend roughly $1.7 billion annually on union avoidance. The EPI’s findings reveal a massive underreporting problem: employers are not required to report money spent on lawyers that provide “advice” services, which is broadly interpreted to exempt almost all activities that do not involve direct contact with workers. Additionally, 57% of employers known to owe a financial disclosure for hiring a union avoidance consultant in 2024 failed to submit the required form by the filing deadline. Further, only 153 employers filed a financial disclosure in 2024 despite over 3,200 union election petitions being filed that year, revealing significant employer underreporting. Amazon alone spent over $26.6 million on union avoidance consultants in 2025. Other major spenders include UnityPoint Health (~$2.1M), LabCorp (~$2M), and Premier Health (~$800K).

The report also highlights the law firms that are the biggest players in the union avoidance industry: Littler Mendelson, Ogletree Deakins, Jackson Lewis, Seyfarth Shaw, Morgan Lewis, and Fisher & Phillips. Altogether these firms handled 19.1% of all NLRB cases in 2024, generating an estimated $282 million from their company-level labor practices alone. These firms represented employers in fighting against some of the largest organizing drives in recent years, including Amazon, Starbucks, and Trader Joe’s. As the report notes: “While the NLRB election process is supposed to be relatively simple, the strategy of union avoidance law firms follows a standard playbook—they use their overwhelming resources to exploit the NLRB’s administrative processes and sometimes create nearly endless delays.” For example, only last month did the Board order Amazon—who is known to have hired Littler Mendelson, Morgan Lewis, and Ogletree Deakins—to bargain with its workers who voted to unionize over four years ago.

Yesterday, the International Court of Justice issued an advisory opinion holding that the right to strike is protected under the International Labor Organization (ILO) Convention No. 87, also known as the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise, which is an international treaty ratified by member states in 1948. The opinion comes two and a half years after the ILO—a tripartite U.N. agency comprised of governments, employers and workers from 187 member states that work together to establish labor standards and policies that protect workers across the globe—requested the advisory opinion. In a 10 to 4 vote, the ICJ concluded that “protection of the right to strike is encompassed in the protection of the freedom of association provided for in Convention No. 87” because “strike action is one of the main activities engaged in and tools used by workers and their organizations to promote their interests and improve conditions of labour.” Labor advocates anticipate that this decision by the highest international court will influence countries that have not yet recognized workers’ right to strike.