The debate centers on whether it's a sellout for unions to agree, sometimes secretly, with big employers to limit their recruitment drives in some locations in return for more access elsewhere, or whether those deals are simple pragmatism at a time of declining union enrollment and continuing corporate opposition to unions.
Consider, for a moment, two Service Employees' efforts to organize security guards in Philadelphia.
Last week, with the Liberty Bell as a backdrop and the requisite politicians and posters, the SEIU announced a national push to organize Wackenhut Corp. guards, including those at Independence Hall.
By contrast, the same union, in a move that stunned local labor activists, pulled out of an active campaign to organize area AlliedBarton guards at the University of Pennsylvania and Temple University.
"It almost killed our campaign," said Thomas Robinson, a Penn security guard.
SEIU had cut a deal with AlliedBarton. In return for exiting Philadelphia in 2006, the union said it was able to unionize 8,000 security guards in Boston, Los Angeles, Washington and Seattle.
These kinds of deals - called neutrality agreements - are increasingly common. The trade-off is labor peace for the companies in return for their allowing access to union organizers.
But what has come to light lately - largely through publicity generated by Stern's opposition within his union - are some of the terms negotiated as part of "labor peace."
Among the most controversial are confidentiality provisions, particularly about the union's willingness to restrict its organizing efforts.
In these agreements, unions and companies skip the National Labor Relations Board election process in favor of simply allowing workers to sign cards if they want a union.
