Although the overall effect of labor unions represents a point of disagreement, most companies prefer not to have their employees represented by a union. The interest in preserving nonunion status has lead to the development of many diverse means of deterring unionization. These techniques are primarily provided by academicians who usually engage in empirical research, and by labor practitioners who base their writing on personal experience.

This study serves to bring together the various techniques of union-avoidance, presenting those techniques as long-term, "preventive" actions, or as short-term responses to actual organizational activity. Further, the study examined the value of these techniques in actually deterring unionization. Finally, the study examined the possibility that a relatively few, particular techniques of union-avoidance were specially effective in preserving non-union status.

Correlation and frequency analysis indicate that several of the techniques appearing in the literature are, in fact, related to company election victory. Other techniques, as identified in the literature, were not related to election outcome. Seven specific union-avoidance techniques were primarily responsible for distinguishing election losers from election winners.

Companies which hope to remain non-union must be prepared to implement programs which are actually effective in deterring unionization. Failure to develop such programs will be unnecessarily costly and ineffective.