Even as U.S. companies spend $1.7 billion annually to stop union formation, labor union participation is increasing

(SeaPRwire) –   On Tuesday, members of the newly formed App Drivers Union celebrated their victory with a rally outside the Massachusetts State House, marking the certification of the first statewide union for rideshare workers, which represents nearly 70,000 individuals.

This organized group of Uber and Lyft drivers represents a rare, though increasingly common, instance of new unions emerging in the U.S. In 2025, 16.5 million U.S. workers, or one-tenth of the workforce, were union members. This figure marks the highest number of unionized workers in 16 years, an increase of 463,000 since 2024. However, unionization levels are still significantly lower than their peak in 1954, when one in three Americans belonged to a union.

According to a study by the union-busting watchdog LaborLab and the progressive, pro-union think tank the Economic Policy Institute (EPI), U.S. employers spent an estimated $1.7 billion last year to oppose union formation. This estimate includes all expenses for attorneys’ services, such as representation and consulting, as well as fees for non-attorney consultants.

Unionized positions typically offer higher wages and better benefits, which can lead to employer opposition due to the costs associated with providing these benefits. Last year, President Donald Trump issued an executive order that ended collective bargaining for federal labor unions. Federal workers are not the only ones encountering significant resistance to unionization.

The spending is directed towards preventing union elections and, when elections do occur, influencing employees to vote against union formation. The study also indicates that consultants work to delay negotiations for collective bargaining agreements, and employers exploit the processes of the National Labor Relations Board to create delays for workers.

Teke Wiggin, a co-author of the study and the strategic coordinator at LaborLab, stated to that in many situations, employers could allocate the funds spent on consultants and attorneys towards providing their workers with a decent raise and a first contract. He added that recognizing the union and negotiating a fair first contract would often involve the same amount of expenditure.

Wiggin expressed regret that this approach is not more common.

Under the Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act (LMRDA), employers are required to report expenditures made to consultants hired to influence employees regarding organizing and collective bargaining. However, more general “advice” services, described in the study as “ill-defined,” are exempt from reporting, suggesting that the total spending on union opposition is likely considerably higher.

In 2024, 153 employers filed financial disclosures related to hiring union consultants. However, with over 3,200 union election petitions filed and a separate LaborLab report indicating that more than 70% of employees hire consultants when facing union organizing, this suggests significant underreporting. If most consultant “advice” were included, the EPI estimates that employers spend $442 million annually on both attorney and non-attorney consultants for anti-union campaign services, excluding representation or counsel.

Amazon was identified as one of the highest spenders, reporting $26 million on union consultants, according to the study. The company paid the anti-union consulting firm The Rayla Group over $5 million, as detailed in its 2025 LM-10 union consultant expenditure report.

An Amazon spokesperson informed that the company has invested over $1 billion annually to increase wages and reduce healthcare costs for its U.S. fulfillment and transportation employees.

Amazon spokesperson Sam Stephenson told in a statement that “External groups spent an extraordinary amount of time and money to spread misinformation—frequently and illegally lying to, or intimidating our teammates and partners.”

Stephenson further stated, “It’s important that our teammates and partners understand the truth, so we’ve continued to work with experts in the field who are able to share objective facts about what it actually means to have an external party take their voice. And when the facts are shared and understood, what we’ve seen is that our teammates and partners consistently prefer a direct relationship with their managers and overwhelmingly reject misinformation.”