Two Philadelphia companies and one of the nation's largest labor unions - led by a former Philadelphian - are at the heart of fiery debate about union tactics.

 

The union is the purple-shirted, 1.7-million-member Service Employees International Union, led by Andy Stern, a dynamic University of Pennsylvania graduate who got his start in organized labor by heading a social workers' union local in Philadelphia.

 

The two companies are national giants - the food-service monolith Aramark Inc., with its Center City office tower, and one of the nation's largest providers of security guards, AlliedBarton Security Services L.P., of King of Prussia.

 

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.

 

"Thousands of workers have won a voice in a short period of time, which is a success story," said SEIU spokesman Andrew McDonald, defending the deals.

 

"The story is about workers in hard-to-organize businesses who are going up against the largest multinationals in the world," he said.

 

Indeed, unions struggle to organize security guards and food-service workers. That's because they work in high turnover jobs, in scattered geographic locations, and in subcontracted situations, where any increase in pay may cost the contractor business.

 

"We've had 30 years of unsuccessful organizing in the private sector," said Jeffrey Keefe, a Rutgers University professor of labor and employment relations.

 

"Militancy hasn't really worked. It's not as if labor hasn't tried a number of strategies, but none of them have been particularly successful."

 

In 2005, the SEIU began an effort to organize AlliedBarton security guards, embarking on its typical creative and strategic approach.

 

Like any start-up on the business side, the SEIU carefully researched the industry, market conditions, major employers, potential allies, government pressure points, and the workforce demographics.