Using Civil Rights Discourse and International Political Pressure to Organize: The UAW's Campaign at Nissan Canton, Mississippi

Full text

Using Civil Rights Discourse and International Political Pressure to Organize:
The UAW’s Campaign at Nissan Canton, Mississippi
Stephen J. Silvia
Professor, School of International Service
American University
4400 Massachusetts Ave., NW
Washington, DC 20016-8071
202.885.2462
ssilvia@american.edu
Presented at the 71st Annual Meeting of the Labor Employment Research Association. Cleveland, Ohio,
12-16 June 2019
Keywords: multinational firms, labor-management relations
JEL Classification: F23, J5

SJ Silvia, Using Civil Rights and International Pressure to Organize, LERA 2019, p. 1
Introduction
In the early 2010s, the United Auto Workers under Bob King’s leadership decided to
launch organizing drives at three recently built foreign owned plants: Mercedes Benz US
International in Vance, Alabama; Volkswagen in Chattanooga, Tennessee; and Nissan in Canton,
Mississippi. Although the timing of the drives and Bob King’s argumentation for doing them
was the same and all three plants are in the South, the approach the union took in Mississippi
was strikingly different from that in Alabama and Tennessee. In Mississippi, the heart of the
campaign was to equate the unionization effort with the great struggle of the 1950s and 1960s to
achieve full civil rights for African Americans. The logic behind this focus was sound. Eighty
percent of the workforce in Nissan’s Canton plant was African American and Mississippi was a
cradle of the civil rights movement. A campaign that depicted labor rights and organizing as
civil rights fit both the workforce and the larger community. The execution of this central plank
of the organizing drive was successful. Union supporters built a strong external organization
anchored in black churches, civil rights organizations, and historically black colleges and
universities. UAW officials also succeeded in developing second prong for the campaign,
namely, a network of foreign support to pressure Nissan management to change its behavior at
the Canton plant.
The organizing drive nonetheless failed for four reasons: (1) the weak labor market in
Mississippi beyond the Nissan plant led many employees to be grateful for their jobs and
reluctant to risk disrupting the status quo; (2) Nissan management quickly put into place an
aggressive anti-union campaign, drawing heavily from experience gained in two recent
organizing drives at the company’s Smyrna Tennessee plant; (3) union supporters did not pursue
a sustained and coordinated public relations campaign or a boycott to change Nissan

SJ Silvia, Using Civil Rights and International Pressure to Organize, LERA 2019, p. 2
management’s behavior; and (4) union supporters failed to develop a strong workers organizing
committee within the plant. As a result, union supporters did not have even the most basic
information about the sentiments of large numbers of Nissan Canton employees, or the capacity
to take action in the workplace to demonstrate effectiveness of a nascent union body in advance
of the union recognition election.
Nissan – Mississippi
From 1983 into the late 1990s, Nissan’s Smyrna, Tennessee, facility was the company’s
sole assembly plant in the United States. Nissan enlarged that plant on numerous occasions,
adding both output and new models. Eventually, however, the physical limitations of the plant
and property made further expansion unattractive. Nissan first addressed this problem by
building a powertrain plant an hour south of Smyrna in Dercherd, Tennessee, which opened in
May 1997. The Dercherd plant helped to increase the Smyrna factory’s output, but it became
clear that Nissan would only be able to add new models if it built a second assembly plant. As a
result, Nissan management announced in early 2000 its intention to build a new factory. In June
2000, a site-selection firm working for Nissan began contacting several state agencies, including
the Mississippi Development Authority (MDA), about potential sites but did not disclose that
Nissan was the client. In early August, Nissan management informed the MDA that Nissan was
behind the inquiry and that there were six southeastern states still under consideration (Clarion
Ledger, 10 November 2000 and 7 April 2001).
A “war between the states” to land major manufacturing plants had become
commonplace at least since the early 1990s (Gupta, 2003, p. 30). The state of Mississippi had
participated in many of these contests, but had always come up empty handed. Newly-elected

SJ Silvia, Using Civil Rights and International Pressure to Organize, LERA 2019, p. 3
Democratic governor Ronnie Musgrove made securing this plant a priority. Musgrove first
spoke with Nissan officials in July 2000. In August, the Governor called a special session of the
Mississippi legislature to pass a law to expand the state government’s authority to offer
incentives to attract major investments. The Mississippi Advantage Jobs Act created state
income-tax breaks for substantial development projects, increased the tax credit available for
training individuals to become employees at such projects, and allowed for quarterly cash
incentive payments to companies that fulfilled investment goals (Clarion Ledger, 26 October
2000).
In the third week of September 2000, Mississippi Development Authority Director J. C.
Burns and other state officials went to the Smyrna plant to talk with Nissan executives. A week
later, Burns, Musgrove and Mississippi Republican United States Senator Trent Lott flew to Los
Angeles to make Mississippi’s pitch directly to Nissan’s chief executive officer, Carlos Ghosn.
Ghosn spent 45 minutes with the delegation, which the Mississippians took as a promising sign.
In October, Lott, who was also United States Senate Majority Leader at the time, added a
provision to a federal spending bill to designate parts of Madison County, including the intended
site for the plant, as a “renewal community,” thus making businesses locating there eligible for
federal tax breaks (Clarion Ledger, 10 November 2000).
In early October 2000, the MDA learned that Nissan management had winnowed down
the field to Alabama and Mississippi. In late October, Nissan notified Mississippi
representatives that theirs was the “state of choice” for the new plant, but the state needed to
enact additional measures to close the deal. On November 1, Governor Musgrove announced
that he was calling in the Mississippi legislature for a one-day special session five days later to
consider “an act to induce the location of a major capital economic development project

SJ Silvia, Using Civil Rights and International Pressure to Organize, LERA 2019, p. 4
proposed for Madison County.” Musgrove did not specify the company because he had signed a
confidentiality agreement, but speculation was widespread that the project was the Nissan plant
(Clarion Ledger, 2 November 2000 and 7 April 2001).
On the day of the special session, State Senator Richard White, a Republican critic of
Musgrove, quipped, “Look’s like we’ve got a governor and a lobbyist all in one,” because
Musgrove personally worked with Mississippi lawmakers in the statehouse throughout the day to
ensure the speedy passage of a satisfactory bill. Action was also required at the local level
before Nissan management would commit to the project. On November 7, after some hesitation,
the council for the city of Canton (2000 population 12,900) agreed to a Nissan management
requirement by voting that city would not try to annex the Nissan site (which bordered Canton)
for at least 30 years without the company’s permission. Mississippi and Nissan officials
completed the contract on the evening after the vote in Canton, and on November 9 announced
the company’s decision to build the plant in Mississippi. Nissan management planned to start
producing vehicles at the plant by mid 2003 (Clarion Ledger, 7 and 10 November 2000).
The reaction in Mississippi to the news of the agreement to build a Nissan plant was
exuberant. Banners on streetlights along major roads leading into Jackson, the state capital,
proclaimed, “Nissan – Mississippi.” A page-one headline in the Jackson Clarion Ledger, the
newspaper of record in Mississippi, quoted a resident calling the decision “a blessing from God.”
Senator Trent Lott, effused, “Finally, we get to say it – Nissan in Canton, Mississippi. Doesn’t it
sound good?” (Clarion Ledger, 10 November 2000; and Site Selection, 13 November 2000).
Nissan management chose Mississippi because the state and Madison County offered the
company a generous initial incentives package that totaled $430.5 million for a plant that would
produce 250,000 vehicles per year, employ 3,000, and had an initial price tag of $930 million.

SJ Silvia, Using Civil Rights and International Pressure to Organize, LERA 2019, p. 5
The state approved $295 million in bond authority to prepare the site, build access roads to the
adjacent interstate highway, upgrade utilities and subsidize worker training. The state also
offered up to $20 million in tax incentives contingent on Nissan meeting investment targets. The
Mississippi Department of transportation chipped in $65 million worth of additional
improvements to state roads. Madison County provided $23.5 million in bonds to improve
county roads, $20 million in tax abatements over 30 years and $2 million in school construction.
The Madison County Development Authority received permission to borrow $5 million to
construct a temporary headquarters and training center for Nissan. In addition, Mississippi State
University agreed to build a $6 million extension center at the plant as well as $9 million to
create a Center of Advanced Vehicular Systems in Starkville, which is two hours from the plant
(Clarion Ledger, 10 November and 30 December 2000). Many observers speculated that
Mississippi’s low unionization rate was also a factor in the decision, but Nissan CEO Carlos
Ghosn dismissed this claim (Clarion Ledger, 7 June 2003; and Mississippi Press, 8 June 2003).
In the spring of 2002, while the plant was still under construction, Nissan management
decided to expand its capacity to be able to build five rather than three models, which increased
its cost plant to $1.4 billion and raised projected employment at full operation to 5,300. The
Mississippi state legislature approved $68 million in additional bond authority to support the
expansion, which increased the state’s total bond authority for the project to $363 million and
total incentives to just shy of half a billion dollars (Clarion Ledger, 23 June 2002).
Nissan, Land and Race
Race became an issue for Nissan management even before the Canton plant was
completed. Three African-American property owners filed a racial discrimination suit against

SJ Silvia, Using Civil Rights and International Pressure to Organize, LERA 2019, p. 6
Mississippi in August 2001 alleging that state allowed white landowners with property on the
proposed plant site to set prices for their properties in advance of the announcement of Nissan’s
plans, but did not do the same for black landowners. The black landowners also objected to the
use of eminent domain to seize their property, given the state government’s history of not
respecting the property rights of African Americans. State officials denied any impropriety. The
African-American property owners received support from the Southern Christian Leadership
Conference and the Reverend Jesse Jackson’s Rainbow/PUSH Coalition. Jackson’s organization
was already engaged in a separate action against Nissan based on a study that concluded the
company charged a mark-up for nearly 72 percent of African-American customers compared to
just 47 percent of white customers (Clarion Ledger, 4 and 26 August 2001). Jackson’s
involvement attracted national media attention to the land dispute (New York Times, 10
September 2001). Since the properties in question were on the southern edge of the plant site,
state officials ultimately decided to drop eminent domain proceedings and adjust the boundaries
of the plant’s property (Jacksonville Free Press, 2 November 2011). The incident did not set a
good tone when it came to race relations, however.
Operations begin at Nissan Canton
In late 2001, Nissan management began hiring employees to train them to work in the
Canton plant. The facility began producing vehicles on 27 May 2003. On day one, it had 2,000
employees. A year later, 5,340 worked there (Clarion Ledger, 28 May 2003 and 30 May 2004).
Nissan management’s personnel strategy in Canton was the same one it used in Smyrna plant. In
1983, when Nissan was building the Smyrna plant, the company’s executives initially planned to
recognize the UAW because all automobile assembly plants in both Japan and the United States

SJ Silvia, Using Civil Rights and International Pressure to Organize, LERA 2019, p. 7
at the time had union representation. American consultants advising Nissan ultimately
persuaded the company’s leadership that local management should combine an open-door policy
with employees – that is, encouraging employees to bring issues directly to management for
quick resolution – with opposition to any unionization attempts by the UAW (Wall Street
Journal, 22 February 2014). This strategy included offering “near union wages” coupled with a
generous benefit package (LaborWire USA, 30 August 2004). At Canton, Nissan paid
production workers a base rate of $12.50 an hour to start and anticipated increasing pay to $21 an
hour after two years. Skilled employees’ hourly pay started at $19.55 and would reach $25.58
after two years. Pay at Ford and General Motors, in comparison, was $25 per hour for
experienced production workers and $30 for skilled employees. (Ford and GM workers also
paid monthly dues equal to two hours of wages.) For most production workers in Mississippi,
Nissan’s hourly wage was substantially higher than what they could find elsewhere in the state
(Clarion Ledger, 20 April and 4 December 2004).
Employee training sessions stressed that Nissan was committed to treating all employees
“with dignity and respect” (Clarion Ledger, 22 February 2004). They also included trainers
stressing that Nissan was “non-union,” even though the company dealt with unions in all of its
plants except in the United States. Trainers said that unions only wanted dues money and
unionization resulted in plants closures (Johnson and Compa 2013, p. 23).
In April 2004, American Federation of Labor – Congress of Industrial Organizations
National Field Representative Jim Evans said that the United Auto Workers union was
considering a unionization drive at the Nissan Canton. Gary Casteel, Director of the UAW’s
Southeast region, tempered Evans’s statement, commenting, “We have some places that we’re
looking at, but we haven’t made any announcements” (Clarion Ledger, 20 April 2004). The

SJ Silvia, Using Civil Rights and International Pressure to Organize, LERA 2019, p. 8
potential for union organizing in Mississippi did not look auspicious. The United Steelworkers
of America lost a union recognition election at Tower Automotive and Yorozu Automotive, two
Nissan suppliers (Clarion Ledger, 30 May 2004).
Nissan management set ambitious production goals for the Canton plant because the
company had a lot of catching up to do. Nissan almost went bankrupt in 1999 and still had
several holes in its model line-up. Auto companies typically launch at most one new model at a
time from any plant. Within the space of a year, the Canton plant was producing four new
models plus an existing model, and had ramped up employment from 2,000 to over 5,000.
Temporary employment agencies provided over 1,000, whom Nissan management called
“associates.” Nissan called the 4,000 direct hires “technicians.” The associates’ pay and
benefits were much lower than those of the technicians. Production quality at Canton was subpar
at first. The J.D. Power 2004 Initial Quality Survey found 147 problems reported per 100 Nissan
vehicles, which was substantially greater than the industry average of 119 (Clarion Ledger, 30
May 2004). Nissan CEO Carlos Ghosn explained the poor quality by observing, “The root cause
was a lack of experience. We’ll be training a lot of new people we hired in Canton.” Ghosn also
sent 200 Japanese engineers to Canton to address the problem (Automotive News, 13 September
2004).
UAW region 8 director Gary Casteel reported that his union began to receive phone calls
from Canton employees in November 2004. A top complaint was lack of respect stemming from
Carlos Ghosn’s explanation for the plant’s quality problems. Employees also disliked the
relatively low hourly starting wage rate for unskilled employees. Casteel said that the UAW was
only surveying employee complaints; the union had no plans at that moment to start an
organizing campaign the plant (Clarion Ledger, 4 December 2004). Nevertheless, Nissan

SJ Silvia, Using Civil Rights and International Pressure to Organize, LERA 2019, p. 9
management responded with an “anti-union surge” in late 2004. Shortly thereafter, Nissan
management distributed internal memos to the plant human resource officers and supervisors
enumerating “early warning signs” of unionization. Management required all employees to
attend “captive-audience meetings” in groups of 20 to 25 to watch videos and listen to speeches
critical of unions. Every meeting included a note taker, which led employees to keep silent to
avoid being identified as sympathetic toward unionization. Nissan also installed television
monitors in all break areas of the Canton plant. The company screened segments on a loop about
Nissan sales, production quantity, consumer tips, health care advice and seasonal features.
Included in this fare were negative stories about Chrysler, Ford, General Motors and the UAW
(Johnson and Compa 2013, pp. 23-28).
On 14 March 2005, UAW president Ron Gettelfinger, vice-president for organizing Bob
King and Gary Casteel went to Canton to gauge support for unionization. They met with a group
of fifteen community leaders that included several ministers and a Catholic priest. The
community leaders shared the complaints that they had heard from Nissan employees about low
starting salaries, difficult working conditions and firing people for “speculative reasons” without
a consistent and transparent process. Casteel explained to reporters, “We’re not holding any
mass meetings. We’re trying to make sure that our message is on key.” University of
Mississippi journalism professor Joe Atkins, who had also been to the gathering, noted that the
UAW leadership was laying the groundwork before proceeding with a unionization campaign
because, “they don’t want to get into a situation like they did in Smyrna a few years back,” when
they lost a second union recognition election by a two-to-one margin (Clarion Ledger, 15 March
2005). Eight days later, the UAW opened an office in a former church eight miles from the
Canton plant and a five-minute drive from three of Nissan’s parts suppliers in Gluckstadt. Gary

SJ Silvia, Using Civil Rights and International Pressure to Organize, LERA 2019, p. 10
Casteel explained, “We’ve had enough response that warrants us to have a location in close
proximity” (Clarion Ledger, 23 March 2005). These actions did not move large numbers of
Nissan Canton employees to support the union, however.
In 2007, the UAW leaders tried again to stir interest in unionization. They organized an
event at which three Nissan Canton employees talked about conditions in the plant. The
employees recounted instances of dismissals for job-related injuries, intimidation and anti-union
propaganda. Workers from Nissan’s Smyrna plant shared their experiences, which were similar.
Religious leaders and community activists attended the gathering (Jackson Free Press, 18 July
2012).
The UAW moved ahead on a separate organizing effort. In the fall of 2007, Johnson
Controls announced that employees at their Madison, Mississippi plant, which supplies the
Nissan Canton factory with auto seats, would not be getting a raise after having received one in
the previous two years. This news was particularly irksome to Johnson Controls employees who
had come from one of the company’s other plants that had closed. Those workers’ hourly rates
had been $3 to $4 higher than at the Madison plant. During the organizing drive, plant managers
increased the employees’ hourly rate by $1 and asked employees to give them time to make
improvements without a union. On 13 March 2008, the National Labor Relations Board
supervised the union recognition election. The UAW lost the vote, 145 to 213. Johnson
Controls employee Carolyn Walker concluded, “We may not have won the election, but we got a
victory here” (Clarion Ledger, 16 March 2008). Gary Casteel commented, “We’re certainly not
going anywhere” (Clarion Ledger, 25 May 2008). In 2008, the UAW relocated a female
African-American organizer, Sanchioni Butler, to take the lead in Mississippi
(https://www.printfriendly.com/p/g/kCCNiR).

SJ Silvia, Using Civil Rights and International Pressure to Organize, LERA 2019, p. 11
UAW organizers worked with individual employees interested in organizing, and local
leaders, in particular, the president of the Mississippi National Association for the Advancement
of Colored People (NAACP), Derrick Johnson. The UAW allowed other groups to use its office
space, donated funds to charities and schools, sponsored fund-raising banquets for local groups,
and helped to organize conferences discussions on topics like discrimination in the workplace
(Clarion Ledger, 25 May 2008 and 3 December 2009). The union did not, however, intensify
the organizing effort.
When Bob King became president of the United Auto Workers in June 2010, the union
made organizing a foreign-owned automobile assembly plants a priority. King’s strategy was to
take a cooperative approach with the foreign-owned firms. He proposed a set of “Fair Election
Principles” that included no disparagement, and equal time for management and the UAW to
make their case to the workers. King hoped to persuade management at the foreign-owned auto
companies to agree to these principles (Jackson Free Press, 18 July 2012). The UAW leadership
threatened to launch a global campaign to “rebrand” firms unwilling to accept these rules of
engagement as human rights violators (In These Times, 24 March 2011).
King hired Richard Bensinger as acting organizing director. Benzinger had been the first
organizing director of the AFL-CIO and advocate of an expansive approach to organizing drives,
which involved community mobilization and public campaigns. The UAW also created a Global
Organizing Institute (GOI) based on the Organizing Institute training program that Bensinger had
created at the AFL-CIO in the early 1990s. The first group of interns included Brazilian,
Chinese, German, Indian, Japanese and South Korean nationals. They received training on
effective techniques for speaking out against human rights violations and protesting at car
dealerships and company headquarters. UAW Secretary-Treasurer Dennis Williams declared

SJ Silvia, Using Civil Rights and International Pressure to Organize, LERA 2019, p. 12
that the GOI had “the potential to be the largest, sustained consumer action by organized labor.
We have the resources and the people to be successful in this mission” (In These Times, 24
March 2012; and Left Lane, 23 March 2012)
Bob King set a goal of unionizing at least one plant by the end of 2011 (Wall Street
Journal, 7 February 2011). By year’s end, however, the UAW had made little progress. Union
officials gave two reasons for this. First, 2011 was an extraordinarily busy year for collective
bargaining. The UAW negotiated new contracts with Caterpillar, Fiat Chrysler, Ford, General
Motors, the State of Michigan and several casinos, which left little time and energy to launch
new efforts. Second, Bob King explained that he was rethinking how to proceed: “Before, we
said we are going to pick a target. Just in reflection … that sounds too adversarial. … We are
shifting our strategy a little bit. We are not going to pick or announce a target at all. … We are
not going to pick a fight.” King and UAW Secretary-Treasurer Dennis Williams explained that
they had spoken with management at several companies about ways to hold fair representation
elections. King set a new goal of organizing at least one foreign-owned plant during his tenure
as UAW president, which would end in June 2014. “We have made a lot of progress, so I am
very confident that we will be successful in organizing a number of them,” King concluded
(Detroit Free Press, 8 December 2011).
Despite a professed turn away from adversarialism, Bob King’s comments about Nissan
were not solely laudatory. He said the UAW had received complaints that the company had
violated civil and human rights. Some workers reported supervisors using racial epithets, and
favoring female workers based on appearance. Workers also complained about being assigned
overtime with little or no notice, excessive line speeds and dangerous working conditions
(United Auto Workers 2017, pp.1-2). Nissan vice-president David Reuter dismissed the

SJ Silvia, Using Civil Rights and International Pressure to Organize, LERA 2019, p. 13
allegations as “without merit.” Company officials also disputed King’s claim to have discussed
unionization with anyone at Nissan North America (Detroit News, 8 December 2011).
Mississippi Governor-elect Phil Bryant stated at the end of 2011 that he would intercede if the
UAW began an organizing drive at the Canton plant, asserting, “I just don’t think that now is the
time to try to unionize any of these organizations” (Reuters, 8 June 2012).
The organizing effort at Canton would differ from those at the Mercedes and Volkswagen
plants because Nissan was unlike the German firms in three important respects. First, employee
representation was much weaker in Japan than in Germany. There were no equivalents at Nissan
of works councils or employee representatives on corporate boards. The Japanese Auto Workers
union (JAW) was much weaker and far more decentralized than Germany’s powerful IG Metall.
Moreover, the Japanese workplace is hierarchical and paternalistic. Nissan had crushed a
militant union in the 1950s, and had a relatively compliant union ever since (Price 1997, pp. 107-
110).
Second, Nissan is a far more of a transnational hybrid company than either German
automobile producer is. When Nissan was in difficult financial straits in the early 2000s, the
French automaker Renault bought 44.4 percent of the company’s outstanding stock. At the same
time, Nissan acquired a fifteen percent stake in Renault through a purchase of non-voting shares.
The French government, in turn, has owned from fifteen to almost twenty percent of Renault
(BBC News, 30 October 2001; and http://www.4-traders.com/RENAULT-4688/company/).
Nissan’s nested ownership has left the company potentially open to political pressure.
Third, approximately eighty percent of the workers at Nissan’s Canton plant are African
American, which is the mirror image of the Mercedes and Volkswagen factories, where eighty
percent of the employees are white (Facing South, 21 June 2012). Using civil rights themes as

SJ Silvia, Using Civil Rights and International Pressure to Organize, LERA 2019, p. 14
part of an organizing campaign at the Canton plant held promise as a way to mobilize and unify
most employees, whereas it risked distancing and dividing the workforce at the other locations.
Moreover, the racial composition of the workforce at the Canton plant meant that anti-union
diatribes by the white, conservative, Republican political leadership of the state would have less
of an impact than they did in Alabama or Tennessee.
In late 2011, UAW leadership began to step up the organizing drive at Nissan Canton.
Organizers quietly began to approach workers in their homes and meet with them in small
groups. Employees’ biggest complaints were about mandatory overtime and weekend shifts,
speeding up the assembly line, and less vigilance to curb workplace accidents, as well as lower
wages and higher health-care and pension contributions than at Nissan’s Smyrna plant. Once
Nissan managers discovered the home visits, they retained the Littler Mendelson law firm, which
specializes in union avoidance, and began to hold mandatory plant-wide “roundtable” meetings,
as well as small-group and one-on-one sessions that were critical of unionization in general and
the UAW in particular (Detroit News, 12 June 2012).
The intensification of the organizing effort included novel aspects. First, the UAW hired
CRT/Tanaka, a public relations firm based in Richmond, Virginia, to assist the organizing effort
(Facing South, 25 June 2012). Second, UAW officials began developing international support
on a number of fronts. Union leaders sought help from Nissan’s union in Japan, and UAW
president Bob King took a Nissan Canton employee to Brazil to speak with trade unionists there.
In April 2012, the UAW and IndustriALL Global Union Federation asked the U.S. State
Department to mediate between the UAW and Nissan regarding alleged worker rights violations
at the Canton plant. The State Department was willing to play this role, but Nissan management
declined to participate. UAW officials said that they were considering filing complaints about

SJ Silvia, Using Civil Rights and International Pressure to Organize, LERA 2019, p. 15
Nissan’s actions at the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) with
the liaisons of the governments of France, Japan and the Netherlands, where the Nissan-Renault
alliance is incorporated (Reuters, 6 November 2012). Later that year, four prominent French
trade union leaders with responsibilities for Renault plants sent a letter to Carlos Ghosn, to
express concern about the situation of employees at Nissan Canton (Fred Dijoux, Laurent
Smolnik, Fabian Gâche, and Dominique Chauvin to Carlos Ghosn, 5 December 2012,
https://dobetternissan.org/global-support-for-nissan-canton-workers/). Five days later, Scott E.
Becker, Nissan North America’s Senior Vice President for Administration and Finance,
responded with a defense of the company’s policies and actions (Scott E. Becker to Dijoux et al.,
10 December 2012, https://www.facebook.com/uaw.union/posts/10154844641821413). UAW
staff met in London with officials from the United Kingdom’s second largest union, Unite. The
British union officials “committed to providing assistance and advice to the UAW in securing [a]
successful outcome in your campaign at Canton, Mississippi.” Shortly thereafter, Bob King
received a letter of support from Unite Assistant General Secretary Tony Burke (Tony Burke to
Bob King, 19 December 2012, https://dobetternissan.org/global-support-for-nissan-canton-
workers/).
Third, UAW began developing the civil-rights component of the organizing drive. On 1
May 2012, the UAW moved its local office from Gluckstadt to directly across the street from the
Nissan facility. A photograph of civil rights leader Martin Luther King Jr. next to legendary
UAW president Walter Reuther at the 1963 March on Washington for Jobs and Freedom hung
prominently on the wall (Jackson Free Press, 18 July 2012).
In a May 2012 interview, Bob King framed the organizing effort at the foreign-owned
automobile assembly plants within his larger strategy for the UAW: “We can’t be a meaningful

SJ Silvia, Using Civil Rights and International Pressure to Organize, LERA 2019, p. 16
union, we can’t do the job our members at Ford, GM and Chrysler deserve if we don’t organize
the total industry” (Reuters, 8 June 2012).
On 3 June 2012, UAW officials held a rally in Canton to announce formally that the
union would attempt to organize the Nissan plant. The union estimated attendance at 250 to 300.
Although organizing activity had already begun at the Mercedes and Volkswagen factories in
Alabama and Chattanooga, this was the UAW’s first formal announcement of an organizing
drive at a foreign-owned automobile assembly plant since Bob King had become the union’s
president. UAW Region 8 Director Gary Casteel pushed hard within the UAW for the formal
announcement. He described Canton as “the perfect place” to take a stand, adding, “We have
tremendous worker support there. Nissan hired a heavily African American workforce. I think
that’s a plus because of the history and the battles fought in Mississippi against all odds. Being
from Alabama, knowing how this works in the South. It is just one of those things, the heritage
of Mississippi. They have had to fight for the things that they have achieved” (Jackson Free
Press, 18 July 2012). The UAW put some of its best organizers in Canton (New York Times, 7
October 2013).
Member of Congress Bennie Thompson, Mississippi NAACP President Derrick Johnson,
and president of the General Missionary Baptist State Convention and Liberty Missionary
Baptist Church, the Reverend Isiac Jackson Jr., spoke at the June 3 announcement. They
invoked civil rights themes as they pledged support for organizing drive. Johnson pointed out
that the average hourly wage was about $1.50 higher at Nissan’s Smyrna plant, where a majority
of the workforce is white, versus the Canton plant, where most workers are black. UAW
officials said unionization was about addressing these inequities and giving employees a voice in
the workplace. Pro-union employees in the plant formed the Nissan Workers Committee for a

SJ Silvia, Using Civil Rights and International Pressure to Organize, LERA 2019, p. 17
Fair Election, which later became the Nissan Workers Organizing Committee (NWOC).
NWOC, however, never played a prominent role in organizing the plant (Associated Press, 6
June 2012; Detroit News, 12 June 2012; Jackson Free Press, 18 July 2012; Labor Notes, 2
August 2012; and Reuters, 8 June 2012).
Union officials made no progress persuading Nissan management to agree to neutrality
under the union’s proposed fair election principles (Reuters, 31 July 2012). David Reuter, a
Nissan spokesperson, provided the company’s reaction to the UAW announcement and rally:
“We don’t believe that putting a third party between ourselves and our employees is going to
make things better” (Associated Press, 6 June 2012). Reuter described the captive audience
speeches as responses to the UAW’s efforts: “We know there’s been a lot of misinformation
being communicated on the outside. We know the UAW has been attempting to engage our
employees at their houses and in the local community, and we want to make sure our employees
had our version of the facts as well” (Reuters, 6 June 2012). Nissan chief executive Carlos
Ghosn said, “We will naturally remain neutral on this. This being said, we still continue to think
that direct management of the shop floor, direct contact with our people, is the best way to make
a plant extremely productive and extremely efficient” (Reuters, 31 July 2012). The local
business community also reacted negatively to the UAW’s announcement. An editorial in the
Mississippi Business Journal opined that the publication supported the right of workers to form a
union, “but that doesn’t mean it will be a good thing for all of Mississippi if the United
Autoworkers convinces folks to start a union at the Nissan auto plant in Canton” (Mississippi
Business Journal, 8 June 2012). Mississippi Governor Phil Bryant expressed concern that “the
automobile industry is very fragile” in Mississippi. “If the union involvement becomes active in

SJ Silvia, Using Civil Rights and International Pressure to Organize, LERA 2019, p. 18
the Southeastern automobile corridor, what does it do to industry? And I just don’t see a positive
outcome to that” (Facing South, 21 June 2012).
The UAW leaders continued to stress civil and human rights as they advanced the Nissan
campaign. “The civil rights experience was fought on that very ground” UAW Region 8
Director Gary Casteel explained, “We’ve been saying that worker rights is the civil rights battle
of the twenty-first century” (Reuters 31 July 2012). Gary Chaison, professor of industrial
relations at Clark University, praised the UAW’s approach at Canton: “Reinventing themselves
as a civil rights movement – that’s the right way to go” (Reuters, 8 June 2012). Vanderbilt
University Sociologist Dan Cornfield observed, “When it comes to the civil rights movement in
the South, there’s a lot of history that has not been forgotten. It’s possible that people in
Mississippi could look at auto workers who don’t have a voice on things like assembly line speed
and their health care benefits, and interpret that as workers not being treated with dignity”
(Automotive News, 11 February 2013).
Canton employees and UAW officials helped to facilitate the formation of the Student
Justice Alliance (SJA), which was a student organization modeled after the Student Non-violent
Coordinating Committee. The SJA started at Mississippi State University and Tougaloo College,
and worked with veterans from the 1960s civil rights struggle in the state to make the case for
unionization at Nissan. The organization quickly grew to several hundred members as the
founding students reached out to historically black colleges and universities as well as
universities with a labor relations program. The UAW sent some Global Organizing Institute
interns to Jackson to work with the SJA on the Nissan Canton effort (The Progressive, 1 June
2013).

SJ Silvia, Using Civil Rights and International Pressure to Organize, LERA 2019, p. 19
In July 2012, the actor Danny Glover held a series of meetings with Canton employees.
Glover has described himself as a life-long union activist inspired by his father, who had been an
engaged member of the American Postal Workers Union in San Francisco. The actor had
previously helped several other unions with their organizing drives, and he agreed to get
involved in the Nissan Canton effort when Bob King asked him at a civil rights memorial
presentation (Automotive News, 8 April 2013). At a rally for Nissan Canton employees, Glover
said, “I’m here to be a part of what you’re doing. … You are not alone. … I think of [former
civil rights activist and field secretary of the Mississippi NAACP] Medgar Evers. He was only
37 years old when he died. Medgar Evers would be right out here supporting you” (Jackson
Free Press, 18 July 2012). UAW organizer Sanchioni Butler said hundreds of workers had
already signed authorization cards, which indicated progress, but was still only a small
percentage of the approximately 3,500 technicians who worked directly for Nissan and were
therefore eligible to join a union (Facing South, 21 June 2019). The equation of civil and labor
rights may have persuaded some, but it did not move a substantial share of the workforce.
Organizing at the Nissan plant proved to be challenging. Most of employees did not live
in the small town of Canton. They were scattered across the state; some lived as far as one-
hundred miles away. There was no place nearby where workers routinely gathered. At the end
of a shift, most workers hurried to their cars and sped home. The thousand temporary associates
at the Canton plant further fragmented the labor force. Their presence in the plant also served as
a constant reminder to permanent employees that the company could convert their jobs into
temporary ones (Jackson Advocate, 9 August 2012; and Reuters 31 July 2019).
In September 2012, Nissan management expanded the anti-union campaign to include
engaging with temporary associates. By this time, the top wage for technicians had reached

SJ Silvia, Using Civil Rights and International Pressure to Organize, LERA 2019, p. 20
$23.22 per hour. The wage of the temporary associates was only $12, even though many were
doing the same work. Nissan management began holding roundtables with groups of 20 to 25
temporaries to present the same anti-union materials that management had been showing to the
permanent technicians since 2011. A Nissan human resources manager, a manager from the
temporary agency and a note taker were typically at the meeting, which served as a powerful
disincentive to critical comments (Johnson and Compa 2013, p. 34-35).
The supporters of unionization at Nissan Canton formed a “community watchdog group”
called the Mississippi Alliance for Fairness at Nissan (MAFFAN), chaired by Rev. Isiac Jackson
Jr., who heads Mississippi’s largest black Baptist denomination. At a MAFFAN gathering in
late October, twenty Nissan employees talked about their experiences in the plant, including
being forced to watch videos repeatedly about closings at plants organized by the UAW and
subjected to increased scrutiny because they have expressed support for the union (Jackson Free
Press, 31 October 2012). Jackson underscored that “Nissan attacks the entire community when
it denies its workers, who are our family, our neighbors and our congregants, one of their most
fundamental human rights. Nissan workers should not have to fear for their jobs because they
want to form a union.” Derrick Johnson, MAFFAN member and president of the Mississippi
State Conference of the NAACP, stressed, “We are committed to standing beside Nissan workers
until Nissan workers achieve a fair process” (Jackson Advocate, 11 November 2012). “Labor
rights are civil rights” was MAFFAN’s principal slogan (New York Times, 7 October 2013).
In mid January 2013, actor Danny Glover and MAFFAN members, including students
from Jackson State University and Tougaloo College staged a protest outside of the North
American International Auto Show in Detroit to support the right of Nissan Canton employees to
vote in a union recognition election without employer interference (Detroit News, 12 January

SJ Silvia, Using Civil Rights and International Pressure to Organize, LERA 2019, p. 21
2013). “The right to work doesn’t mean that you don’t have the right to organize,” Glover said,
“They [i.e., Nissan] have unions in South Africa and Japan. We’re only asking for the right to
vote on a union and not face intimidation.” The protesters distributed a press release that
included a quote from Nissan Canton employee Michael Carter: “We need equal time to hear the
union’s side of whether we should have a union at Nissan.” Meanwhile, back in Canton, some
anti-union employees were wearing t-shirts that read, “Want a union? Move to Detroit” (Clarion
Ledger, 15 January 2013).
Approximately 200 union supporters held a rally at Tougaloo College in Jackson on 29
January that had the feeling of “an old-time revival meeting.” “One Voice, One Dream, One
Team, Nissan Workers United” read banners in Holmes Hall and a men’s choir sang, Look, Oh
Happy Day, and Praise Him (Facing South, 31 January 2013). The Ed Show, hosted by Ed
Schultz on the cable television channel MSNBC, covered part of the rally live and interviewed
two Nissan Canton employees as well as Mississippi NAACP president and MAFFAN member
Derrick Johnson. Johnson made a compelling case about the linkage between labor and civil
rights on the show:
Worker rights have always been a civil rights issue. The struggle we had to
abolish slavery was about worker rights. The struggles in the sixties was about the right
of workers being able to organize. In fact, Dr. King was assassinated as he was
organizing workers in Memphis who wanted the right to have a voice as sanitation
workers. So we see worker rights on the same playing field as voting rights [and] civil
rights. It is about human dignity and workers at Nissan should know when they go to
work on Monday morning, they should be able to predict whether or not they go to work
three hours that day or twelve hours that day, whether or not they’re going to work seven
days a week or five days a week. How can workers be expected to raise a family, have a
quality of life if a company like Nissan don’t respect them as human beings?
(https://archive.org/details/MSNBCW_20133013_010000_The_Ed_Show)
Other speakers also hammered home the connection between civil rights and labor rights. Danny
Glover pointed out that, “Dr. King said the best anti-poverty program he knew was a union”

SJ Silvia, Using Civil Rights and International Pressure to Organize, LERA 2019, p. 22
(Jackson Free Press, 30 January 2013). Mississippi’s “fighting labor priest,” Father Jeremy
Tobin, told the crowd, “Human rights are worker rights, and worker rights are human rights”
(Facing South, 4 March 2013).
Brazilian labor leaders João Cayres and Vagner Freitas attended the rally and pledged to
support Nissan Canton workers. They observed that Nissan management works constructively
with unions in many nations, including Brazil, Japan and South Africa (Facing South, January
2013). Morris Mock, a Nissan Canton employee, accused a plant manager of saying that,
“They’re going to move this factory away,” if the employees voted in favor of union
representation. Such a threat would violate federal labor law. Mock and other employees
complained that Nissan management repeatedly made anti-union presentations. They demanded
that the company give UAW representatives equal time (Jackson Free Press, 30 January 2013).
Nissan spokesperson David Reuter responded that the UAW had not filed a complaint with the
National Labor Relations Board and added, “The number of employees who are interested in
unionizing is very small in comparison to the number who are telling us they’re not interested in
unionizing.” Reuter proposed that this was because, “If you are pro-union, you are anti-Nissan”
(https://archive.org/details/MSNBCW_20133013_010000_The_Ed_Show).
Pro-union employees complained about the large number of temporary employees in the
plant. They said Nissan management intended to keep many of these employees as temps
indefinitely and management assigned temps to the day shift and easier jobs to reduce their
attrition rate (New York Times, 7 October 2013). Nissan responded to these complaints by
announcing the “Nissan Pathway Program,” which the company launched later that year, that
created a process for some temps to become direct hires. Still, temps complained that they keep
getting told, “Nissan’s going to hire you,” but in practice, only a minority of temps actually

SJ Silvia, Using Civil Rights and International Pressure to Organize, LERA 2019, p. 23
became direct employees (Clarion Ledger, 30 January 2013; and In These Times, 6 January
2014). Employees who did become permanent still received lower compensation than did
“legacy” employees. MAFFAN members tried to mobilize temps under the slogan “Lead us not
into Temp-nation,” but made little headway (Washington Post, 9 March 2014).
In the days that followed the 29 January 2013 rally, supporters of unionization at Canton
stepped up the campaign, stressing the linkage of civil rights, human rights and labor rights. In
an interview with Automotive News, Rev. Isiac Jackson Jr. said, “I was there when Dr. King was
tear-gassed [in Memphis]. I was there. It’s the same struggle. … If you want to understand the
hook in this movement, money is not the issue. It’s about rights – the right to choose”
(Automotive News, 11 February 2013). UAW president Bob King reacted forcefully to Nissan’s
anti-UAW videos saying, “They’re threatening workers there that they’re going to close the
plant, and that’s baloney.” King accused Nissan North America management of violating labor
standards established by the United Nations Global Compact (Which Nissan joined in 2004), the
International Labor Organization (ILO) and the OECD (IHS Global Insight, 13 February 2013).
MAFFAN leaders announced that they would advocate for fair treatment of Nissan
employees at auto shows and visit college campuses from February 7 to 18 in Chicago, and from
March 13 to 17 in Atlanta (Clarion Ledger, 30 January 2013). Nissan Canton employees and
MAFFAN leaders even went to Switzerland and held a tree planting ceremony in front of the
building hosting the Geneva Auto Show. While there, they publicized their websites
beneaththeshine.org and dobetternissan.org that make the case for unionization (IndustriALL
press release, 7 March 2013). In May 2013, a group of Nissan employees went to protest in front
of the New York International Auto Show. They also were guests on a progressive radio
program (Building Bridges Radio, 21 May 2013). Later that year, a group of Canton employees,

SJ Silvia, Using Civil Rights and International Pressure to Organize, LERA 2019, p. 24
ministers, Bob King and Danny Glover went to South Africa. They gained support for the
Nissan Canton organizing drive from the National Union of Metalworkers South Africa, which
represents workers at the Nissan plant there, and the Congress of South African Trade Unions,
the confederation to which NUMSA is affiliated (just-auto, 1 June 2013).
On 3 February 2013, the former president of Brazil, Luiz Ignácio “Lula” da Silva, spoke
to 1,500 active and retired UAW members in Washington, D.C., at the union’s National
Community Action Program legislative conference. Lula had been president of a Brazilian
metalworkers union before entering politics. Lula gave a powerful speech. He told the audience
that Brazilian workers were in complete solidarity with American workers at Nissan Canton
(Laborweb Preview, 4 February 2013). Lula followed up in October with a letter to fellow
Brazilian Carlos Ghosn and Nissan President and Chief Operating Officer Toshiyuki Shiga (Luiz
Inácio da Silva to Carlos Ghosn and Toshiyuki Shiga, 4 October 2013). Brazilian trade unionists
had also begun protesting Nissan management’s actions at Nissan and Renault dealerships their
own country. In mid March, a delegation of Brazilian trade union leaders, one of whom was also
a member of the Brazilian parliament, travelled to Canton. Member of Congress Bennie
Thompson hosted the group at the Rosemont Missionary Baptist Church. Church Pastor Jimmie
L. Edwards, Bishop Ronnie Crudup and MAFFAN head Rev. Isiac Jackson were there as well as
Mississippi State Representative Jim Evans, Mississippi NAACP President Derrick Johnson,
Bob King and UAW senior adviser Richard Bensinger. The speakers again stressed the
connection of civil rights, human rights and labor rights. King said:
I am inspired by the Brazilians. They came here to organize, to establish
collective bargaining and to support the human rights of these workers. … There has not
been a campaign that I am aware of anywhere in the United States that is led by the
workers like the campaign in Canton, Mississippi. … This campaign to me is what I
believe Mississippi is about and that is the heart of the civil rights movement. … We are
going to win this because we are not going the traditional route to overthrow Nissan’s

SJ Silvia, Using Civil Rights and International Pressure to Organize, LERA 2019, p. 25
abuse of workers here. Derek Johnson, MS-NAACP president has been in this from day
one as well and speaks so eloquently about why it is important to have unions in America
(The Mississippi Link, 21 March 2013).
Congressmember Bennie Thompson also emphasized the connection in stark terms: “A
month ago, Nissan came to my office in Washington for the first time in ten years and they
brought black people with them. They were bringing people to tell me how good Nissan has
been to them – just like the plantation. They are trying to counter everything you are saying,
‘See how good we are! See how good we treat our slaves!’” (The Mississippi Link, 21 March
2013). UAW representatives told a Jackson Clarion Ledger reporter in April 2013 that the union
had authorization cards from more than thirty percent of eligible employees at Nissan Canton,
but was holding off from calling a recognition election because they did not think it was possible
as things stood to have a fair vote (Clarion Ledger, 18 May 2013).
More letters of support for Canton workers arrived. A letter from Spanish trade union
leaders who represent Nissan employees stated that Nissan’s “tactics of intimidation run counter
to the principles” of ILO Convention Number 87 and violate OECD guidelines. The letter urges
Nissan management “to intervene so that workers in Canton can [be] treated in accordance with
the values and principles that dictate Nissan management conduct in Japan and Europe” (Javier
Urbana and Manuel Garcia Salgado to Ignacio Torres Zambrana and Ruth Pina, 24 April 2013,
https://dobetternissan.org/global-support-for-nissan-canton-workers/). The presidents of the
Japan Automobile Workers and the Federation of All Nissan and General Workers Union
(Nissan Roren) declared their solidarity, and pledged that they would “continuously negotiate
with the management of Nissan HQ” to order “local management … maintain a neutral and fair
position at Nissan’s Canton plant” (Yasunobu Aihara and Akira Takakura to Bob King, 19 June
2013, https://dobetternissan.org/global-support-for-nissan-canton-workers/).

SJ Silvia, Using Civil Rights and International Pressure to Organize, LERA 2019, p. 26
In the spring of 2013, significant numbers of local politicians expressed reluctance for the
first time to accommodate Nissan’s requests for subsidies. Nissan management asked the state
legislature to authorize the Madison County Economic Development Authority (MCEDA) to
issue $100 million in taxable industrial development bonds. The money would permit the
MCEDA to build and own a set of buildings that would house Nissan suppliers that would
support an additional expansion of the Canton plant to accommodate the production of eight
models. The request rankled Madison County political leaders because their jurisdiction had
endured the biggest financial burden, but the city of Canton city council had enacted a law at
Nissan’s request that prohibited Canton from annexing the plant. The resistance to Nissan
management’s latest subsidy request led the company to give the Canton Public School District a
$500,000 education grant and to donate $100,000 to the Medgar and Myrlie Evers Institute
(Jackson Free Press, 27 March and 8 May 2013). Danny Glover did not speak at the 2013
annual Medgar Evers dinner for the first time in many years because the Institute took Nissan
money (Jackson Free Press, 7 August 2013). Nissan management also announced hourly
increases starting in October – the first in seven years – ranging from 55¢ for production
employees to $1.05 for lead technicians (Clarion Ledger, 7 April 2013).
MAFFAN leaders accentuated attention on Nissan’s subsidies by releasing a report by the
Good Jobs First research group, which the UAW had commissioned, at a news conference in the
Mississippi capitol building in Jackson (Good Jobs First 2013). The report estimated that Nissan
would receive $1.33 billion in state and local incentives during the first thirty years of the Canton
plant’s operation. This is over three times the official state figure. A good share of the
difference results from the Good Jobs First report including a thirty-year estimate and payroll tax
abatements for job creation as a part of the incentive package. The report also criticizes the state

SJ Silvia, Using Civil Rights and International Pressure to Organize, LERA 2019, p. 27
for counting temporary employees at the plant as direct employees when calculating employment
targets and allowing payroll tax abatements despite wage rates falling short of targets specified in
Nissan’s agreement with the state (Automotive News, 17 May 2013). Good Jobs First research
director Phil Mattera said a principal finding of the report was that taxpayers are paying
“premium amounts for jobs that in many cases are far from premium.” Governor Phil Bryant
denounced the report as “just another desperate attempt by big union bosses to scare Nissan’s
Canton employees” (Clarion Ledger, 18 May 2013; and Facing South, 10 June 2013).
As the year progressed, the proponents of unionization continued to apply external
pressure, with an emphasis on civil rights and international labor standards. In October 2013, the
Mississippi NAACP released a 46-page report on the Nissan Canton organizing drive. The
report listed Mississippi NAACP president Derrick Johnson and international labor law expert
Lance Compa as authors, but Compa was the principal contributor. The UAW commissioned the
report and paid for French and Japanese translations. The report spelled out international labor
standards regarding freedom of association, Nissan’s commitments in the area of corporate social
responsibility that include freedom of association, and numerous violations by Nissan of those
standards and commitments. The final version took into account comments from a Nissan
representative on an earlier draft. Johnson and Compa concluded that Nissan should come into
compliance with international labor standards and company commitments, and the socially
responsible investment community should encourage Nissan to adopt the recommendations of
the report and “re-evaluate their portfolio holdings of Nissan stock” if Nissan managers do not
change their behavior. They also recommended that the United Nations Global Compact and the
OECD review Nissan’s record to consider the compatibility of the company’s actions in Canton
with the company’s commitment to freedom of association under UNGC principle 3, ILO core

SJ Silvia, Using Civil Rights and International Pressure to Organize, LERA 2019, p. 28
labor standards, and the OECD guidelines for Multinational Enterprises (Johnson and Compa
2013).
Derrick Johnson, MAFFAN chief Rev. Isiac Jackson Jr., and Member of Congress
Bennie Thompson released the report in Washington, D.C., at the National Press Club (Facing
South, 11 October 2013). Nissan’s official response to the final report was dismissive:
“Allegations have been made by the union and a few employees working with the union that the
plant management has ‘intimidated’ employees from joining the union. The Compa report
repeats and is based entirely on these allegations. The allegations are absolutely not true and
have been refuted by other employees” (just-auto.com, 25 October 2013).
Two weeks after the release of the Compa report, MAFFAN members and UAW director
of international affairs Kristyne Peter travelled to France to garner support from French and other
European employee representatives. They held a news conference at the Paris labor council
(bourse du travail). Representatives from all four of the UAW’s French partner union
confederations (i.e., Confédération Générale du Travail, Confédération Française Démocratique
du Travail, Confédération Française de l'Encadrement - Confédération Générale des Cadres
and Force Ouvrière) were there. They also went to Renault headquarters and asked to speak to
the company’s leaders, but received no response (just-auto.com, 25 October 2013). Back in
Canton, Cedric Gina, president of the National Union of Metalworkers of South Africa, visited
the UAW office. He observed, “We think this is not supposed to be happening in a so-called
First World country, a so-called bastion of democracy” (Facing South, 21 October 2013).
From December 2013 to March 2014, MAFFAN and the UAW leadership ratcheted up
the pressure on Nissan by generating a torrent of letters to Carlos Ghosn demanding that Nissan
cease its anti-union activities and allow the Canton employees to have a union representation

SJ Silvia, Using Civil Rights and International Pressure to Organize, LERA 2019, p. 29
election. Twenty-six letters came from national unions, foreign unions, global union
confederations, worker and environmental rights organizations, union organizations representing
minorities and church groups (see the appendix at the end of the chapter). Canton employees,
MAFFAN members, students and UAW officials also protested and held a news conference once
again in January 2014 at the North American International Auto Show in Detroit. Protesters held
a banner that read, “Tell Nissan: Labor Rights are Civil Rights” (New York Times, 15 January
2014). Mississippi NAACP president Derrick Johnson linked the Nissan Canton organizing
drive to Freedom Summer from fifty years earlier (Clarion Ledger, 14 January 2014). The pro-
union forces also announced support from two rappers: Sean Combs and Common (Clarion
Ledger, 22 March 2014; and UAW News, 24 March 2014). Still, the letters, protests and
celebrity endorsements did not prompt Nissan management to change behavior.
Despite the formation of a broad pro-union coalition, considerable international outreach
and framing the organizing drive at Nissan Canton as a civil rights struggle, the organizing drive
was having trouble attracting workers beyond about a third of the employees (Clarion Ledger, 14
January 2014). MAFFAN head Rev. Isiac Jackson Jr. conceded that the union’s opponents were
“winning,” but added, “they haven’t won the war” (Wall Street Journal, 14 March 2014). Union
supporters attributed their lack of success to continued management intimidation. Union
opponents pointed instead to high wages (the average hourly wage for permanent production
workers had surpassed $20) and management’s willingness to listen to employee complaints.
The UAW’s narrow loss in the union recognition election at Volkswagen Chattanooga in
February 2014 was demoralizing for the pro-union forces in Canton, particularly because VW
management had readily agreed to the kind of neutrality agreement that Canton employees had
been struggling for years to obtain.

SJ Silvia, Using Civil Rights and International Pressure to Organize, LERA 2019, p. 30
Political opposition to unionization in Mississippi intensified. Governor Phil Bryant
declared he did not want “unions involved in our businesses or our public sector.” The
Mississippi government enacted three laws that restricting worker rights to organize and to
demonstrate peacefully. Bryant also reiterated his explicit opposition to the organizing drive at
Nissan Canton: “We will fight you every step of the way if you exercise your legal right to join a
union and speak with a united voice” (Jackson Free Press, 14 May 2014).
In April 2014, Nissan Canton workers protested again at the New York International
Auto Show and were guests on a progressive radio program (Building Bridges Radio, 29 April
2014). In the same month, Nissan management reached a settlement with Willard “Chip” Wells
in an unfair labor practice case. Canton employees had lodged six unfair labor practice cases
since the organizing drive began in June 2012. The other cases were either dismissed or
withdrawn. Wells, a 43-year old father of two who had served in both Afghanistan and Iraq,
alleged supervisors began treating him with hostility after media reports featured him as a pro-
union employee. Specific events led Wells to file the charge. First, Wells was distributing union
authorization cards one night. He claims it was before his shift, but Nissan management asserted
it was during work time. Second, Wells alleged that he took unpaid medical leave in November
2013 because of pressure from a supervisor, and that Nissan management did not allow him to
return to work right after his physician cleared him. Wells did eventually return. The settlement
required Nissan management to reiterate that the company abides by U.S. labor laws, and to
remove any disciplinary action against Wells related to his organizing activities from his
personnel file, but it did not include back pay. Spokesperson Justin Saia expressed Nissan’s
position: “Filing charges is a common tactic in an organizing campaign. These charges are
unsubstantiated and there has been no finding of fault or admission of guilt” (Jackson Free

SJ Silvia, Using Civil Rights and International Pressure to Organize, LERA 2019, p. 31
Press, 4 April 2014). Wells continued to push for back pay, and the UAW and MAFFAN
supported him. In January 2015, the company agreed to a payment of $6,500. When asked why
he succeeded, Wells said: “When they saw the pastors were not going to leave me hanging …
and they started getting questions from me and the outside, (Nissan) said … ‘We better go ahead
and settle up’” (Jackson Free Press, 28 January 2015).
On 28 April 2014, the UAW leadership working with IndustriALL initiated an
international process to advance the organizing drive. They asked the United States Department
of State to mediate between the union and Nissan management under the OECD Guidelines for
Multinational Enterprises. The guidelines require each country to maintain a National Contact
Point (NCP) to serve as a facilitator for confidential mediation of disputes in areas that the
guidelines cover, which include industrial relations. The NCP for the United States is the State
Department. Once a party submits a request, the NCP has three months to decide whether to
offer mediation. All parties involved must agree for mediation to proceed. In previous cases, the
State Department has relied on experienced mediators from the Federal Mediation and
Conciliation Service to handle disputes. IndustriALL General Secretary Jyrki Raina observed,
“Nissan … works with unions in every part of the world, yet in the United States it acts very
differently” (IndustriALL press release, 29 April 2014). Bob King asserted, “Nissan is a global
company that should abide by global standards that the United States and other countries have
agreed on” (Detroit Free Press, 29 April 2014). Spokesperson Justin Saia expressed Nissan
management’s position: “Nissan respects the labor laws of every country in which we operate.
Allegations by the UAW that suggest otherwise are untrue and unfounded. … It would be
premature to comment on mediation given that the State Department has not yet evaluated the
submission, and the UAW already had compromised confidentiality provisions of the OECD

SJ Silvia, Using Civil Rights and International Pressure to Organize, LERA 2019, p. 32
guidelines” (Reuters, 28 April 2014). Republican Mississippi Senator Thad Cochran denounced
the request for mediation, saying, “the United States Department of State should concentrate on
enhancing U.S. security interests and promoting peace around the world rather than interfering in
domestic labor activities” (Mississippi Business Journal, 2 May 2014).
Ultimately, the State Department did undertake an assessment of this “Specific Instance”
of Nissan management’s actions during the Canton organizing drive. Eight months later, Melike
Ann Yetken, the U.S. National Contact Point in the State Department, issued a twelve-page
report. The report summarized the applicable portions of the OECD guidelines, made the case
that this specific instance falls under the guidelines, and chronicled exchanges with Nissan, the
UAW, IndustriALL and other relevant parties. Yetken recommended mediation, but Nissan
management declined to participate, for which Yetken expressed “regrets” (Office of the U.S.
National Contact Point 2015).
Union proponents continued to apply pressure in 2014. Abroad, Bob King and a Nissan
Canton employee Calvin Moore spoke to a crowd of 1.3 million at a May Day rally in Saõ Paulo,
Brazil (https://twitter.com/dobetternissan?lang=en). Moore had been an outspoken advocate for
unionization, and Nissan fired him in March 2014 without a specific cause. Moore said it was
for engaging in union activities. Pressure from Brazil and at home resulted in his reinstatement
in June with back pay (Jackson Free Press, 28 January 2015). On June 27, pro-union forces in
Canton held a rally of 400 activists, ministers, students and workers in front of the Nissan plant.
Danny Glover delivered a petition at the front gate that stated, “Labor Rights are Civil Rights.”
Glover told the crowd, “We’ve got to organize to get what we want on the table. We need to
organize to keep what we’ve got on the table. We’re going to win this! We can’t win it without
you! We want a better America, a better Nissan! We’re going to create another Nissan that

SJ Silvia, Using Civil Rights and International Pressure to Organize, LERA 2019, p. 33
respects human rights!” MAFFAN head, the Rev. Isiac Jackson Jr., declared to the crowd,
“Nissan is exploiting the workforce of Mississippi with a plantation mentality.” He then
subverted the infamous quote by former Alabama Governor George Wallace, shouting, “Union
today! Union tomorrow! Union forever!” (Facing South, 7 July 2014).
Bob King completed his term as UAW president in June 2014. The UAW convention
elected secretary-treasurer Dennis Williams to succeed King as president. UAW Region 8
director Gary Casteel was elected the new secretary-treasurer, which facilitated continuing the
organizing effort at Nissan Canton. Casteel’s former deputy, Ray Curry, became the new Region
8 director. Curry was the first African American to hold that position. The lead organizer for the
foreign assembly plants, Richard Bensinger, was close to Bob King, but not to Dennis Williams.
Bensinger left the UAW when King’s term expired. The UAW officer in charge of organizing,
Mark Haasis, took over strategic responsibilities for organizing Nissan Canton.
In mid October 2014, IndustriALL general secretary Jurki Raina headed a delegation of
Brazilian, British, French, Japanese, South African and Spanish leaders from metalworker unions
to Canton to meet with Nissan employees. Raina said, “Our message to Nissan is that we are not
going away until these Nissan workers win the right to a union, as [have] the 150,000 unionized
workers elsewhere. And our message to Canton’s Nissan workers is they are not alone in their
fight; use our support and fight with our support to join the UAW” (People’s World, 14 October
2014). In late October, a coalition of about 100 church leaders held a prayer vigil outside the
Canton plant and delivered a petition calling for a union recognition election at the plant
(Clarion Register, 28 October 2014).
When the organizing drive at the Mercedes plant in Alabama stalled and union organizers
at VW Chattanooga decided to concentrate on organizing a small unit of skilled mechanics,

SJ Silvia, Using Civil Rights and International Pressure to Organize, LERA 2019, p. 34
UAW secretary-treasurer Gary Casteel announced that the UAW would increase its efforts at
Nissan Canton (Wall Street Journal, 24 March 2015). On 10 June 2015, over 30 union
proponents held a prayer vigil by the front entrance of the Nissan plant. On October 7, Nissan
Canton employee Robert Hathorn participated in two events at the White House Worker Voice
Summit: a town-hall style meeting led by President Barack Obama and a panel headed by U.S.
Labor Secretary Thomas Perez. Hathorn emphasized that “Labor rights are civil rights,” and
spoke out against the “‘permatemp’ culture” at Nissan Canton (MS News Now, 7 October 2015).
Hathorn wore a button that read, “Nissan lead us not into Temp-Nation” (Solidarity, 7 December
2015). In June of the following year, Hathorn spoke to the Democratic National Committee
platform committee about the issue of temporary workers (UAW News, 10 June 2016).
An Incident at the Canton plant in the fall of 2015 shook many employees. Thirty-seven
year old Derrick Whiting collapsed during a late shift. He sought assistance at the company
medical unit. He was examined and sent back out to the assembly line. At the end of the shift,
Whiting went to a hospital. He died hours later. Nissan management insisted that his death was
“non-work related” (Chen 2017, p. 36).
On 30 November 2015, the UAW filed charges against Nissan Canton management for a
restrictive uniform policy the company adopted in 2014 that authorized supervisors to send home
employees wearing clothing with messages on them, be they pro or anti-union. A week later, the
regional director of the National Labor Relations Board in New Orleans found sufficient reason
to review the charge and set a hearing date of 9 March 2016. Nissan spokesperson Josh Clifton
stated that the allegations were “untrue and unfounded.” Nonetheless, Nissan issued a
memorandum on December 1, which amended the uniform policy. It became voluntary.
Management stated that its purpose was to “reduce vehicle mutilation” (Nissan North America

SJ Silvia, Using Civil Rights and International Pressure to Organize, LERA 2019, p. 35
and Kelley Service and United Auto Workers, National Labor Relations Board Region 15 Cases
15-CA-145043, 15-CA-150431 and 15-CA-145053, 30 November 2015; and Associated Press 5
December 2015).
UAW officials filed additional charges of unfair labor practices against Nissan. NLRB
New Orleans regional director found sufficient reason to believe that Nissan managers
“threatened employees with termination because of their union activities …, interrogated
employees about their union support … [and] threatened employees with plant closure if they
choose the union as their representative” (Solidarity, March-April 2017). UAW secretary-
treasurer Gary Casteel drove home the UAW’s characterization of Nissan when he said:
[Nissan] has been on the wrong side of the law for a long time. … it’s really kind of
unexplainable why a company thinks they can come to the U.S. and treat workers worse
than they do in other parts of the world. Why doesn’t Nissan let these employees chose
freely if they want to belong to a union, like they do globally? Here in the U.S. it’s like
we’re some kind of third class citizens that we don’t have the same rights like the rest of
the world does with these labor laws (Clarion Ledger, 9 December 2015).
In the fall of 2015, union supporters increased international political pressure. They
launched a “French campaign” to pressure the French government – which is a major
shareholder of Renault, a company that in turn owns a 43 percent share of Nissan and that Carlos
Ghosn runs jointly with Nissan – to make Nissan management accept neutrality provisions for
the unionization drive at the Nissan Canton plant. There was reason to believe that a pressure
campaign might work. The French president, François Hollande, was a member of the French
socialist party and union supporters in the United States had already been interacting with French
politicians and trade unionists sympathetic to their cause for several years. In September 2015, a
delegation of union supporters headed by Richard Bensinger in an advisory capacity to the UAW
went to Paris to meet with French trade union officials, politicians, Economy Minister
Emmanuel Macron and Labor Minister Myriam El Khomri (l’usine nouvelle, 12 November

SJ Silvia, Using Civil Rights and International Pressure to Organize, LERA 2019, p. 36
2015; and https://www.cdft.fr/portail/actualities/international/Europa/la-cfdt-renault-soutient-la-
creation-d-un-syndicat-dans-le-mississippi-srv1_333485).
In February 2016, Nissan CEO Carlos Ghosn testifying before the Finance Committee of
the French National Assembly, said, “We had to verify that American regulations were
completely respected. … To my knowledge, there is no anomaly at the Canton factory. Nissan
has no tradition of not cooperating with unions” (BFM Business, 27 June 2016). In April, French
National Assembly member and deputy chair of the Assembly’s Social Affairs Committee,
Christian Hutin, sent Ghosn a letter charging that the Nissan CEO’s testimony did not
correspond with the facts. Hutin reported that he had seen an anti-union video that the company
had shown in the Canton plant shortly after Ghosn’s testimony in which a plant manager said,
“We believe that it is not in the best interest of our employees, our customers or our community
to have the UAW in there” (Detroit News, 22 November 2016; and Jackson Free Press, 4 May
2016).
A few days later, Hutin asked Ministers Macron and El Khombri on the floor of the
French National Assembly during question time what the government could do to help Nissan
employees. Minister El Khombri expressed sympathy but said since Nissan owns the plant, “the
French state has little room to maneuver” (https://www.mrc-france.org/Politique-anti-syndicale-
chez-Nissan-Canton-USA-Christian-Hutin-interpelle-le-Gouvernement_a966.html?print=1, 27
April 2016). Some thirty French parliamentarians headed by socialists Bruno Le Roux and
Vincent Peillon, and Greens Cécile Duflot and Noël Mamère sent a letter dated June 8 to Carlos
Ghosn expressing the hope that “the social dialogue ceases to be hindered as soon as possible” at
the Canton plant (Le Parisien, 27 June 2016). Ghosn never responded. On June 28, four Canton
employees, Richard Bensinger, and approximately 40 French trade unionists and political figures

SJ Silvia, Using Civil Rights and International Pressure to Organize, LERA 2019, p. 37
held a rally on the steps of Renault’s Paris headquarters. They picked that date because Ghosn
was scheduled to chair a meeting of the Renault group managing committee there. They planned
to ask to see Ghosn, but Ghosn skipped the meeting, which Renault union official Fabien Gache
branded as “not brave on his part” (l’Humanité, 29 June 2016).
The intensification of international political pressure included Brazil because it was
hosting the 2016 Summer Olympics. In February 2016, Nissan technician Morris Mock joined
200 trade unionists outside of a meeting of the Olympics Organizing Committee in a
demonstration coordinated by IndustriALL to demand neutrality in a recognition election for
Nissan’s Canton employees. IndustriALL Assistant Regional Secretary for Latin America
Marino Vani said to the demonstrators, “We cannot let the Olympics torch be carried by a
company that maintains anti-trade union practices in its supply chain” (Chin 2017, p. 38). In
April 2016, a delegation that included Nissan employee Betty Jones, UAW Canton lead
organizer Sanchioni Butler, UAW region 8 director Ray Curry, UAW and Mississippi civil rights
advocate Frank Figgers testified before the Brazilian Senate’s Human Rights and Participatory
Legislation Committee about circumstances at the Nissan Canton plant (jusbrasil.com.br, 11
April 2016). Nissan Canton employee Karen Camp travelled to Brazil to bring attention to the
organizing drive. She said, “All we want in Mississippi is fairness, which is part of the Olympic
spirit” (Detroit News, 22 November 2016). The Brazilian metalworkers union delivered a letter
to the Olympic organizers charging that Nissan was violating Olympics sponsorship guidelines
by violating employee rights in Canton, and produced radio story critical of Nissan’s behavior in
Canton in light of Nissan’s sponsorship of the 2016 Olympic Games in Brazil
(http://metalurgicos.org.br/noticias/noticias-do-sindicato/protesto-contra-nissan-na-passagem-da-
tocha-olimpica/, 25 July 2016).

SJ Silvia, Using Civil Rights and International Pressure to Organize, LERA 2019, p. 38
Back at home, a group of students, activists and union supporters protested again at the
front gate of the Nissan Canton plant on 2 April 2016 (http://www.alternet.org/labor/students-
and- activists-protest-nissans-anti-union-policies). In May, the UAW filed a complaint with the
National Labor Relations Board alleging that Nissan was engaging in coercive and illegal tactics
to thwart the unionization n effort (WardsAuto, 10 August 2016). The Occupational Safety and
Health Administration (OSHA) issued the Nissan Canton plant six safety violations between
2012 and 2016, fining the company $60,140 (Clarion Ledger, 25 February 2017; and Mississippi
Today, 21 February 2017).
In July, OSHA cited the Nissan Canton plant for two violations involving slip hazards
(Manufacturing News, 26 July 2016). OSHA officials tried to inspect the plant on August 8 after
an employee lost three fingers in an accident. More than thirty employees asked representatives
of the Nissan Workers Committee for a Fair Election to accompany the inspector, but Nissan
management refused. The OSHA inspector obtained a warrant from a federal magistrate judge
to permit employee representatives to participate in the inspection. Nissan unsuccessfully
attempted to quash the warrant (Bloomberg BNA, 14 November 2015). Nissan spokesperson
Brian Brockman responded to inquiries about the workplace safety violations with the assertion
that “Nissan’s Canton plant has a safety record that is significantly better than the national
average for automotive plants,” and the assurance that “we also continue to work on determining
what can be done to prevent future occurrences” (Mississippi Today, 21 February 2017).
Nissan supporters in the business and political communities also became more active in
2016. In March, an anti-union group of Canton employees called Nissan Technicians for Truth
and Jobs (NTTJ) launched a facebook page. The page included negative stories about unions in
general and the UAW in particular. It also took language directly from a notice for Nissan

SJ Silvia, Using Civil Rights and International Pressure to Organize, LERA 2019, p. 39
Canton workers from the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation regarding union
recognition cards (https://facebook.com/NissanTechsforTruth; and
http://www.nrtw.org/en/print/4547).
In the first half of 2016, the Canton plant expanded employment by about 1,000 to 6,400
to increase output. A high proportion of the new hires were temps. As a result, the number of
temps increased to about 2,700. Of the approximately 3,700 employees directly on Nissan’s
payroll, roughly 1,500 of these were former temps whose wage rates and benefit packages were
smaller than those of the legacy technicians whom Nissan hired from the start. Move Mississippi
Forward, a business advocacy organization, commissioned the National Strategic Planning and
Analysis Research Center at Mississippi State University to study the impact of the Nissan plant
on the Mississippi economy. The study found that the plant had directly and indirectly created
25,000 jobs, and generated each year $2.6 billion in disposable income and $300 million in state
and local tax revenue (Clarion Ledger, 23 June 2016; https://msmec.com/move-mississippi-
forward-press-conference-6-24-16/; and National Strategic Planning and Analysis Research
Center at Mississippi State University 2016).
In July 2016, French National Assembly member Christian Hutin travelled to Canton on
a fact-finding trip. Nissan management at the Canton plant declined to meet with Hutin or to let
him onto the plant premises. While in Canton, Hutin characterized Mississippi as a “lawless
place” (Japan Times, 27 July 2016). He said, “The situation in (Canton) is dire and sadly not
new, with the rights of workers seriously being compromised. Every possible step is taken to
prevent the personnel form organizing a union inside the plant. Pressure, threats, harassment,
routine propaganda … every possible step is taken to prejudice the rights of workers in what is
known as a historic cradle of the civil rights movement in the United States of America”

SJ Silvia, Using Civil Rights and International Pressure to Organize, LERA 2019, p. 40
(WardsAuto, 10 August 2016). “Workers’ rights are in fact human rights,” Hutin continued,
“When I return to France, I will be informing the French Government and French president
Hollande about anti-union practices in Canton.” Mississippi NAACP president Derrick Johnson
added, “We have bona fide civil rights concerns when it comes to Renault-Nissan and its poor
treatment of workers in Canton. We cannot tolerate a disrespect for workers’ rights in
Mississippi in 2016. Our state has come too far over the years to allow these kinds of abuses to
persist” (Automotive News, 27 July 2016; and UAW News, 26 July 2016).
Auto industry observers judged that “the UAW and its allies in Europe and South
America have succeeded in making life uncomfortable for Nissan and its CEO Carlos Ghosn”
(WardsAuto, 10 August 2016). The pro-union forces continued to apply pressure. On 12
October 2016, American and French trade unionists, workers from the Nissan Canton plant, civil
society representatives, a gospel choir and Danny Glover marched from the Paris Auto Show to
the French National Assembly to urge Nissan to accept neutrality for a union recognition vote at
the Nissan Canton Plant. Glover told the crowd, “Workers rights are civil rights and our
message is simple: enough is enough. Nissan must stop intimidating the workers and let them
vote for a union without company interference.” French National Assembly member Christian
Hutin stressed, “France is the country of freedom and human rights, and we are asking Carlos
Ghosn to act to change what is happening in Canton. The workers are not asking for a
revolution, they are simply asking for fair treatment” (IndustriALL press release, 13 October
2016; and ouest france, 12 October 2016).
On 20 December 2016, the UAW and IndustriALL representatives filed cases with the
National Contact Points of France, Japan and the Netherlands against Renault, Nissan and the
Renault-Nissan alliance under the OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises. They hoped

SJ Silvia, Using Civil Rights and International Pressure to Organize, LERA 2019, p. 41
that the simultaneous filings would lead the National Contact Points of the three countries to
work together and to pick up where the U.S. NCP had left off in 2015. A press release quoted
UAW secretary-treasurer Gary Casteel saying, “The Renault-Nissan Alliance’s repeated failures
to address the serious workers’ rights and civil rights violations in Mississippi are deeply
troubling to the UAW and the workers’ allies, in the U.S. and around the world” (IndustriALL
press release, 20 December 2016; and Mississippi Today, 27 December 2016).
The year 2017 was decisive for the Nissan Canton organizing drive. Union supporters
expanded their efforts and the NLRB ultimately held a recognition election at the plant in early
August. The year began with the tentative use of the long-discussed tactic of protesting in front
of Nissan dealerships. From January 26 to 28, workers, activists, students and trade unionists
protested, waving signs that read “workers’ rights are civil rights” and Hey Nissan, Stop
threatening your workers in Mississippi” in front of Nissan dealerships in Atlanta, Birmingham,
Charlotte, Greensboro, Nashville and New Orleans (Atlanta Journal Constitution, 27 January
2017; and Tennessean, 26 January 2017). The dealership protests proved ineffectual compared
to the United Farm Workers grape and lettuce boycotts from fifty years earlier or Amalgamated
Clothing and Textile Workers Union boycott of J. P. Stevens textile products of the 1970s
because they were mostly one-time undertakings with little effort to generate publicity beyond
the local level. There was also no request for consumers or others to do anything that would
have inflicted substantial economic pain on Nissan.
The UAW and union supporters did stage one event in 2017 intended to attract national
attention. On March 4, they held “The March on Mississippi.” The graphic advertising the
march included the slogan, “Workers’ Rights = Civil Rights.” Danny Glover authored a 550-
word opinion piece that appeared in Newsweek a week before the march (Newsweek, 3 March

SJ Silvia, Using Civil Rights and International Pressure to Organize, LERA 2019, p. 42
2017), and NBC News ran a 1,000-word article about the march featuring Danny Glover
(www.nbcnews.com/news/nbcblk/march-mississippi-danny-glover-bernie-sanders-are-taking-
nissan-n72866). The promotion efforts paid off. Organizers estimated that 4,000 supporters
went to Canton from several states, making it the largest protest in Mississippi since the 1960s
civil rights movement. A dozen workers from Brazil also attended. (Jackson Free Press, 6
March 2017).
The rally began at the Canton sportsplex with an hour of speeches. Orators included
Danny Glover, NAACP National President Cornell William Brooks, Mississippi NAACP
President Derrick Johnson, Sierra Club President Aaron Mair (whose father was a UAW
member), local Member of Congress Bennie Thompson, Ohio State Senator Nina Turner,
MAFFAN head the Rev. Isiac Jackson, Jr., UAW President Dennis Williams, and Nissan Canton
employees. The closing speaker was Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders. Most speakers
hammered home the theme that workers’ rights are civil rights. Danny Glover recounted, “Dr.
King said it best when he said, ‘the best anti-poverty program I know is to belong to a union’”
(UAW Region 8 News, 6 March 2017). Senator Sanders opined, “I am proud to join in fighting
to give workers at Nissan’s Canton Mississippi, plant the justice, dignity and the right to join a
union that they deserve. … What the workers at the Nissan plant in Mississippi are doing is a
courageous and enormously important effort to improve their lives” (Clarion Ledger, 5 March
2017). Sanders continued, “So we say to Nissan, it’s great that your CEO made $9 million. It’s
great that you made $6 billion in profit, but you know what? Share some of that wealth with
your workers” (Jackson Free Press, 6 March 2017). The Vermont Senator concluded, “The eyes
of the country and the world are on you. Don’t feel you are alone. You’ve got people all over

SJ Silvia, Using Civil Rights and International Pressure to Organize, LERA 2019, p. 43
this country – and many of my colleagues in the Senate are with you. We are with you in this
struggle. Fight on and let’s win this battle!” (Solidarity, March-April 2017).
After the speeches, participants marched two miles to the Canton plant where the event’s
leaders hand-delivered a letter addressed to Nissan North America Chair José Muñoz to the front
gate of the Canton plant. The letter raised recent labor law and health and safety violations, and
made three demands. Nissan should: (1) “immediately cease intimidation and threats by Canton
managers against Nissan employees who want a union. (2) Ensure a safe workplace in Canton.
… (3) Meet with the representatives of MAFFAN and the UAW to discuss conditions for
achieving neutrality and ensuring that Nissan employees in Canton can vote on a local union in
a free and fair election” (MAFFAN letter to José Muñoz, 4 March 2017).
Nissan management responded by closing the plant on the day of the march and issuing a
statement that asserted “the allegations made by the union are totally false.” Management
accused the UAW of engaging in a “campaign to pressure the company into recognizing a union,
even without employee support.” Nissan also began airing anti-union commercials on local
television stations (Guardian, 5 March 2017). Sid Salter, chief communications director at
Mississippi State University and an anti-union opinion writer for the Jackson Clarion Ledger
whose column is carried in many Southern newspapers, challenged equating union rights with
civil rights:
The struggle for ‘civil rights’ sounds far more noble and desirable than what is actually
happening in Canton and across the landscape of foreign-owned automobile
manufacturing plants in the South – which is a desperate struggle for survival by a
weakened labor union that has endured a 75 percent membership decline since 1979. …
This is a business fight over unionizing an automobile manufacturing plant, nothing more
and nothing less (Clarion Ledger, 5 March 2017).
Nissan executive Scott Becker sent a letter to the UAW on March 14 that stated, “Nissan fully
respects the rights of employees to unionize or not unionize, as they choose.” Becker

SJ Silvia, Using Civil Rights and International Pressure to Organize, LERA 2019, p. 44
characterized accusations of Nissan intimidating pro-union employees as “categorically false,”
and asserted that “It would be inappropriate to have discussions with your union regarding
employees at Nissan’s manufacturing plant in Canton, Miss., without your union first having
obtained the support of a majority of employees at the plant” (Jackson Free Press, 24 March
2017).
The March on Mississippi was effective in both galvanizing those already committed to
the organizing drive and attracting additional employees. Pro-union activists intensified their
efforts. Organizer Jeff Moore said, “I think it opened the doors for us really. A lot of people
were scared. … Every night, we just stand there at the turnstile and talk to people in the parking
lot all night long. Sometimes we would leave the gate at 1 or 2 a.m. A lot of families have
changed. It’s a big sacrifice, but it’s worth it.” Within a month, UAW representatives reported
that they had signed up 386 new members at the Canton plant, which was slightly more than ten
percent of the permanent employees eligible to vote (Guardian, 24 July 2017).
Promotion of the organizing campaign continued. On the first Saturday in April, 100
people, including representatives from MAFFAN, the UAW, the Tennessee AFL-CIO Labor
Council, Nashville Organized for Action and Hope, the A. Philip Randolph Institute and several
local black pastors protested across the street from a Nissan dealership in Nashville that was 19
miles south of Nissan North America headquarters in Franklin, Tennessee. The crowd sang
“Nissan, respect your workers!” while holding signs that read “Union. Yes!” and “Workers’
rights are civil rights” (Tennessean, 1 April 2017). Again, however, this was a one-off local
action with no larger strategy attached.
The UAW lawyers continued to file unfair labor practice charges against Nissan and
Kelley Services, one of the providers of temporary employers for the Canton plant. A March 31

SJ Silvia, Using Civil Rights and International Pressure to Organize, LERA 2019, p. 45
filing, which the regional NRLB office found warranted review, claimed that a Kelley Services
supervisor illegally threatened that the plant would close if the UAW won a representation
election, plant security guards harassed union supporters, and Nissan’s policy banning
unauthorized photos and recordings was illegal (Associated Press, 10 April 2017). UAW
lawyers filed an additional set of charges alleging additional counts of management harassment
on June 26 (Associated Press, 11 July 2017). Meanwhile, former U.S. Secretary of Labor and
newly elected Chair of the Democratic National Committee Tom Perez expressed strong support
for the organizing drive at Canton (Payday Report, 19 April 2017).
On 10 July 2017, members of the Nissan Workers Organizing Committee assisted by
UAW officials traveled to the regional NLRB office in New Orleans to file a petition to hold a
recognition election at the Nissan Canton plant. UAW officials never disclosed the number or
percentage of employees who signed authorization cards, which differed from the Volkswagen
Chattanooga organizing drive; Gary Casteel revealed that a majority of VW employees had
signed cards well before the recognition election. Robert Hathorn, who was a member of the
Nissan Worker Organizing Committee for two years, said, “We filed with not even half [of the
employees having signed union recognition cards]” (Labor Notes, 11 August 2017). Typically,
union officials go ahead with a recognition election only after 60 to 65 percent of the employees
have signed cards. Back in February and April, Casteel had indicated that he did not think it was
time to move forward with a recognition election in Canton, given Nissan’s alleged labor law
violations, but in July, Casteel described the decision to move ahead as a “balancing act”
(Atlanta Black Star, 11 July 2017; and Detroit Free Press, 16 February 2017).
The NLRB set two voting days: August 3 and 4. The petition proposed (and Nissan and
the NLRB accepted) that the election only include the 3,700 employees whom Nissan had

SJ Silvia, Using Civil Rights and International Pressure to Organize, LERA 2019, p. 46
directly hired rather than all of the plant’s 6,400 production employees in order to avoid a
protracted legal fight over whether employees supplied by temporary labor service firms should
be included. Union proponents also made this decision because they were concerned that many
temporary employees would be reluctant to support the UAW because of their precarious
position. Union officials and supporters were hopeful that the 1,500 Pathway employees, who
were permanent hires but still had a lower wage scale and fewer benefits, would be especially
amenable to unionization because it offered them a way to eliminate their second-class status
(Associated Press, 25 July 2017; and New York Times, 11 July 2017).
The day after filing for a recognition election, union supporters held a rally in Canton.
They cast themselves as underdogs, but expressed confidence that they would win the election.
Union supporter Nina Dumas said, “Nissan employees want fair wages for all workers, better
benefits, and an end to unreasonable production quotas and unsafe conditions in Mississippi.
The company doesn’t respect our rights. It’s time for a union in Canton” (UAW News, 11 and
17 July 2017). Over 300 Mississippi clergy backed the Canton organizing drive (Payday Report,
21 July 2017). MAFFAN co-chair, the Rev. Isiac Jackson, Jr., declared, “This is a day that some
said could never be in the state of Mississippi, but we discovered yesterday that we have gotten
there” (Associated Press, 11 July 2017). “I’ve never seen a labor campaign of this size,” said
civil rights veteran and the other MAFFAN co-chair Frank Figgers, “This is a historic struggle
about overcoming the effects of slavery in Mississippi” (Guardian, 24 July 2017).
Nissan representatives responded to inquiries about the election filing with a more
explicitly anti-union message: “Nissan Canton’s success has been built upon the direct
relationship we have with employees, and given the UAW’s history of layoffs and job closures,
their presence could harm our plant’s global competitiveness. … While it is ultimately up to our

SJ Silvia, Using Civil Rights and International Pressure to Organize, LERA 2019, p. 47
employees who will represent them, we do not believe that UAW representation is in the best
interest of Nissan Canton and its workers” (Bloomberg BNA News, 11 July 2017).
Beyond the company, an anti-union Facebook page titled #nouaw appeared that included
numerous testimonials and comments from Canton employees opposed to unionization. Anti-
union employees began to attack the UAW’s charitable contributions to local civil rights and
religious groups as buying the support of the African-American community (New York Times, 5
August 2017). Mississippi Manufacturers Association president Jay Moon released a statement
highly critical of the UAW: “Make no mistake – this campaign is not about hardworking
Mississippians at Nissan – this is about a self-serving outsider campaign by a UAW desperate to
survive” (Associated Press, 16 July 2017). The Madison County Journal ran an editorial with
the headline “No to the UAW at Nissan” that described the recognition election as “a war of
information, and in the UAW’s instance, misinformation is key.” The editorial continued, “The
UAW accuses Nissan of intimidation and harassment but offers up no proof. On the other hand,
we have reports of UAW runts running across the county bothering homeowners trying to peddle
their lies.” The editorial went on to attack the central argument of the organizing drive, that is,
equating unionization with civil rights:
The most disgusting piece of misinformation being perpetrated directly and indirectly by
the UAW is that what we have here in Madison County is a civil rights issue. Trying to
turn this into a race war and conjure up images of Mississippi Burning to fund their
existence is nauseating. It’s an affront to all the people who truly fought for civil rights
in Mississippi and across this country (Madison County Journal, 19 July 2017).
All over Canton, businesses put up signs that read, “Our Team Our Future Vote No August 3-4”
(Guardian, 5 August 2017). Mississippi Governor Phil Bryant again expressed his opposition to
the UAW. On the day the union filed for a recognition election, Bryant commented, “Detroit is
the perfect example of the damage the United Auto Workers can do to automotive

SJ Silvia, Using Civil Rights and International Pressure to Organize, LERA 2019, p. 48
manufacturing. … Mississippi is a right-to-work state because employees deserve the freedom to
support their families without union interference” (http://cbsnews.com/news/uaw-union-vote-
nissan-mississippi-plant/). Student labor activist Jaz Brisack reported that the Mississippi
Department of Transportation used prison labor to remove pro-union signs from alongside a
highway (LikeTheDew, 1 August 2017).
Immediately after the filing of the petition for a recognition election, Nissan management
launched a comprehensive campaign to secure a no vote. At no time did the Nissan management
give UAW representatives or pro-union employees an opportunity to speak or to distribute
information in the plant. On July 12, Nissan management forced all employees to watch a new
anti-union video featuring plant vice-president of manufacturing Steve March. March said the
UAW had a record of not delivering on promises made in recognition elections and asked the
employees to keep the union out of the plant. Nissan also sent a letter from March to the homes
of all employees with the same message (Steve March letter to Nissan Canton employees, 12
July 2017). Nissan management played all of the anti-union videos in a continuous loop on
screens in employee break areas.
Nissan supervisors held one-on-one meetings and group “roundtables” with Canton
employees. The principal message in these meetings was that plants in the United States that had
UAW representation had a higher rate of closure than those that did not. “They’re telling you
you’re gonna lose this, you’re gonna lose that. You may go on strike, and if you go on strike,
you’ll be replaced by a replacement worker,” said Michael Carter, a pro-union Canton employee
(Huffington Post, 30 July 2017). Many employees were shaken after managers told them that
current perks, such as vehicle leases at below-market rates without a credit check, could
disappear if the union were to win the recognition election (American Prospect, 8 August 2017).

SJ Silvia, Using Civil Rights and International Pressure to Organize, LERA 2019, p. 49
Nissan management circulated posters and flyers in the plant with the theme “Our Team
Our Future Vote No.” and unveiled a website specifically created for the recognition election
that included information about the vote, a “frequently asked questions” page, an “our voices”
page featuring testimonials by anti-union employees, “in the community” page with statements
from opponents to unionization, and a resources page (https://nissanourfuture.com/about-us/). A
week before the election, Nissan managers wore red T-shirts with the message: “Our Team Our
Future” On the front, and Vote No” on the back. In the days before the election, Nissan bought
hundreds of television and radio advertising spots to broadcast anti-union messages to employees
and their families (Huffington Post, 30 July 2017). Pro-union employees had two new T-shirts
for the recognition election, one read, “Pro-Nissan Pro-Union,” and the other, “Nissan stop
Modern-day Slavery” (Detroit Free Press, 4 August 2017; and
http://southernworker.org/2017/08/mississippi-union-organizers-at-nissan-vow-to-fight-on/, 9
August 2017).
Union supporters in Canton expressed concern that Nissan management’s campaign had
eroded union support. Plant employee Shanta Butler said, “People who were for the union are
now undecided” (Fox Business, 21 July 2017). Nissan employee Michael Carter reported that
the management equated a vote for the UAW with “turning your back on the company.” He said
that such a claim was persuasive for many employees who had been earning $8 an hour in a
previous job; “You give them $25, they think, ‘I’m not going to do anything to jeopardize my
$25’” (Huffington Post, 30 July 2017).
Despite years of effort, some UAW officials saw the election as a long shot (Detroit Free
Press, 7 August 2017). Two weeks before the vote, a former UAW organizer predicted that the
union would lose two to one (In These Times, 7 August 2017). UAW president Dennis Williams

SJ Silvia, Using Civil Rights and International Pressure to Organize, LERA 2019, p. 50
voiced cautious optimism: “A campaign can change from day to day and this will depend on
employees in the plant” (Payday Report, 21 July 2017). “Do I feel like it will pass? Yeah, as of
now. Any campaign you do; it’s an ongoing evaluation. Do [the workers] have it in them to get
over the fear?” (Detroit Free Press, 20 July 2017). Williams observed that pressure from the
local political establishment was present but less pronounced in Mississippi than it had been in
Tennessee during the run up to the 2014 election at Volkswagen Chattanooga (WardsAuto, 21
July 2017). One explanation for the difference was that Volkswagen management’s cooperative
relationship with the UAW appalled Tennessee business and political elites. They chose to fight
the UAW because VW management would not. Since Nissan management chose to wage an
aggressive campaign against the UAW, Mississippi business and political elites did not feel the
same need as their counterparts in Tennessee to participate in the campaign.
In contrast to Williams, UAW secretary-treasurer Gary Casteel at times conveyed an air
pessimism and resignation before the vote: “They [i.e., management] always say the same old
things and they always do the same old things. … The reason they do them is because they
work” (Fox Business, 21 July 2017). On other occasions, Casteel remained defensive but
somewhat more upbeat: “Certainly, at one point, we think that there was enough workers there.
What the impact of the employer’s behavior is, is something we can’t gauge on a daily basis.
These workers are still wanting to fight. There are hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of them.
… It’s a substantial movement. We are certainly in a position to win an election, otherwise we
would not have filed. We’re not that foolhardy” (Clarion Ledger, 1 August 2017). Casteel
condemned the company’s tactics: “Nissan has made it abundantly clear that it does not respect
its Mississippi employees’ rights to vote in a free and fair election. … In fact, the company is

SJ Silvia, Using Civil Rights and International Pressure to Organize, LERA 2019, p. 51
running one of the most aggressive anti-worker campaigns that we’ve seen in modern U.S.
history” (Payday Report, 21 July 2017).
One story broke in late July that hurt the organizing effort. A federal prosecutor obtained
an indictment of former Fiat Chrysler executives Alphons Iacobelli and Jerome Durden, as well
as Monica Morgan-Holiefield (who was the wife of a recently deceased UAW vice-president) for
a multi-million dollar bribery and embezzlement scheme involving a training center for blue-
collar employees (Times Free Press, 26 June 2017). Although the illegalities did not include
anyone involved in the Canton organizing drive, Nissan management immediately added
corruption to the list of criticisms of the UAW in a public statement: “The latest UAW
corruption scandal in Detroit and the history of strikes, layoffs and plant closures at UAW-
represented plants, along with the many false claims and promises made by the UAW during this
campaign are among the many reasons we do not believe that UAW representation is in the best
interest of the employees at Nissan Canton” (Detroit Free Press, 1 August 2017). Corporate
labor attorney Gary Klotz commented on the potential impact of the charges: “If Nissan cannot
use this indictment to win, it probably deserves to lose; if for no other reason, election campaign
malpractice” (Detroit Free Press, 1 August 2017). To contain the damage, and the UAW
leadership went to great lengths to show that UAW officials involved in the scandal were “rogue
individuals” whom the union disciplined and isolated even before the indictment (Automotive
News, 2 August 2017).
A second story broke at the same time as the UAW scandal that helped the union
supporters’ cause. NLRB regional director in New Orleans, M. Kathleen McKinney, filed new
unfair labor practice charges based on UAW accusations alleging that Nissan threatened a loss of
wages and benefits, and threatened to close the plant in meetings with Canton employees (15-

SJ Silvia, Using Civil Rights and International Pressure to Organize, LERA 2019, p. 52
CA-145043, 15-CA-150431, 15-CA-175295, 15-CA-190791, and 15-CA-194155 against Nissan
North America, Inc., 15-CA-145053 and 15-CA175297 against Kelly Services, 28 July 2017).
The complaint also consolidated a number of past filings, some dating back years and covered
Kelly Services as well as Nissan (CNNMoney, 31 July 2017). Nissan spokesperson Brian
Brockman responded, “Today, the UAW has launched another set of baseless allegations against
Nissan Canton and threatened to issue more” (Bloomberg BNA News, 31 July 2017).
On 1 August 2017, two days before voting was to begin, Nissan management issued a
final statement. It read:
Nissan Canton workers enjoy pay and benefits that are among the best in Mississippi, a
safe work environment, and a history of job security that exceeds UAW organized plants.
We do not believe that UAW representation is in the best interest of Nissan Canton and
the people who work here. However, it is ultimately up to the employees to decide.
Nissan Canton’s success has been built upon the direct relationship we have with each
other. Given the UAW’s history of strikes, layoffs, and plant closures, their presence
could harm the plant’s global competitiveness (Commercial Appeal, 1 August 2017).
There was also a final “captive audience” speech. Nissan bused every employee on each shift to
large air-conditioned tent on the company’s grounds where they listened to a succession of
speeches from plant managers. Some struck a conciliar tone. For example, Nissan vice-
president of Manufacturing Steve March conceded: “I want to tell you again, I heard you loud
and clear. Taking care of business means I have to listen and support you more” (Transcript of 1
August 2017 speech). Others stayed in attack mode. Senior vice-president John Martin said,
“Now the UAW isn’t down here from Detroit to help you. The UAW is down here to help
themselves. … The UAW needs you, but you don’t need them” (Transcript of 1 August 2017
speech). No manager took questions. Nissan launched an advertising blitz in local newspapers,
radio, television and the streaming service Spotify, which made it hard for local residences to

SJ Silvia, Using Civil Rights and International Pressure to Organize, LERA 2019, p. 53
consume media without hearing a Nissan ad about the recognition election (Clarion Ledger, 4
August 2017).
In an interview with Automotive News on the day before voting began at Nissan Canton,
Gary Casteel hedged his answer to a question about the likely outcome. He said that he was
confident that a majority of Canton workers is in favor of unionizing, but whether a majority of
them would actually vote to do so was another question. Casteel responded to the claim that
UAW leadership was desperately searching for new sources of dues money to stave off the
demise of the union by pointing out that “Our finances are the best they’ve been since we’ve
been operating. It’s not like [winning at Nissan] is pivotal in the sense of the survival of the
UAW” (Automotive News, 2 August 2017). Gary Casteel accused Nissan management of
spreading “outright lies” by casting doubt about the plant’s future were the UAW to win. He
also returned to the pending unfair labor practice charges and the OSHA violations, remarking,
“These guys’ rap sheet now reads like Al Capone. They just break law after law. Most
companies of this size … have certain things they just don’t do because it’s unethical”
(Automotive News, 2 August 2017). Casteel had complained a day earlier that the employee
contact list, which the NLRB requires employers to share with union organizers during a
recognition election, was riddled with errors, impairing the ability of the UAW to contact
employees (Clarion Ledger, 1 August 2017).
External actors continued to weigh in on the Nissan Canton vote. Former U.S. vice-
president Joe Biden expressed support for recognizing the UAW. Senator Bernie Sanders told
UAW supporters in a videoconference on August 1 that Nissan should “start treating your
workers with the respect and dignity that they deserve. … Give your workers the freedom to join
a union, so that as a nation we can stop the race to the bottom” (MS News Now, 25 July 2017;

SJ Silvia, Using Civil Rights and International Pressure to Organize, LERA 2019, p. 54
and Jackson Free Press, 4 August 2017). On the other side, the Mississippi chapter of
Americans for Prosperity – which is the political arm of the Koch brothers – sent 25,000 mailers
to Jackson area homes that read, “Tell UAW, ‘No Thanks’,” and bought billboard, internet and
radio ads. Representatives of the Mississippi Chamber of Commerce and the National
Association of Manufacturers also issued statements against union recognition at Nissan Canton
(Jackson Free Press, 4 August 2017).
NLRB representatives counted the ballots on the evening of Friday, August 4. The
turnout was high at 97 percent (i.e., 3,551 out of 3,661). The vote was 1,307 (i.e., 37 percent) in
favor of recognizing the UAW as the Nissan Canton employees’ exclusive bargaining agent and
2244 (i.e., 63 percent) against (Detroit Free Press, 4 August 2017). UAW president Dennis
Williams released a prepared statement that praised union supporters and criticized Nissan
management:
The courageous workers of Nissan, who fought tirelessly for union representation
alongside community and civil-rights leaders, should be proud of their efforts to be
represented by the UAW. The result of the election was a setback for these workers, the
UAW and working Americans everywhere, but in no way should it be considered a
defeat. Perhaps recognizing they couldn’t keep their workers from joining our union
based on facts, Nissan and its anti-worker allies ran a vicious campaign against its own
workforce that was comprised of intense scare tactics, misinformation and intimidation
(UAW News, 4 August 2017).
UAW secretary-treasurer Gary Casteel also issued a statement that was more harshly
critical of Nissan management: “We’re disappointed but not surprised by the outcome in
Canton. Despite claiming for years to be neutral on the question of a union, Nissan waged one of
the most illegal and unethical anti-union campaigns that I’ve seen in my lifetime. Clearly,
Nissan will not honor workers’ right to be free of coercion and intimidation without a binding
court order” (UAW News, 4 August 2017).

SJ Silvia, Using Civil Rights and International Pressure to Organize, LERA 2019, p. 55
Nissan’s management’s official statement aimed to move beyond the organizing drive at
the Canton plant:
With this vote, the voice of Nissan employees has been heard. They have rejected the
UAW and chosen to self-represent, continuing the direct relationship they enjoy with the
company. Our expectation is that the UAW will respect and abide by their decision and
cease their efforts to divide our Nissan family. Now that the election is complete, Nissan
will focus on bringing all employees together as one team, building great vehicles and
writing our next chapter in Mississippi (Detroit News, 4 August 2017).
Anti-union employees were ready to move on as well. The following post was on the
Nissan Technicians for Truth and Jobs Facebook page the day after the vote:
IT’S TIME FOR UNITY – NOT A UNION!
The last few weeks have been very hard and exhausting for us and all Nissan
workers. We took on the task of pushing back against the UAW’s false demonization of
our plant for its own financial gain. In their corner they had a long list of influential local
folks they had paid to push their agenda, celebrities, a sitting US Senator, college
students getting class credit to help campaign, and local politicians doing press
conferences and recorded phone calls to us on the eve of the vote. Strangers came to our
homes uninvited to coax us into voting for the UAW. The outside pressures were
oppressive and intimidating.
But we had us. And you. And we won. And we did it in our “spare” time while
still building world class cars right here in Canton, Mississippi.
Now emotions are running high and feelings and friendships have been damaged
no doubt. But come start of the next shift we are all still ONE TEAM. Give you co-
workers a kind word and a smile – even if one is not offered in return right now. It’s
going to take some time. But we must put this behind us and get back to the business of
building good quality cars that people want to buy at a price they can afford. That is our
REAL job security (https://facebook.com/NissanTechsforTruth/posts/know-your-
rights!!!-get-the/1590742541247737/, 5 August 2017).
The UAW leadership took steps to keep options open. Less than an hour before the
voting ended, UAW lawyers filed seven new unfair labor practice charges against Nissan
management. They included allegations that Nissan Management denied UAW representatives
equal access to the voters, provided the UAW with an inaccurate list of eligible voters, engaged
in widespread surveillance of workers’ union activities, maintained a rating system that workers
“according to their perceived support for the UAW,” brought about the firing of a temporary

SJ Silvia, Using Civil Rights and International Pressure to Organize, LERA 2019, p. 56
employee who was sympathetic to the union, threatened to withdraw benefits if workers voted
for the union, and told employees that collective bargaining with the company would be futile
(UAW News, 4 August 2017; and Bloomberg BNA News, 7 August 2017). If the NLRB found
that Nissan committed the alleged unfair labor practices, it could enjoin the company from
committing such acts in the future, order a new election in six months, or even require Nissan
management to bargain with the union. It can take a very long time for ULP cases to work
through the system, however, and the Trump Administration’s new appointees to the NLRB
meant that the likelihood a finding in the UAW’s favor was small. Nissan management
immediately challenged the UAW leadership’s ULP charges and questioned the motivation
behind them: “Filing unfair labor practice charges is a common tactic used by unions in an
organizing campaign. The UAW is again launching baseless and unsubstantiated allegations
against Nissan Canton in a desperate, last-minute attempt to undermine the integrity of the secret
ballot voting process” (Detroit Free Press, 4 August 2017).
The result was a body blow to the plant’s core union supporters. “It hurts,” said Phillip
White, “We ran against a machine. We ran against a monster. We ran against all the lies”
(Jackson Free Press, 7 August 2014). Many struck a defiant tone. After hearing the results of
the recognition election, UAW supporter Morris Mock told a gathering of likeminded
employees, “It ain’t over yet. Nissan, all you did was make us mad. We are gonna fight a little
harder next time. We are gonna stand a little harder next time because next time we are never
gonna give up.” The crowd interrupted Morris with a chant of “six months,” which would be
earliest there could be a new election if the NLRB decided in favor of the UAW’s unfair labor
practice filings. Hazel Whiting, mother of Derrick Whiting who died shortly after collapsing in
the Canton factory, yelled, “Fight to win, fight to win, fight to win!” “It’s the beginning of a

SJ Silvia, Using Civil Rights and International Pressure to Organize, LERA 2019, p. 57
war,” said union proponent Robert Hathorn, “They lit a torch for us.” Castes Foster also
anticipated a rematch and explained why he thought the outcome would be different: “The
company is gonna help us win this next campaign and they don’t even realize it because they are
not going to keep their word. Once a snake, always a snake” (Guardian, 5 August 2017).
Hathorn added, “[Nissan] is going to play this nice guy role for about 3 to 6 months … then
everything will go back to normal. Then the same people who voted against us are gonna be the
same ones leading the campaign more than we are” (Payday Report, 8 August 2017). Michael
Carter pointed to the attitude of some employees to explain the loss: “They don’t understand that
they are the union. There is not a third party coming in there, the union is already in there, and
that’s what we gotta make them understand, that they are the union” (Payday Report, 8 August
2017).
Conclusion: Evaluating the Nissan Canton Organizing Campaign
What were the strengths and weaknesses of the Nissan Canton organizing drive? The
strengths were the choice of the theme of the campaign – namely, that labor rights equal civil
rights – and the development of supporting organizations outside of the plant to help advance the
drive, in particular, Mississippi Alliance for Fairness at Nissan and the Students Justice Alliance.
The theme placed the campaign within a narrative of successful struggle that had resonance with
Mississippi, particularly among the Africa American community. The civil rights theme
facilitated the attraction and retention of the support for over a decade of the NAACP state and
national leaderships, over 300 clergy, celebrities like Danny Glover and politicians like Bernie
Sanders. It efficacy prompted those opposing the unionization effort in Mississippi society to
attack the civil rights head on. That said, the civil-rights theme was persuasive to less than forty

SJ Silvia, Using Civil Rights and International Pressure to Organize, LERA 2019, p. 58
percent of a workforce that was eighty percent African American. Other factors provide more
decisive for the majority.
The UAW leadership invested significant time and resources to generate transnational
support for the Canton organizing drive, which was a top-down effort to pressure Nissan
management to change its actions in Canton. The transnational effort had an impact. The
legislatures of Brazil and France applied pressure on Nissan management, and Nissan and
Renault CEO Carlos Ghosn was compelled to testify before a French parliamentary committee
about Nissan’s actions in Canton. That said, supporters of the Canton organizing drive in the
French national assembly were unable to persuade French government officials to make Ghosn’s
tenure as Renault CEO contingent on ending anti-union actions in Canton, or to use France’s
indirect stake in Nissan through minority ownership of Renault to try to change Nissan policy.
Union supporters in Brazil were unable to sway the Brazil government or even the Río de Janeiro
Olympics organizing committee to change policy in order to put pressure on Nissan
management. UAW officials frequently turned to the IndustriALL Global Union for resolutions
and other forms of rhetorical support, but no one ever attempted to organize transnational actions
beyond sporadic protests outside Nissan dealerships in Brazil. The UAW leadership used the
OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises, but that mechanism proved insufficient. Nissan
refused to cooperate and no actions were taken beyond criticism of the company in the United
States National Contact Point’s final report.
While the massive subsidies that Nissan received to build the Canton plant did provide a
predicate for Mississippi politicians – in particular, Governor Phil Bryant – to weigh in on the
organizing drive, political intervention did not play nearly as big a role in the Nissan Canton
organizing drive as it did in the cases of Mercedes Benz US International in Alabama and

SJ Silvia, Using Civil Rights and International Pressure to Organize, LERA 2019, p. 59
Volkswagen Chattanooga. The principal reason for the difference was that local politicians felt
compelled to threaten the withdrawal of subsidies to get the German companies to stiffen
opposition to the organizing drive. Nissan management, in contrast, needed no external
incentive to take a tough position. It had already honed an aggressive strategy against
unionization in previous organizing drives in the company’s Smyrna, Tennessee, plant.
Unlike Freightliner and Thomas Built Buses in North Carolina, which are the only
successful cases of organizing wholly owned foreign vehicle assembly plants in the United
States to date, United Autoworkers leadership never had something that Nissan management
desperately wanted but could not obtain without coming to an agreement with the union.
Four additional aspects stand out as explanations for why Nissan workers did not vote in
favor of recognizing the UAW as their exclusive bargaining agent. First, a job at Nissan changed
the lives of many employees and they were grateful to Nissan for it. Union organizer Bianca
Cunningham recounted that many Nissan Canton workers said, “I lived in a mobile home with
my wife and kids and now I work at Nissan and have a house and land and my life is better.
They gave me a shot and now I will give them a shot to change” (Labor Notes, 11 August 2017).
Nissan had far higher compensation than Mississippi blue-collar workers could expect to receive
anywhere else in the state. Many Nissan employees were reluctant to do anything that
potentially risked losing their jobs as a result. This included supporting a union. Union
supporters did raise the issue of a three-tier compensation system in the plant (i.e., permanent
direct hires, permanent pathway employees, and temporary employees), but never used it in as
centerpiece of the organizing drive. The union campaign, for example, never targeted current
and potential pathway employees for support and did not attempt to engage the temporary
employees. It is worth noting that the German metalworkers union, IG Metall, contained the

SJ Silvia, Using Civil Rights and International Pressure to Organize, LERA 2019, p. 60
challenge posed by temporary employment in German automobile assembly plants by pressuring
temporary employment agencies into signing a collective bargaining agreement.
Second, Nissan management’s campaign against the union inside the Canton plant proved
effective. Union supporters acknowledged that the constant messaging associating the UAW
with internal strife and plant closures, the one-on-one meetings with supervisors, and the round
table group meetings and peer pressure were effective in dissuading some employees from
supporting the union. For example, Chip Wells, the long-time union supporter whom the UAW
and MAFFAN helped to get back his job and $6,500 in backpay from Nissan, came out publicly
against the UAW days before the recognition election. Wells said that he switched because of
pressure from anti-union co-workers, a decision he said he quickly came to regret after the
recognition election (Labor Notes, 11 August 2017)
Third, union sympathizers did not follow through on some of the bigger and more
unconventional ideas to advance unionization in Canton that would have applied much more
public pressure on Nissan. For example, the initial discussions about protesting in front of
Nissan dealerships envisioned a concerted nationwide effort, but it never happened in practice.
No one proposed taking the idea a step further to a consumer boycott akin to those unions
conducted in the 1960s and 1970s to organize farm workers in California and J.P. Stevens
employees in North Carolina. The UAW’s message of “pro-union, pro-Nissan” did not leave
room for more confrontational tactics. Ceding that ground, however, foreclosed the use of
several additional tactics.
Fourth, the workers organizing committee within the plant was never strong enough to
apply substantial inside leverage on company management. Union supporters invested much
more time and effort into developing and sustaining MAFFAN, the SJA and international ties

SJ Silvia, Using Civil Rights and International Pressure to Organize, LERA 2019, p. 61
than they did developing the Nissan Workers Organizing Committee. This imbalance had
consequences. MAFFAN was the lead organization in most undertakings, such as protesting at
auto shows, which crowded out opportunities for employees to take the initiative. Neither the
Nissan Workers Committee for a Fair Election nor the Nissan Workers Organizing Committee
attempted to act as the de facto shop-floor employee representative, as has been the case in other
unionization drives, but instead simply talked about the benefits of unionization. As a result,
undecided Nissan Canton employees never saw practical examples in the plant of the difference
a union could make, save for the successful effort in fall 2016 – with the assistance of an OSHA
inspector – to allow employee representatives to participate in a safety inspection in the
aftermath of a serious accident.
When it came to the actual representation election, the Nissan Workers Organizing
Committee proved to be far too small and poorly organized to be effective. After the vote,
Jeremy Holmes, a Nissan Canton employee who was on NWOC said, “We couldn’t cover
everybody in the plant because the committee wasn’t big enough and there were a lot of people
on the committee that were not active like they were supposed to be. Probably only about half
were doing the work that needed to get done” (Labor Notes, 11 August 2017). NWOC therefore
had no presence in some departments and shifts.
It is best practice in an organizing drive for organizers and organizing committee
members to have at least one conversation with every eligible employee individually to assess
the person’s position on unionization. This did not happen in Canton. It was difficult to tell
permanent from temporary employees because all wore the same clothing. So, union
sympathizers never had a solid list of who was eligible to vote until Nissan provided one as
required two weeks before the vote, and that list was incomplete and had errors. Consequently,

SJ Silvia, Using Civil Rights and International Pressure to Organize, LERA 2019, p. 62
when voting commenced, union sympathizers had not assessed the preference or noted the
concerns of more than 600 eligible employees. In contrast, Nissan management had for years
sent its messages repeatedly through multiple media and had one-on-one conversations with all
employees (Labor Notes, 11 August 2017).
In conclusion, the civil rights theme that was the centerpiece of the organizing campaign
at Nissan’s Canton, Mississippi, facility resonated both inside and outside of the plant. It clearly
helped to advance the organizing effort beyond where it would have been without it, but it was
not sufficient to carry the day, given the challenging economic environment in Mississippi of
low-wage labor outside of the plant, the strong opposition of Nissan management, the incomplete
follow through on some of the bolder ideas, and a well-developed employee committee that
became an active presence in the plant.

SJ Silvia, Using Civil Rights and International Pressure to Organize, LERA 2019, p. 63
Bibliography
Chen, Michelle (2017) “Mississippi Autoworkers Mobilize.” Dissent 64, no. 3 (Summer): 32-38.
Good Jobs First (2013) “A Good Deal for Mississippi? A Report on Taxpayer Assistance to
Nissan in Canton, Mississippi.” Washington, D.C., issued May 2013 and updated June 2013.
Johnson, Derrick, and Lance Compa (2013) “Choosing Rights: Nissan in Canton, Mississippi,
and Workers’ Freedom of Association under International Human Rights Standards.” Jackson,
MS, 8 October.
National Strategic Planning and Analysis Research Center at Mississippi State University (2016)
“Nissan Canton: A Catalyst for Advanced Automotive Manufacturing in Mississippi.”
Mississippi State, MS: NSPARC.
Office of the U.S. National Contact Point, United States Department of State (2015) “U.S.
National Contact Point for the OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises. Final Statement.
Specific Instance involving the International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace and
Agricultural Implement Workers of America (UAW) and IndustriALL Global Union and Nissan
Motor Co., Ltd. and Nissan North America, Inc. for Conduct in the United States,” Washington,
D.C., 30 January.
Price, John (1997) Japan Works: Power and Paradox in Postwar Industrial Relations. Ithaca,
NY: Cornell University Press.
United Auto Workers (2017) “When an Election is neither Free nor Fair: Nissan and the 2017
Union Election in Mississippi.” September. https://uaw.org/app/uploads/2017/09/WHEN-AN-
ELECTION-IS-NEITHER-FREE-NOR-FAIR.pdf.

SJ Silvia, Using Civil Rights and International Pressure to Organize, LERA 2019, p. 64
Appendix
Letters sent to Nissan on behalf of Canton employees:
United States Trade Unions:
- American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees union president Lee Saunders
to Carlos Ghosn, 16 December 2013.
- Communication Workers Union president Larry Cohen to Carlos Ghosn, 20 December 2013.
- Service Employees International Union president Mary Kay Henry to Carlos Ghosn, 16
December 2013.
- National Education Association president Dennis Van Roekel to Carlos Ghosn, 29 January
2014.
Foreign Trade Unions:
Brazil
- Força Sindical President Miguel Torres to Carlos Ghosn, 21 December 2013.
- Sindicato dos Metalúgicos do ABC / CUT president Rafael Marques to Carlos Ghosn, 4
February 2014.
- União Gerel dos Trabalhadores president Ricardo Patah to Carlos Ghosn, 6 February 2014.
- Confederação Nacional Metalúgicos / CUT president Paulo Cayres and International General
Secretary João Cayres to Metalúgicos to Carlos Ghosn, 13 February 2014.
- União Gerel dos Trabalhadores president Ricardo Patah to Carlos Ghosn, 24 July 2017.
France
- Fred Dijoux, Laurent Smolnik, Fabian Gâche, and Dominique Chauvin to Carlos Ghosn, 5
December 2012.
Japan
- Japan Automobile Workers president Yasunobu Aihara and Federation of All Nissan and
General Workers Union (Nissan Roren) president Akira Takakura to Bob King, 19 June
2013.
Spain
- Javier Urbana and Manuel Garcia Salgado to Ignacio Torres Zambrana and Ruth Pina, 24 April
2013.
United Kingdom
- Unite assistant general secretary Tony Burke to Bob King, 19 December 2012.
- Unite assistant national officer Tony Murphy to Nissan Canton Vice President of
Manufacturing Steve March, 24 July 2017.
International Trade Union Organizations:
- IndustriALL Global Union general secretary Jurki Raina and UAW president Bob King to
Carlos Ghosn, 8 March 2014.
- IndustriALL Global Union general secretary Jurki Raina to Carlos Ghosn, 19 March 2014.

SJ Silvia, Using Civil Rights and International Pressure to Organize, LERA 2019, p. 65
- Building and Wood Workers’ International general secretary Ambet Yuson to Carlos Ghosn, 10
March 2014
- International Union of Food, Agricultural, Hotel, Restaurant, Catering, Tobacco and Allied
Workers’ Associations general secretary Ron Oswald to Carlos Ghosn, 11 March 2014.
- Education International general secretary Fred van Leeuwen to Carlos Ghosn, 12 March 2014.
- International Trade Union Confederation general secretary Sharan Burrow to Carlos Ghosn, 24
March 2014.
- UNI Global Union general secretary Philip Jennings, 2015.
Worker Rights Organizations:
- Jobs with Justice Executive Director Sarita Gupta to Carlos Ghosn, 17 December 2013.
- National Domestic Workers Alliance Director Ai-jen Poo to Carlos Ghosn, 16 December 2013.
Environmental Organizations:
- Blue Green Alliance Executive Director David Foster to Carlos Ghosn, 23 January 2014.
- Green for All chief executive officer Phaedra Ellis-Lamkins to Carlos Ghosn, 24 January 2014.
- Rainforest Action Network Executive Director Lindsey Allen to Carlos Ghosn, 2015.
Minority Worker Trade Union Organizations:
- Asia Pacific American Labor Alliance president Johanna Puno Hester to Carlos Ghosn, January
2014.
- Labor Council for Latin American Advancement national president Milton Rosado to Carlos
Ghosn, January 2014.
- A. Philip Randolph Institute president Clayola Brown to Carlos Ghosn, 24 February 2014.
- Pride@Work co-presidents Lori Pelletier and Shane Larson to Carlos Ghosn, 24 March 2014.
- Coalition of Labor Union Women president Connie A. Leak to Carlos Ghosn, 26 February
2014.
- Coalition of Black Trade Unionists President Terrence L. Melvin to Carlos Ghosn, 26 March
2014.
Religious Organizations:
- Progressive National Baptist Convention President Carroll A. Baltimore, Sr., to Carlos Ghosn,
13 February 2014.
Political Figures:
Brazil
- Luiz Inácio da Silva to Carlos Ghosn and Nissan President and Chief Operating Officer
Toshiyuki Shiga, 4 October 2013.
France
- Cécile Duflot et al. to Carlos Ghosn, 8 June 2017.