Once a union voting unit is established and the election date is set, federal labor law requires the employer to provide the union with the names and home addresses of all eligible employees. That law, which grew out of a 1966 U.S. Supreme Court decision, was intended to give unions easier access to the employees they are attempting to organize. But a good union buster knows how to pervert the intent. When I prepared the list (called the Excelsior list, for the company Excelsior Underwear, Inc., involved in the landmark court ruling), I did so meticulously: I provided the minimum information legally required while withholding enough derails to frustrate union officers in their hunt for employees. I never included first names, for example, only the first initial. I listed the employee's house number and street, as required, but always was sure to leave out apartment numbers and street designations such as Street, Avenue, Drive, or Place. I never included zip codes. Such a skeletal list guaranteed that some employees would not be found and that the union would rake an inordinately long time finding others. To top off the sabotage, I sent a letter to every employee on the list before releasing their names to the union. In the letter, which was signed by company management, I informed employees that we had given out personal information on them to the union as required by law and assured them that we would never have given out such information otherwise. The letter went on to warn the workers to expect harassing phone calls and visits from union officials at their homes. Management apologized, of course, for the trouble the union drive was causing the good workers. I prepared Cravat's Excelsior list and warning letter according to the formula. Working in tandem with the expansion of the voting unit, the ploy was particularly effective. The union-organizing process was contaminated from the beginning.