Abrams Faces Backlash After Hiring Controversial Consultant Ahead of Union Vote
As Abrams employees prepare for a union election, the company has stirred controversy by hiring a consultant with ties to anti-union campaigns. The publishing house confirmed that Max Goodwin, a labor consultant with a background in union opposition, was brought in as an “educational resource” for staff ahead of the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) mail-in vote scheduled to begin April 30.
Goodwin—who Abrams says has experience as a labor consultant, union representative, and union member—is linked to International Labor Relations (ILR), a division of Sparta Solutions, a firm that openly positions “organized labor” as an adversary and advertises its ability to guide employers through “the toughest fights,” including union elections.
A Familiar Playbook?
According to reporting from Publishers Lunch and confirmed by Abrams staff, Goodwin is also known under the alias James Teague, a name associated with anti-union efforts documented in a 2023 HuffPost article. That piece reported that Sparta and its representatives have contacted companies under various pseudonyms to win consulting contracts and advise against unionization.
Sparta’s website positions itself as a defender of management interests, and the firm has been previously criticized for employing stealth tactics and pressure campaigns to dissuade union efforts.
Internal Fallout
Goodwin was introduced to Abrams employees during what the company called a “voluntary gathering.” In an email obtained by Publishers Lunch, Abrams HR described him as a balanced resource to help employees make informed decisions. The company reiterated this in a formal statement: “Max Goodwin has worked as a labor consultant, a union representative, and a union member himself… Based on his many years of union involvement, his professional name is a necessity to safeguard his family.”
But critics within the company and across the publishing industry say the move is a thinly veiled attempt to influence the outcome of the election—and reflects a growing pattern of employer resistance to organized labor within the media and publishing sectors.
The Abrams Union, backed by UAW Local 2110 (which also represents the HarperCollins Union), expressed concern on social media, citing Goodwin’s affiliations and the company’s messaging as evidence of anti-union intent.
Company Pushback Against Unionization
Abrams CEO Mary McAveney directly addressed employees in an April 18 letter, outlining recent hardships including job cuts, benefit changes, and stagnant wages—issues that many workers say contributed to the desire to unionize.
However, McAveney argued that a union was not the answer: “Unionization creates an ‘us versus them’ dynamic,” she wrote. “Employers are obligated to communicate with a third party which cares less about making sure Abrams remains strong and productive.”
A separate April 17 company letter to eligible voters went even further, stating: “We respect your ability to speak for yourselves without a third party speaking for you. Unionization limits that individual right.”
What’s Next?
Ballots will be mailed to eligible employees by the NLRB on April 30, with all votes due by May 21. Abrams leadership has said it “urges every eligible voter to cast their ballot,” while also clearly encouraging a “No” vote on unionization.
As the vote nears, Abrams finds itself at a pivotal moment—not just in labor relations, but in its reputation as a progressive publishing house. While the company maintains that it supports fair treatment, transparency, and good working conditions, many employees and industry observers see this latest move as a test of its values.
With union efforts spreading rapidly across the industry—from HarperCollins to independent bookstores—Abrams’ next chapter may be defined not by the books it publishes, but by how it treats the people who make those books possible.