4 ms·

you can not fire people in unions just for belonging to a union and yes there is legislation that says that if a union forms then you have to deal with the unio

by x5n1 11y ago

you can not fire people in unions just for belonging to a union and yes there is legislation that says that if a union forms then you have to deal with the union. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_labor_law#Right_to_organize https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_labor_law#Right_...

eru 11y ago
OK, then just don't negotiate at all (or only negotiate pro forma, if legally obliged), and fire anyway who goes on strike? Make it clear that this will happen, and if your commitment is credible, you'll never see a strike.
- pdkl95 11y ago
  Escalating the conflict is rarely a good idea. It's not like this hasn't been tried before; labor simply had to find more creative ways of taking Direct Action; the "strike" is only one of their options. The "blue flu" is a traditional way get around that type of threat. A particularly effective tactic is "work to rule", which is a de facto strike specifically designed to get around threats from management; it's harder to justify firing someone for following all safety/regulatory requirements. If an industry is being particularly problematic, this is where it pays to be on good diplomatic terms with other unions, because the "nuclear option" for a network of unions is the General Strike. If management has any sanity at all, they will choose to negotiate well before such tactics become necessary. Strength in numbers is usually a winning strategy, and the most effective counter is to convince people that they shouldn't fight back.
  - eru 11y ago
    The nuclear option for the business is to shut down. (And perhaps re-open in another country.) Shutting down is mutually assured destruction. But like mad in the cold war, it might work to keep the demands at bay. Iff you can make your commitment stick, and people have nowhere else to go.

4 ms·

you can not fire people in unions just for belonging to a union and yes there is legislation that says that if a union forms then you have to deal with the unio

by x5n1 11y ago

eru 11y ago
OK, then just don't negotiate at all (or only negotiate pro forma, if legally obliged), and fire anyway who goes on strike? Make it clear that this will happen, and if your commitment is credible, you'll never see a strike.
- pdkl95 11y ago
  Escalating the conflict is rarely a good idea. It's not like this hasn't been tried before; labor simply had to find more creative ways of taking Direct Action; the "strike" is only one of their options. The "blue flu" is a traditional way get around that type of threat. A particularly effective tactic is "work to rule", which is a de facto strike specifically designed to get around threats from management; it's harder to justify firing someone for following all safety/regulatory requirements. If an industry is being particularly problematic, this is where it pays to be on good diplomatic terms with other unions, because the "nuclear option" for a network of unions is the General Strike. If management has any sanity at all, they will choose to negotiate well before such tactics become necessary. Strength in numbers is usually a winning strategy, and the most effective counter is to convince people that they shouldn't fight back.
  - eru 11y ago
    The nuclear option for the business is to shut down. (And perhaps re-open in another country.) Shutting down is mutually assured destruction. But like mad in the cold war, it might work to keep the demands at bay. Iff you can make your commitment stick, and people have nowhere else to go.