3 ms·
> So when you cite the NLRA as a bad thing, you are literally making the argument I just suggested you were. I never once cited the NLRA as "a bad thing".
by chimeracoder 9y ago
> So when you cite the NLRA as a bad thing, you are literally making the argument I just suggested you were.
I never once cited the NLRA as "a bad thing".
- tptacek 9y agoIt's misleading to suggest that professional associations require the NLRA to operate. Without the NLRA, employees can simply be fired for attempting to organize. Sorry, I should have been clearer earlier.
- chimeracoder 9y ago> Without the NLRA, employees can simply be fired for attempting to organize. Sort of, but not really. The NLRA does prevent the right to organize, which is mostly (though not exclusively) used in the context of labor unions. The NLRA was passed with the expectation that organization would generally take the form of labor unions. The ability to organize outside of a unionized workplace was specified largely to solve the "chicken and egg" problem of forming a union in the first place. That said, the NLRA isn't the only thing (or even the primary thing) that prevents employees from being fired for joining a professional association. Which is what I've been saying all along: professional associations are notably different from labor unions which draw their power largely from the NLRA and are overseen by the NLRB.
- tptacek 9y agoI think you're just factually off here. It's the NLRA that federally prohibits the termination of employees for protected concerted action. Without the NLRA, you can indeed be fired for organizing --- any kind of organizing. Employment in the US is at-will.