3 ms·

Isn't it 'illegal' to fire as retaliation for unionizing?

Alex3917 9y ago
Not exactly. It's illegal to fire people for engaging in protected concerted activity to improve their working conditions. Unionization is one example of something that could be protected concerted activity, but not all tactics for forming unions would qualify as protected concerted activity, nor is protected concerted activity in any way limited to forming unions. (There are some explicit protections for unionizing, but this is the general principle.) For example, using your employer's Slack to discuss improving things like healthcare, overtime, wages, etc. would be a textbook example of something that would be protected. You need at least two employees (non-managers) leading the discussion though to qualify as concerted, one person complaining is just a malcontent and doesn't qualify for any protections under the law.
- HeyLaughingBoy 9y ago
  Related to this, one of the most interesting things I took home from my short course in Employment Law was the statement from the lawyer teaching the class: "if you're going to complain about something to your boss that he won't like; make sure there are at least two of you complaining. That way you're covered by the laws pertaining to Collective Bargaining and you can have some recourse if you're fired as a result."
lerie82 9y ago
I think at-will states can fire for any reason, including unionizing
Kelbit 9y ago
Yep. As weak as union laws are in the US, firing workers for attempting to organize is a surefire way to run afoul of the Wagner Act. As per the article: > Outsourcing jobs abroad for the purpose of punishing or discouraging union organizing, as opposed to a valid business reason, would violate the National Labor Relations Act.
Phlarp 9y ago
IANAL but I suspect their only avenue for recourse would be private arbitration as chosen by the employer. This is pretty standard language in modern employment contracts and from what I understand very few things are capable of invalidating it. (unpaid wages is one example I think can void such a clause)
- ThrustVectoring 9y ago
  "Contract of adhesion" pretty well covers it. Ask to strike the arbitration clause, bait the potential employer to say "take it or leave it", get that in writing, and you can sue to your heart's content later.
  - mLuby 9y ago
    Can you elaborate on why contract of adhesion could defeat an arbitration clause? Getting the "take it or leave it" in writing establishes your inferior bargaining position, but don't you also have to show that arbitration clauses specifically are "unconscionable"? I certainly think they are, but I haven't heard a lot of that from courts.
    - ThrustVectoring 9y ago
      The UN considers access to justice a human right. Depriving people of the ability to access the legal system through your overwhelming negotiating position is a pretty easy argument that it's unconscionable. Realistically, it's enough to likely get past motions to dismiss, which means that the company will negotiate against a BATNA of a lawsuit instead of binding arbitration, which means you get much more money.

Not exactly. It's illegal to fire people for engaging in protected concerted activity to improve their working conditions. Unionization is one example of something that could be protected concerted activity, but not all tactics for forming unions would qualify as protected concerted activity, nor is protected concerted activity in any way limited to forming unions. (There are some explicit protections for unionizing, but this is the general principle.) For example, using your employer's Slack to discuss improving things like healthcare, overtime, wages, etc. would be a textbook example of something that would be protected. You need at least two employees (non-managers) leading the discussion though to qualify as concerted, one person complaining is just a malcontent and doesn't qualify for any protections under the law.

HeyLaughingBoy 9y ago
Related to this, one of the most interesting things I took home from my short course in Employment Law was the statement from the lawyer teaching the class: "if you're going to complain about something to your boss that he won't like; make sure there are at least two of you complaining. That way you're covered by the laws pertaining to Collective Bargaining and you can have some recourse if you're fired as a result."

lerie82 9y ago

I think at-will states can fire for any reason, including unionizing

Kelbit 9y ago

Yep. As weak as union laws are in the US, firing workers for attempting to organize is a surefire way to run afoul of the Wagner Act. As per the article: > Outsourcing jobs abroad for the purpose of punishing or discouraging union organizing, as opposed to a valid business reason, would violate the National Labor Relations Act.

Phlarp 9y ago

IANAL but I suspect their only avenue for recourse would be private arbitration as chosen by the employer. This is pretty standard language in modern employment contracts and from what I understand very few things are capable of invalidating it. (unpaid wages is one example I think can void such a clause)

ThrustVectoring 9y ago
"Contract of adhesion" pretty well covers it. Ask to strike the arbitration clause, bait the potential employer to say "take it or leave it", get that in writing, and you can sue to your heart's content later.
- mLuby 9y ago
  Can you elaborate on why contract of adhesion could defeat an arbitration clause? Getting the "take it or leave it" in writing establishes your inferior bargaining position, but don't you also have to show that arbitration clauses specifically are "unconscionable"? I certainly think they are, but I haven't heard a lot of that from courts.
  - ThrustVectoring 9y ago
    The UN considers access to justice a human right. Depriving people of the ability to access the legal system through your overwhelming negotiating position is a pretty easy argument that it's unconscionable. Realistically, it's enough to likely get past motions to dismiss, which means that the company will negotiate against a BATNA of a lawsuit instead of binding arbitration, which means you get much more money.