3 ms·

> Or is that your personal view of unionization coming through? Personally, I'm all for unionization. And then you quote some documents: > Employees shall ha

by bb88 9y ago

> Or is that your personal view of unionization coming through? Personally, I'm all for unionization. And then you quote some documents: > Employees shall have the right to self-organization, to form, join, or assist labor organizations, to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing, and to engage in other concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection, > to interfere with, restrain, or coerce employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in section 7 I agree with this. But proving that happened is hard. All the company needs is a reason to fire someone. That can be pretty much any valid reason other than the employees were forming a union. How does a company get around this: 1. Company sees lawyers. Lawyers offer advice to control the messaging and emails and open up a software development house off shore. 2. Company lays a paper trail showing the cost/benefit analysis of moving labor overseas and meetings about the effect, as well as a decision outlining the decision as one of cost. 3. Company fires people, knowing that the labor dispute won't come into play, ending the issue for everyone involved as a side effect.

eesmith 9y ago
To be technical, I quoted two parts of the same document. ;) I agree that it can be hard. However, it is not impossible. My comment was to point out that there are limits to the statement "a company can fire all of its union labor and replace them with overseas workers if they so chose". In some cases this is illegal, and the company may face penalties. I don't know much about labor law. I know more about civil rights law, and it seems the two are structured similarly. Under Title VII, retaliatory behavior is not permitted, and a suspiciously close timing like this is one of the factors which support a claim that there was retaliatory behavior. Mass firing of everyone who tried to unionize is another. I agree that it's possible for a company to fire a unionized staff en mass and outsource the work. Based on the description in this essay there seems more than enough evidence of possible illegal behavior to justify discovery, and management doesn't seem subtle enough to carry it off properly.

by bb88 9y ago

eesmith 9y ago

To be technical, I quoted two parts of the same document. ;) I agree that it can be hard. However, it is not impossible. My comment was to point out that there are limits to the statement "a company can fire all of its union labor and replace them with overseas workers if they so chose". In some cases this is illegal, and the company may face penalties. I don't know much about labor law. I know more about civil rights law, and it seems the two are structured similarly. Under Title VII, retaliatory behavior is not permitted, and a suspiciously close timing like this is one of the factors which support a claim that there was retaliatory behavior. Mass firing of everyone who tried to unionize is another. I agree that it's possible for a company to fire a unionized staff en mass and outsource the work. Based on the description in this essay there seems more than enough evidence of possible illegal behavior to justify discovery, and management doesn't seem subtle enough to carry it off properly.