3 ms·

Employees are free to form unions under the freedom of association, but employers are likewise free to fire those employees. These votes are all about forming a

by magila 5y ago

Employees are free to form unions under the freedom of association, but employers are likewise free to fire those employees. These votes are all about forming a union under the rules established by the National Labor Relations Act ("NLRA") which prohibits terminating employees for unionizing.

woodruffw 5y ago
> Employees are free to form unions under the freedom of association, but employers are likewise free to fire those employees. It's illegal in the US to fire an employee chiefly for attempting to unionize their workplace. That can be difficult to prove, but it's one of the explicit protections provided by the NLRA and, when proven, is usually sufficient grounds for unconditional reinstatement[1]. So, to be clear: labor rights in the US are more than just "free association" rights. You have an exceptional right, under federal labor law, to expend time and space within your workplace with the goal of unionizing. It is illegal for your employer to retaliate against your organization under the guise of either "free association" on their behalf or at-will employment. [1]: https://www.dol.gov/sites/dolgov/files/olms/regs/compliance/eo_posters/employeerightsposter11x17_2019final.pdf https://www.dol.gov/sites/dolgov/files/olms/regs/compliance/...
- whimsicalism 5y ago
  If you have a pseudo-not law enshrined union and you try to go on strike it is legal for your employer to fire you. That said, this is what unions originally started out as and they were still successful. If anything, the post-legal enshrinement of unions has coincided with their weakening. I am curious if this period of tight labor markets will bring a new chapter in union history.
  - woodruffw 5y ago
    Yes, because that wouldn't be a union under federal law. The NLR{A,B} is very precise about what it considers to be a legitimate form of organized labor, the fact of which does not detract from it being illegal for an employer to fire you for attempting to organize in a form recognized under the NLRA.
    - magila 5y ago
      That's precisely the point I was trying to make in my OP. In theory freedom of association affords one the ability to form a union in any manner they please, but a union which does not conform to the requirements of the NLRA is not entitled to the special legal protections granted by that act.
      - woodruffw 5y ago
        My apologies, I misread your point!
    - whimsicalism 5y ago
      Sure. The NLRB can be as precise as it wishes. My point is only that a "union" is not merely what the NLRB deigns to be the state-sanctioned form of worker organizing. There were clearly recognizable unions in the 19th century that were not sanctioned by law. That does not make them any less of a union. It is only illegal to fire an employ for attempting to form a union of the NLRB sanctioned structure. An organization of workers that undertakes a wildcat strike can be legally fired.
      - woodruffw 5y ago
        Okay, I see what you mean now. Yeah, the protections are not as encompassing as a non-NLRB-approved use of the word "union" might lead people to believe.

by magila 5y ago

woodruffw 5y ago

> Employees are free to form unions under the freedom of association, but employers are likewise free to fire those employees. It's illegal in the US to fire an employee chiefly for attempting to unionize their workplace. That can be difficult to prove, but it's one of the explicit protections provided by the NLRA and, when proven, is usually sufficient grounds for unconditional reinstatement[1]. So, to be clear: labor rights in the US are more than just "free association" rights. You have an exceptional right, under federal labor law, to expend time and space within your workplace with the goal of unionizing. It is illegal for your employer to retaliate against your organization under the guise of either "free association" on their behalf or at-will employment. [1]: https://www.dol.gov/sites/dolgov/files/olms/regs/compliance/eo_posters/employeerightsposter11x17_2019final.pdf https://www.dol.gov/sites/dolgov/files/olms/regs/compliance/...

whimsicalism 5y ago
If you have a pseudo-not law enshrined union and you try to go on strike it is legal for your employer to fire you. That said, this is what unions originally started out as and they were still successful. If anything, the post-legal enshrinement of unions has coincided with their weakening. I am curious if this period of tight labor markets will bring a new chapter in union history.
- woodruffw 5y ago
  Yes, because that wouldn't be a union under federal law. The NLR{A,B} is very precise about what it considers to be a legitimate form of organized labor, the fact of which does not detract from it being illegal for an employer to fire you for attempting to organize in a form recognized under the NLRA.
  - magila 5y ago
    That's precisely the point I was trying to make in my OP. In theory freedom of association affords one the ability to form a union in any manner they please, but a union which does not conform to the requirements of the NLRA is not entitled to the special legal protections granted by that act.
    - woodruffw 5y ago
      My apologies, I misread your point!
  - whimsicalism 5y ago
    Sure. The NLRB can be as precise as it wishes. My point is only that a "union" is not merely what the NLRB deigns to be the state-sanctioned form of worker organizing. There were clearly recognizable unions in the 19th century that were not sanctioned by law. That does not make them any less of a union. It is only illegal to fire an employ for attempting to form a union of the NLRB sanctioned structure. An organization of workers that undertakes a wildcat strike can be legally fired.
    - woodruffw 5y ago
      Okay, I see what you mean now. Yeah, the protections are not as encompassing as a non-NLRB-approved use of the word "union" might lead people to believe.