5 ms·

Since when a company has the option to “recognize” or not a union? I feel this is one of those questions with a simple answer, but the more you learn the more

Since when a company has the option to “recognize” or not a union? I feel this is one of those questions with a simple answer, but the more you learn the more your sadness increases..

banannaise 4y ago
Anyone has the option to do anything; the question is how you will be prevented from or punished for doing it. In this case, the answers are: not at all; and lightly at worst.
a_humean 4y ago
Well given that a union at least initially isn't part of the formal company structures almost by definition then there needs to be some process of recognition that yes this organisation that claims to represent my employees does in fact represent my employees. That is what those union ballots are about - the union needs evidence that they are representatives of the employees of the company. A union has to start somewhere. Of course depending upon the legal jurisdiction a company might not have much of a choice if a union meets a legal threshold, and in the case of union action they might not have a choice otherwise than deal with a union. In this case I doubt MS had a choice, I guess what is notable is that they have not needed to make such a choice before now.
- pastacacioepepe 4y ago
  > recognition that yes this organisation that claims to represent my employees does in fact represent my employees. Uhm, and why should the company have a say in this, when it's the employees that are already telling the company that they are unionized?
  - chrisseaton 4y ago
    How else do you think the company should determine if it wants to interact with the union or not? Obviously the company isn’t going to work with literally any union that emails them and says it has a demand, without knowing if the union has anything to back up its demands or not. If someone came to demand your money and said ‘or else’ you’d ask what the ‘or else’ is, wouldn’t you?
    - pastacacioepepe 4y ago
      > How else do you think the company should determine if it wants to interact with the union or not? Pretty simple. Check how many employees are part of the union. Does the union represent a majority of the workforce or at least a minority but made of important employees? Then you better listen to what they say, or they could go on a strike. The only way to make companies agree to your demands is to promise them a larger loss if they don't agree.
      - jcrawfordor 4y ago
        Union elections are how that check is performed. Microsoft appears to be skipping this process though and voluntarily recognizing the union, presumably because they know it would win such an election. This is probably only coming up because as a part of the acquisition process they are terminating and rehiring all the employees, which removes the existing union representation since the old employment relationship no longer exists. This is of course mostly just a paperwork exercise but is common in acquisitions since the acquired is not necessarily legally taking control of the acquired corporation itself, but rather its assets.
      - chrisseaton 4y ago
        Isn't this an answer to the original question then? > Since when a company has the option to “recognize” or not a union? The company has the option to ignore the union if not enough employees are members, or the employees aren't important enough. How does it know how many are members? They have to tell it or they ballot them. If the union doesn't have this support, the company ignores them. I don't get why that's so hard to understand?
- alistairSH 4y ago
  Well given that a union at least initially isn't part of the formal company structures almost by definition then there needs to be some process of recognition that yes this organisation that claims to represent my employees does in fact represent my employees. But in this case, the union is already established and recognized by the acquired employer. MS (or any other acquiring entity) shouldn’t be allowed to ignore an existing employer-labor relationship. If that were true, any time a company unionized, the stockholders could just continually buy itself with another shell company and terminate the union relationship.
Sakos 4y ago
To follow on this line of questioning: What are the legal requirements for businesses to accommodate unions comprised of their employees? There are clear obligations in Germany for how to integrate unions in a business and where/how they're able to influence business processes. How is it in the US?
- SpicyLemonZest 4y ago
  In the US, employers are only required to recognize majority unions, which are formed by a majority of employees in what we call a “bargaining unit” and legally granted both the right and obligation to represent everyone in that unit. They can be formed through an election or through what’s happening here, where the company voluntarily recognizes that the union has majority support. Employees are free to form smaller “minority unions” but employers don’t have to talk to that kind of union if they don’t want to.
chrisseaton 4y ago
If the union doesn’t have enough clout then the company can just ignore it. I don’t get why that’s surprising?
- Semaphor 4y ago
  > I don’t get why that’s surprising? From another [0] comment 2 minutes later: > There are clear obligations in Germany for how to integrate unions in a business and where/how they're able to influence business processes. How is it in the US? [0]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31528241 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31528241
  - chrisseaton 4y ago
    I guess even in Germany a union can't just show up, with no demonstrable employee support, and start dictating that the company listen to them? You say 'comprised of their employees' - who determines this? You need a secret vote at least, or some kind of voluntary indication of support. You need to know people aren't being coerced.
    - jsdwarf 4y ago
      In Austria, the situation is as follows: the employees of a company can decide to form a works council, which may or may not consist of Union members. To establish a works council, you need support statements of at least 5 employees. The works council itself is then elected by all employees of the company. They can choose between different candidates, who might be more or less union-friendly. The works council checks for violation of labor laws and is also consulted if employees are set off.
    - jcrawfordor 4y ago
      Union elections are held in the US under regulations established by the National Labor Relations Board. These include, among other things, a secret ballot and measures against coercion. Employers are generally required to recognize a union which wins such an election. That said, it is also common for acquisitions to be structured as a transaction in which all employees are terminated by the acquired organization and hired by the new organization. This effectively "resets" the process and may require employees to hold a new election. However, employers can always recognize a voluntarily and skip the NLRB process which would make recognition mandatory. It seems that Microsoft has indicated their willingness to do so.
itsdrewmiller 4y ago
Usually that refers to voluntary recognition - acknowledging that the unit wants to organizing without forcing an NLRB election. I believe there already WAS an NLRB election for the Raven QA workers though, so that shouldn't apply here. I think the gist of the article is that Activision was set on continuing to fight until their last legal recourse was exhausted, while Microsoft accepts the current state of things.

Since when a company has the option to “recognize” or not a union? I feel this is one of those questions with a simple answer, but the more you learn the more your sadness increases..

banannaise 4y ago

Anyone has the option to do anything; the question is how you will be prevented from or punished for doing it. In this case, the answers are: not at all; and lightly at worst.

a_humean 4y ago

Well given that a union at least initially isn't part of the formal company structures almost by definition then there needs to be some process of recognition that yes this organisation that claims to represent my employees does in fact represent my employees. That is what those union ballots are about - the union needs evidence that they are representatives of the employees of the company. A union has to start somewhere. Of course depending upon the legal jurisdiction a company might not have much of a choice if a union meets a legal threshold, and in the case of union action they might not have a choice otherwise than deal with a union. In this case I doubt MS had a choice, I guess what is notable is that they have not needed to make such a choice before now.

pastacacioepepe 4y ago
> recognition that yes this organisation that claims to represent my employees does in fact represent my employees. Uhm, and why should the company have a say in this, when it's the employees that are already telling the company that they are unionized?
- chrisseaton 4y ago
  How else do you think the company should determine if it wants to interact with the union or not? Obviously the company isn’t going to work with literally any union that emails them and says it has a demand, without knowing if the union has anything to back up its demands or not. If someone came to demand your money and said ‘or else’ you’d ask what the ‘or else’ is, wouldn’t you?
  - pastacacioepepe 4y ago
    > How else do you think the company should determine if it wants to interact with the union or not? Pretty simple. Check how many employees are part of the union. Does the union represent a majority of the workforce or at least a minority but made of important employees? Then you better listen to what they say, or they could go on a strike. The only way to make companies agree to your demands is to promise them a larger loss if they don't agree.
    - jcrawfordor 4y ago
      Union elections are how that check is performed. Microsoft appears to be skipping this process though and voluntarily recognizing the union, presumably because they know it would win such an election. This is probably only coming up because as a part of the acquisition process they are terminating and rehiring all the employees, which removes the existing union representation since the old employment relationship no longer exists. This is of course mostly just a paperwork exercise but is common in acquisitions since the acquired is not necessarily legally taking control of the acquired corporation itself, but rather its assets.
    - chrisseaton 4y ago
      Isn't this an answer to the original question then? > Since when a company has the option to “recognize” or not a union? The company has the option to ignore the union if not enough employees are members, or the employees aren't important enough. How does it know how many are members? They have to tell it or they ballot them. If the union doesn't have this support, the company ignores them. I don't get why that's so hard to understand?
alistairSH 4y ago
Well given that a union at least initially isn't part of the formal company structures almost by definition then there needs to be some process of recognition that yes this organisation that claims to represent my employees does in fact represent my employees. But in this case, the union is already established and recognized by the acquired employer. MS (or any other acquiring entity) shouldn’t be allowed to ignore an existing employer-labor relationship. If that were true, any time a company unionized, the stockholders could just continually buy itself with another shell company and terminate the union relationship.

Sakos 4y ago

To follow on this line of questioning: What are the legal requirements for businesses to accommodate unions comprised of their employees? There are clear obligations in Germany for how to integrate unions in a business and where/how they're able to influence business processes. How is it in the US?

SpicyLemonZest 4y ago
In the US, employers are only required to recognize majority unions, which are formed by a majority of employees in what we call a “bargaining unit” and legally granted both the right and obligation to represent everyone in that unit. They can be formed through an election or through what’s happening here, where the company voluntarily recognizes that the union has majority support. Employees are free to form smaller “minority unions” but employers don’t have to talk to that kind of union if they don’t want to.

chrisseaton 4y ago

If the union doesn’t have enough clout then the company can just ignore it. I don’t get why that’s surprising?

Semaphor 4y ago
> I don’t get why that’s surprising? From another [0] comment 2 minutes later: > There are clear obligations in Germany for how to integrate unions in a business and where/how they're able to influence business processes. How is it in the US? [0]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31528241 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31528241
- chrisseaton 4y ago
  I guess even in Germany a union can't just show up, with no demonstrable employee support, and start dictating that the company listen to them? You say 'comprised of their employees' - who determines this? You need a secret vote at least, or some kind of voluntary indication of support. You need to know people aren't being coerced.
  - jsdwarf 4y ago
    In Austria, the situation is as follows: the employees of a company can decide to form a works council, which may or may not consist of Union members. To establish a works council, you need support statements of at least 5 employees. The works council itself is then elected by all employees of the company. They can choose between different candidates, who might be more or less union-friendly. The works council checks for violation of labor laws and is also consulted if employees are set off.
  - jcrawfordor 4y ago
    Union elections are held in the US under regulations established by the National Labor Relations Board. These include, among other things, a secret ballot and measures against coercion. Employers are generally required to recognize a union which wins such an election. That said, it is also common for acquisitions to be structured as a transaction in which all employees are terminated by the acquired organization and hired by the new organization. This effectively "resets" the process and may require employees to hold a new election. However, employers can always recognize a voluntarily and skip the NLRB process which would make recognition mandatory. It seems that Microsoft has indicated their willingness to do so.

itsdrewmiller 4y ago

Usually that refers to voluntary recognition - acknowledging that the unit wants to organizing without forcing an NLRB election. I believe there already WAS an NLRB election for the Raven QA workers though, so that shouldn't apply here. I think the gist of the article is that Activision was set on continuing to fight until their last legal recourse was exhausted, while Microsoft accepts the current state of things.