4 ms·

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 t

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.

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.