4 ms·
Can you cite a source for why this is illegal?
by itake 4y ago
Can you cite a source for why this is illegal?
- aaomidi 4y agoSure! This is considered retaliation by announcing/offering "benefits" that are only available for non-unionized employees: https://www.nlrb.gov/about-nlrb/rights-we-protect/the-law/interfering-with-employee-rights-section-7-8a1 https://www.nlrb.gov/about-nlrb/rights-we-protect/the-law/in...
- otterley 4y agoAnd you don't think Apple has labor lawyers advising them differently? Are you a labor lawyer yourself, or are you just making your conclusion based solely on a summary of the law (which might not even apply to this particular situation) on a website, without access to case law?
- itake 4y agoEverything I see in that document says employers can NOT withhold benefits for employees in the process of organizing a union. I don't see anything about withholding benefits for employees already in a union. My understanding is that Apple has many stores starting the process of unionizing, but only the store that already has been unionized are the benefits been withheld. Apple seems to be compliant to the law you shared. Do you mind quoting which sentence?
- anamexis 4y agoI suspect they are getting confused with the NLRA Section 8(a)(1), which among other things prohibits employers from: > Withhold changes in wages or benefits during a union organizing campaign that would have been made had the union not been on the scene, unless you make clear to employees that the change will occur whether or not they select the union, and that your sole purpose in postponing the change is to avoid any appearance of trying to influence the outcome of the election. However, this is only relevant during the organizing campaign. Not after, as is the case here.
- aaomidi 4y ago> However, this is only relevant during the organizing campaign. Not after, as is the case here. Except there are unionizing efforts going on in a lot of their stores. So this is illegal for any of the stores that are currently in the progress of it, but have not yet committed to it.
- anamexis 4y agoIt would be illegal for them to withhold those benefits in those stores that have an active union campaign, but that's not what they are doing. I'm fairly confident in this (I was a union organizer who has gone through an NLRB election), but do you have any precedent suggesting otherwise?
- itake 4y ago> So this is illegal for any of the stores that are currently in the progress of it, but have not yet committed to it. The article says only the store that is unionized isn't getting the benefit. What am I missing here?
- aaomidi 4y agoIt’s the threat that if you unionize you won’t get these benefits.