3 ms·

Sure! This is considered retaliation by announcing/offering "benefits" that are only available for non-unionized employees: https://www.nlrb.gov/about-nlrb/rig

Sure! 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 ago
And 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?
- aaomidi 4y ago
  I'm saying it because the NLRB has literally not been enforcing any of the labor laws. Of course Apple doesn't care. The penalties of non-compliance are also negligible.
  - otterley 4y ago
    Please don't counsel people on what the law is here. You're out of your element.
    - aaomidi 4y ago
      No one is taking legal advice from a damned comment thread.
      - otterley 4y ago
        You don't know that. Please stop.
        aaomidi 4y ago
        Dude just because you didn’t go to school doesn’t mean you’re not allowed to have legal opinions in a public forum.
itake 4y ago
Everything 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?