4 ms·
>If this is the United States we're talking about, you were misinformed. Under the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA), management has a duty to bargain over ce
by nothowthatworks 4y ago
>If this is the United States we're talking about, you were misinformed. Under the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA), management has a duty to bargain over certain issues with unionized workers, but there is no obligation to make "concessions" (i.e. changes the workers find favorable).
And just how do you think you go about proving that you engaged in good faith negotiation? All the union has to prove in a lawsuit to a preponderance of the evidence, that more likely than not, management did not negotiate in good faith. Good luck winning that as management by not budging on anything at all.
- bwestergard 4y agoIt's a purely procedural standard. To oversimplify a bit: if the employer meets with the union's designees (e.g. workers elected by their peers, a lawyer hired by the union), exchanges proposals verbally or in writing, and goes through the motions until reaching a so-called "valid impasse", they have made good on their duty to bargain. They could propose nothing but cuts to wages and conditions, and indeed this happens often if workers don't have a credible strike threat. See: https://www.nlrb.gov/about-nlrb/rights-we-protect/the-law/bargaining-in-good-faith-with-employees-union-representative https://www.nlrb.gov/about-nlrb/rights-we-protect/the-law/ba... The model you have in mind - make concessions or have more general terms impose by a regulatory body - does exist in other countries, where parties have to go to a sectoral body, interest arbitration, etc. when impasse is reached. Interest arbitration was a proposed reform in the (now dead) PRO Act that the Biden administration favored early on.