4 ms·

Wouldn't you just have to show that stores located in areas with equal or higher crime rates were not shut down?

s1artibartfast 4y ago
That would be weak evidence at best. Even so, there is nothing illegal about shutting down a store because you would rather have no store than work with a union. The obligation is to 1) not interfere with union votes 2) listen to union demands You can still fire them all at the end of the day if the union refuses your terms or close the shop down.
- themitigating 4y ago
  Why? Maybe I should add that you need to take into sales and costs
  - s1artibartfast 4y ago
    I added some info to the parent post Regarding the weak evidence, you brought up two other valid considerations.
    - themitigating 4y ago
      I'm not a lawyer of course. Would they be able to find information during discovery? Either they can find a comparable store that wasn't shut down, that is all the factors that would matter to the business, or a document about why?
      - seanmcdirmid 4y ago
        How do you price in your employees and customers feeling unsafe?
        s1artibartfast 4y ago
        or brand image fir that matter
      - s1artibartfast 4y ago
        They might find something if it got to discovery, but you need a credible case to get there in the first place. Even if they found email saying "lets close the store because we don't want to work with unions" im not sure what that would be illegal.
        lazyasciiart 4y ago
        That would be the definition of retaliating against workers for unionizing.
- seanmcdirmid 4y ago
  It is even worse than that when customers who went to those stores are not surprised they were closed down. So like, I’m totally expecting Ballard Starbucks to close eventually given how depressing it’s become, I wouldn’t consider it union busting. I can imagine Capitol Hill and Westlake center were in that boat. It is really hard to get public support for a union busting narrative when things are in bad shape.

That would be weak evidence at best. Even so, there is nothing illegal about shutting down a store because you would rather have no store than work with a union. The obligation is to 1) not interfere with union votes 2) listen to union demands You can still fire them all at the end of the day if the union refuses your terms or close the shop down.

themitigating 4y ago
Why? Maybe I should add that you need to take into sales and costs
- s1artibartfast 4y ago
  I added some info to the parent post Regarding the weak evidence, you brought up two other valid considerations.
  - themitigating 4y ago
    I'm not a lawyer of course. Would they be able to find information during discovery? Either they can find a comparable store that wasn't shut down, that is all the factors that would matter to the business, or a document about why?
    - seanmcdirmid 4y ago
      How do you price in your employees and customers feeling unsafe?
      - s1artibartfast 4y ago
        or brand image fir that matter
    - s1artibartfast 4y ago
      They might find something if it got to discovery, but you need a credible case to get there in the first place. Even if they found email saying "lets close the store because we don't want to work with unions" im not sure what that would be illegal.
      - lazyasciiart 4y ago
        That would be the definition of retaliating against workers for unionizing.
seanmcdirmid 4y ago
It is even worse than that when customers who went to those stores are not surprised they were closed down. So like, I’m totally expecting Ballard Starbucks to close eventually given how depressing it’s become, I wouldn’t consider it union busting. I can imagine Capitol Hill and Westlake center were in that boat. It is really hard to get public support for a union busting narrative when things are in bad shape.