4 ms·

> That is because they can't meaningfully complain that apple created a non union group to hear concerns and give employees a voice (regardless of whether it di

by lsy 4y ago

> That is because they can't meaningfully complain that apple created a non union group to hear concerns and give employees a voice (regardless of whether it did). Such a complaint would be hilarious. This isn't true. Employer unions are prohibited by the NLRA, and the linked complaint's third violation is listed as "Creating and soliciting employees to join an employer-created / employer-dominated labor organization as a means of stifling Union activities." This attorney's site gives examples of when employer-sponsored groups start to violate the NLRA's provisions banning employer unions, which is when these groups start to discuss working conditions: https://laborlaw.foxrothschild.com/2017/08/articles/general-labor-law-news-updates/national-labor-relations-board-nlrb/employee-committee-or-unlawful-company-union/ https://laborlaw.foxrothschild.com/2017/08/articles/general-... > When the employer creates and sponsors an employee group where the discussion turns to subjects such as employee pay, employee benefits, or even matters such as employee work schedules, this creates a risk that the NLRB might find that the employer has improperly created something that is the equivalent of an employer sponsored union.

DannyBee 4y ago
The case you cite was overturned by the DC circuit and sent back to the NLRB for reconsideration a year or two ago. The NLRB found again last month in favor of the CWA, and it will be appealed again (and the CWA will lose again) to the DC circuit, because it is in, fact, true. If the employer says "we want to hear what you think can be better about your pay, your benefits, or your work schedules", there is nothing illegal about this. Even if it creates groups to do so. To the degree the NLRA tries to ban this, it would be struck down as applied. Courts will construct it to focus on the bargaining aspects of a union rather than speech aspects. This is very clear from precedent, and in line with what happened at the DC circuit. None of the unions have been dumb enough to spin the wheel here because the result is obvious. If they tried to control non-union speech-related feedback loops, it would fair very poorly, and has so far in court. It is true the NLRA tries to ban company unions, but the part most likely to stand these days, is again, effectively "company controlled collective bargaining" (IE the company elects representatives and only bargains with a company controlled/elected union), etc. Again, i'm not stating a position of whether this is good or not, just trying to accurately state the current legal reality.

by lsy 4y ago

DannyBee 4y ago

The case you cite was overturned by the DC circuit and sent back to the NLRB for reconsideration a year or two ago. The NLRB found again last month in favor of the CWA, and it will be appealed again (and the CWA will lose again) to the DC circuit, because it is in, fact, true. If the employer says "we want to hear what you think can be better about your pay, your benefits, or your work schedules", there is nothing illegal about this. Even if it creates groups to do so. To the degree the NLRA tries to ban this, it would be struck down as applied. Courts will construct it to focus on the bargaining aspects of a union rather than speech aspects. This is very clear from precedent, and in line with what happened at the DC circuit. None of the unions have been dumb enough to spin the wheel here because the result is obvious. If they tried to control non-union speech-related feedback loops, it would fair very poorly, and has so far in court. It is true the NLRA tries to ban company unions, but the part most likely to stand these days, is again, effectively "company controlled collective bargaining" (IE the company elects representatives and only bargains with a company controlled/elected union), etc. Again, i'm not stating a position of whether this is good or not, just trying to accurately state the current legal reality.