4 ms·

Not really sure how you got to that point. I'd say given the way the document words it, point (1) Holding a mandatory captive audience meeting in which its repr

Not really sure how you got to that point. I'd say given the way the document words it, point (1) Holding a mandatory captive audience meeting in which its representative stated that the Employer would refuse to bargain certain subjects if a union was formed; and (3) Creating and soliciting employees to join an employer-created / employer-dominated labor organization as a means of stifling Union activities are both equally "unfair labor practices". >>>"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." Why? unfair labor practices can be a whole host of things. I'm not American but according to https://www.nlrb.gov/about-nlrb/rights-we-protect/the-law/interfering-with-or-dominating-a-union-section-8a2 https://www.nlrb.gov/about-nlrb/rights-we-protect/the-law/in... it would seem Apple is on the wrong side of the law in this one arguably. I wonder if they try this stuff in Aus?

DannyBee 4y ago
On the latter - The NLRB's view of the NLRA is not the same as the courts view of the NLRA a lot of times. The administrative judges of the NLRB are frequently overturned in the relative scheme of things. What happens is that they are appointed by the president (and confirmed by the senate). So depending on the party in power/remaining terms of service, you can get fairly ideological collections of judges. It has become more bi-modal over the years, like a lot of the US. So depending on prevailing legal ideologies vs partisan ideologies, you end up with lots of overturned cases. Here's the last 10 years: https://www.nlrb.gov/reports/nlrb-case-activity-reports/unfair-labor-practice-cases/litigation/appellate-court https://www.nlrb.gov/reports/nlrb-case-activity-reports/unfa... So last year, they lost in appeals court 35% of the time. The average agency reversal rate is closer to ~15%, so 35% is a lot. The spike in 2016 is also interesting, not sure what happened there (IE it's not obvious that it's related to obama leaving office in jan, 2017). I suspect instead someone funded clearing of backlog or something. All that said, the NLRB pushes parties to settle 90+% of cases to start (this combines their two overall areas), which is actually theoretically great. NLRB proceedings are not that expensive for people, unlike court, so it's unlikely to be people trying to bankrupt each other as you would find in straight civil court. Once it gets into appeals, it gets expensive (leading into the above). So it's not all bad.

DannyBee 4y ago

On the latter - The NLRB's view of the NLRA is not the same as the courts view of the NLRA a lot of times. The administrative judges of the NLRB are frequently overturned in the relative scheme of things. What happens is that they are appointed by the president (and confirmed by the senate). So depending on the party in power/remaining terms of service, you can get fairly ideological collections of judges. It has become more bi-modal over the years, like a lot of the US. So depending on prevailing legal ideologies vs partisan ideologies, you end up with lots of overturned cases. Here's the last 10 years: https://www.nlrb.gov/reports/nlrb-case-activity-reports/unfair-labor-practice-cases/litigation/appellate-court https://www.nlrb.gov/reports/nlrb-case-activity-reports/unfa... So last year, they lost in appeals court 35% of the time. The average agency reversal rate is closer to ~15%, so 35% is a lot. The spike in 2016 is also interesting, not sure what happened there (IE it's not obvious that it's related to obama leaving office in jan, 2017). I suspect instead someone funded clearing of backlog or something. All that said, the NLRB pushes parties to settle 90+% of cases to start (this combines their two overall areas), which is actually theoretically great. NLRB proceedings are not that expensive for people, unlike court, so it's unlikely to be people trying to bankrupt each other as you would find in straight civil court. Once it gets into appeals, it gets expensive (leading into the above). So it's not all bad.