8 ms·

The courts can't compel a company to hire someone out of the blue, but they can compel a company to not-fire someone in retaliation for unionization efforts. Si

The courts can't compel a company to hire someone out of the blue, but they can compel a company to not-fire someone in retaliation for unionization efforts. Similarly, if the court so desired, they couldn't compel someone to start a business out of the blue, but they could definitely compel a company to not shut down an operating business in retaliation for unionization efforts. This court? Never happen. But this isn't clear-cut, and the same anti-retaliation impulse ought to apply, in my opinion. If a company shuts down a store in which a unionization effort is underway, and wants to claim it was for some other reason, the cost of the inevitable lawsuit ought to be included as a factor.

ensignavenger 4y ago
What power would a union have if the company is willing to close the unionized location? If they were required to keep the store "open" but the union strikes, the union is basically closing the location for the company.
- PuppyTailWags 4y ago
  It's a power imbalance. Starbucks can close one trying-to-unionize location because they have 3 others in a few block radius in some cities, and in doing so ensure the other 3 stores are too scared to unionize. If all 4 stores in a town unionized, Starbucks can withdraw from the town because they have 16 stores in a neighboring city, so and in doing so intimidate them. There is no equivalent behavior a worker can have.
  - notch898a 4y ago
    The low-level retailer worker can change jobs much easier than a store can be opened/closed.
    - Retric 4y ago
      Employees can’t 1/35,000th quit the way Starbucks can close 1/35,000th of its locations. As such closing a few locations is absolutely trivial for Starbucks if it serves some larger purpose.
      - notch898a 4y ago
        [flagged]
        richbell 4y ago
        > You're telling me it's harder for a worker to change their working time or productivity by 4 seconds a week than to close a store? This seems deliberately obtuse. The point is that employees only have one or two jobs. If they had 35,000 jobs that that they spent 4 seconds a week at each, then yeah losing that 4 seconds (job) wouldn't matter.
        jfim 4y ago
        An employee whose store closes goes from $n income to 0, while Starbucks goes from $x to (34999/35000)x.
        notch898a 4y ago
        During the worst recession of the US at one point I was changing shit retail jobs at like 1 a week trivially for the hell of it. To do it now you practically only need a pulse. You don't need to lose income to change jobs, you just don't show up to one and show up to the next. Starbucks would be crushed if they had to close all their stores but the laborer can close up all their labor to a company and change jobs much easier than closing all the stores.
        nerdponx 4y ago
        If it was so universally easy, why aren't more people doing it?
        4y ago
    - nerdponx 4y ago
      The behavior of individual low-level retail workers has very very little effect on Starbucks. That's literally the point of unions, and why it is (and should remain) illegal to obstruct them. You argue elsewhere that changing jobs is easier than Starbucks closing all of their stores. The point is that this is one store, not all of them, and Starbucks can absolutely afford to close one or a few. They are betting that labor will back down before store closures start to hurt their business.
      - notch898a 4y ago
        I also argue it's easier than closing/opening a single store. If that is true, it must be true it's easier than closing all the stores. Weird indictment, why wouldn't you attack the stronger and harder to defend of my arguments which was the single store?
    - PuppyTailWags 4y ago
      Actually, it depends: can the low-level retailer afford however long it takes to set up new payroll? Can the low-level retailer commute to a new location, or afford to take the time off to do the job search to begin with? Can they afford the extra overhead if they're working multiple jobs to make ends meet, have dependents, etc?
    - mcguire 4y ago
      Yes, and? I'm not seeing what you are trying to say here.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - CobrastanJorji 4y ago
    Perhaps you could add a simple check, like "in the event a unionized operating place is closed, unionized employees must be given right of first refusal for any job openings for a similar place of operation within 10 miles at no less than their original pay or the average pay of a similar role at the new facility, whichever is greater."
  - salawat 4y ago
    This is why the Taft-Hartley Act was a stroke of genius and a huge gift to the capital wielding class in that it took Secondary striking off the table for workers/labor. Network effects for me, but none for thee.
    - kazen44 4y ago
      what, secondary/solidarity striking is not allowed in the US? I wonder how long this is viable, especially considering the ever increasing inequality in most western societies.
      - nerdponx 4y ago
        It's worse than you think. Quoth Wikipedia: > Among the practices prohibited by the Taft–Hartley act are jurisdictional strikes, wildcat strikes, solidarity or political strikes, secondary boycotts, secondary and mass picketing, closed shops, and monetary donations by unions to federal political campaigns. The amendments also allowed states to enact right-to-work laws banning union shops. Enacted during the early stages of the Cold War, the law required union officers to sign non-communist affidavits with the government. Seems like it should be at least partly unconstitutional on first amendment grounds, but I don't know if it's ever been challenged.
        salawat 4y ago
        It emerged out of backlash to some particularly roughly timed large profile strikes that happened during WWII, and with the Cold War blooming, and no one knowing if it'd ever go hot, Congress shoved that one through to "ensure the U.S. would never be held hostage by communist rabble rousers again." To be frank, it's a shining example of why every legislation needs a sunset date. One and done legislation is just a tyranny happening in slow motion without active efforts to measure and assure continuing assent to the status quo by the governed.
  - lordnacho 4y ago
    The power imbalance arises from a lack of competition. That needs to be addressed as well.
- pwinnski 4y ago
  That is how strikes work, they are a last resort action unions don't like to take because they negatively impact everyone, including the workers who aren't paid. Still, strikes hurt the workers more because the workers end up living on savings and credit cards in a way the company doesn't. So the unions are already motivated not to strike, which is why strikes are rare. The companies, on the other hand, have to know the risk of strike is real, or else they can easily ignore the union entirely. To avoid a strike, the company needs to give the unionized workers just enough to make it not worthwhile to strike, but not nothing. However, all of this is beside the point, because companies close stores in order to avoid the union even forming. Once the vote doesn't go their way, boom. They don't even wait to hear the proposals, they shut down to send a clear signal that they don't want the workers to have any power whatsoever, at that location or any other.
vanchor3 4y ago
I think that would open a whole new can of worms. It would set a precedent that a business cannot stop operating in response to a law, which would mean the business may have to run itself into the ground rather than close if a law made the business unviable.
- nerdponx 4y ago
  Shutting down one store out of thousands is not equivalent to a business ceasing operations.
  - SamReidHughes 4y ago
    If it worked that way, then if a company was going to shut down any unprofitable store, the workers could unionize as a trick to keep their jobs.
    - cool_dude85 4y ago
      That's not how things work here in the real world. The big company would show to the NLRB that internal discussions of closure began well before any unionization effort, they'd show financials explaining why the store's closing, etc. and the NLRB would happily side with the big guy.
    - pwinnski 4y ago
      All of these situations are always adjudicated by a government bureaucracy that's often more inclined to side with companies than workers, in this case the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB). So it would work in that case exactly like it worked in this case: workers start trying to unionize, company lets workers go, workers appeal to the NLRB, saying they were let go because of the unionization efforts, and the NLRB investigates. If the company produces documentation showing other reasons for having let the workers go, the company wins. If they can't, the workers win. In this case, the workers were very clearly singled out because of their organization activity, and the company had no complaints at all about their performance before the organization activity started, so the ruling went in favor of the workers. Instead of firing workers, if the company had closed the store and the USSC hadn't ruled poorly, it would work exactly the same way. If the company produces documentation showing that the store was losing money more than other stores that remain open, the company wins. If they can't, the workers win, and presumably in that case the company could choose to either re-open the store (since leases tend to be long-term) or move the employees to other stores. More likely is that after a few of these cases, companies would be less quick to close stores to stop collective activity. In any case, it wouldn't be complicated or a new thing at all, and wouldn't be easy to fool by starting unionization action at an already-closing store.
hellojesus 4y ago
Unionization could drive up costs making the business unprofitable. It is absolutely allowable to shut down a business in response to your workforce unionizing. The Wagner Act itself is terrible and forces businesses to negotiate collectively even if they don't want to. And it cuts both ways.

ensignavenger 4y ago

What power would a union have if the company is willing to close the unionized location? If they were required to keep the store "open" but the union strikes, the union is basically closing the location for the company.

PuppyTailWags 4y ago
It's a power imbalance. Starbucks can close one trying-to-unionize location because they have 3 others in a few block radius in some cities, and in doing so ensure the other 3 stores are too scared to unionize. If all 4 stores in a town unionized, Starbucks can withdraw from the town because they have 16 stores in a neighboring city, so and in doing so intimidate them. There is no equivalent behavior a worker can have.
- notch898a 4y ago
  The low-level retailer worker can change jobs much easier than a store can be opened/closed.
  - Retric 4y ago
    Employees can’t 1/35,000th quit the way Starbucks can close 1/35,000th of its locations. As such closing a few locations is absolutely trivial for Starbucks if it serves some larger purpose.
    - notch898a 4y ago
      [flagged]
      - richbell 4y ago
        > You're telling me it's harder for a worker to change their working time or productivity by 4 seconds a week than to close a store? This seems deliberately obtuse. The point is that employees only have one or two jobs. If they had 35,000 jobs that that they spent 4 seconds a week at each, then yeah losing that 4 seconds (job) wouldn't matter.
      - jfim 4y ago
        An employee whose store closes goes from $n income to 0, while Starbucks goes from $x to (34999/35000)x.
        notch898a 4y ago
        During the worst recession of the US at one point I was changing shit retail jobs at like 1 a week trivially for the hell of it. To do it now you practically only need a pulse. You don't need to lose income to change jobs, you just don't show up to one and show up to the next. Starbucks would be crushed if they had to close all their stores but the laborer can close up all their labor to a company and change jobs much easier than closing all the stores.
        nerdponx 4y ago
        If it was so universally easy, why aren't more people doing it?
        4y ago
  - nerdponx 4y ago
    The behavior of individual low-level retail workers has very very little effect on Starbucks. That's literally the point of unions, and why it is (and should remain) illegal to obstruct them. You argue elsewhere that changing jobs is easier than Starbucks closing all of their stores. The point is that this is one store, not all of them, and Starbucks can absolutely afford to close one or a few. They are betting that labor will back down before store closures start to hurt their business.
    - notch898a 4y ago
      I also argue it's easier than closing/opening a single store. If that is true, it must be true it's easier than closing all the stores. Weird indictment, why wouldn't you attack the stronger and harder to defend of my arguments which was the single store?
  - PuppyTailWags 4y ago
    Actually, it depends: can the low-level retailer afford however long it takes to set up new payroll? Can the low-level retailer commute to a new location, or afford to take the time off to do the job search to begin with? Can they afford the extra overhead if they're working multiple jobs to make ends meet, have dependents, etc?
  - mcguire 4y ago
    Yes, and? I'm not seeing what you are trying to say here.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- CobrastanJorji 4y ago
  Perhaps you could add a simple check, like "in the event a unionized operating place is closed, unionized employees must be given right of first refusal for any job openings for a similar place of operation within 10 miles at no less than their original pay or the average pay of a similar role at the new facility, whichever is greater."
- salawat 4y ago
  This is why the Taft-Hartley Act was a stroke of genius and a huge gift to the capital wielding class in that it took Secondary striking off the table for workers/labor. Network effects for me, but none for thee.
  - kazen44 4y ago
    what, secondary/solidarity striking is not allowed in the US? I wonder how long this is viable, especially considering the ever increasing inequality in most western societies.
    - nerdponx 4y ago
      It's worse than you think. Quoth Wikipedia: > Among the practices prohibited by the Taft–Hartley act are jurisdictional strikes, wildcat strikes, solidarity or political strikes, secondary boycotts, secondary and mass picketing, closed shops, and monetary donations by unions to federal political campaigns. The amendments also allowed states to enact right-to-work laws banning union shops. Enacted during the early stages of the Cold War, the law required union officers to sign non-communist affidavits with the government. Seems like it should be at least partly unconstitutional on first amendment grounds, but I don't know if it's ever been challenged.
      - salawat 4y ago
        It emerged out of backlash to some particularly roughly timed large profile strikes that happened during WWII, and with the Cold War blooming, and no one knowing if it'd ever go hot, Congress shoved that one through to "ensure the U.S. would never be held hostage by communist rabble rousers again." To be frank, it's a shining example of why every legislation needs a sunset date. One and done legislation is just a tyranny happening in slow motion without active efforts to measure and assure continuing assent to the status quo by the governed.
- lordnacho 4y ago
  The power imbalance arises from a lack of competition. That needs to be addressed as well.
pwinnski 4y ago
That is how strikes work, they are a last resort action unions don't like to take because they negatively impact everyone, including the workers who aren't paid. Still, strikes hurt the workers more because the workers end up living on savings and credit cards in a way the company doesn't. So the unions are already motivated not to strike, which is why strikes are rare. The companies, on the other hand, have to know the risk of strike is real, or else they can easily ignore the union entirely. To avoid a strike, the company needs to give the unionized workers just enough to make it not worthwhile to strike, but not nothing. However, all of this is beside the point, because companies close stores in order to avoid the union even forming. Once the vote doesn't go their way, boom. They don't even wait to hear the proposals, they shut down to send a clear signal that they don't want the workers to have any power whatsoever, at that location or any other.

vanchor3 4y ago

I think that would open a whole new can of worms. It would set a precedent that a business cannot stop operating in response to a law, which would mean the business may have to run itself into the ground rather than close if a law made the business unviable.

nerdponx 4y ago
Shutting down one store out of thousands is not equivalent to a business ceasing operations.
- SamReidHughes 4y ago
  If it worked that way, then if a company was going to shut down any unprofitable store, the workers could unionize as a trick to keep their jobs.
  - cool_dude85 4y ago
    That's not how things work here in the real world. The big company would show to the NLRB that internal discussions of closure began well before any unionization effort, they'd show financials explaining why the store's closing, etc. and the NLRB would happily side with the big guy.
  - pwinnski 4y ago
    All of these situations are always adjudicated by a government bureaucracy that's often more inclined to side with companies than workers, in this case the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB). So it would work in that case exactly like it worked in this case: workers start trying to unionize, company lets workers go, workers appeal to the NLRB, saying they were let go because of the unionization efforts, and the NLRB investigates. If the company produces documentation showing other reasons for having let the workers go, the company wins. If they can't, the workers win. In this case, the workers were very clearly singled out because of their organization activity, and the company had no complaints at all about their performance before the organization activity started, so the ruling went in favor of the workers. Instead of firing workers, if the company had closed the store and the USSC hadn't ruled poorly, it would work exactly the same way. If the company produces documentation showing that the store was losing money more than other stores that remain open, the company wins. If they can't, the workers win, and presumably in that case the company could choose to either re-open the store (since leases tend to be long-term) or move the employees to other stores. More likely is that after a few of these cases, companies would be less quick to close stores to stop collective activity. In any case, it wouldn't be complicated or a new thing at all, and wouldn't be easy to fool by starting unionization action at an already-closing store.

hellojesus 4y ago

Unionization could drive up costs making the business unprofitable. It is absolutely allowable to shut down a business in response to your workforce unionizing. The Wagner Act itself is terrible and forces businesses to negotiate collectively even if they don't want to. And it cuts both ways.