5 ms·

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 busi

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.
    - SamReidHughes 4y ago
      Ah yes, so you just wait interminably for a hearing and spend thousands on lawyers before you can close your store.
      - pwinnski 4y ago
        If it's clear that you have good reason to close the store, then you close the store. If you're closing a profitable store to avoid unionization, then you don't close the store. There's no need to wait, just don't close profitable stores in retaliation for union activity. It's just like now: if an employee is bad, then you document it and fire them. If you're firing them to avoid unionization, then don't fire them. There's no need to wait, just don't fire employees in retaliation for union activity.

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.
  - SamReidHughes 4y ago
    Ah yes, so you just wait interminably for a hearing and spend thousands on lawyers before you can close your store.
    - pwinnski 4y ago
      If it's clear that you have good reason to close the store, then you close the store. If you're closing a profitable store to avoid unionization, then you don't close the store. There's no need to wait, just don't close profitable stores in retaliation for union activity. It's just like now: if an employee is bad, then you document it and fire them. If you're firing them to avoid unionization, then don't fire them. There's no need to wait, just don't fire employees in retaliation for union activity.