3 ms·

> As far as I can make out, in the US a group of employees wanting to act together in any union or union-adjacent form cannot do so until after the union has be

> As far as I can make out, in the US a group of employees wanting to act together in any union or union-adjacent form cannot do so until after the union has been formally voted on and agreed to. There is nothing to stop you and your colleagues from simply declining to log in until the company's attitude improves. They can threaten to fire you, but they were already playing that card, and they can't sail a ship if they kick all the sailors out.

olliej 3y ago
You cannot be fired for going on strike, and an employer is required to reinstate you post-strike unless they have a "bonafide replacement" (e.g. they can't have hired a contractor, and afaict if the position reopens [presumably with limits?] they're required to offer it to you). Simply stopping work doesn't count, it sounds like you have to go through a formal process of notice, including collective demands, and an agreement to return to work following agreement or a good faith negotiated contract. Of course the benefit of unions is that they have experience in ensuring a strike is legal, and providing legal assistance - in some cases unions can provide financial support for strikers (otherwise you trivially get to a "I just hold out until they lose their homes/children starve" state where strikes are irrelevant) From various legal firms it _sounds_ like you don't need a union to strike, but your strike still needs to be legal (there are illegal strikes). Of course it goes without saying, but I am not a lawyer, and am just going from the NLRB site and various law firms websites (on both worker and employer sides).
- olliej 3y ago
  I really do not understand these downvotes. Grindr is a US company, even if it weren't the employees in question are in the US, so subject to US employment law, which is what my comment revolves around. The NLRB site explicitly states that striking is a legal action employees can take ('“Employees shall have the right. . . to engage in other concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection.” Strikes are included among the concerted activities protected for employees by this section. Section 13 also concerns the right to strike'[1], 'Employees at union and non-union workplaces have the right to help each other'[2]) The NLRB site explicitly states that firing an employee due to them striking is illegal ('You cannot be fired for participating in a protected strike or picketing, depending on the purposes and means of the strike action.'[3]) The NLRB site, and numerous law firms (on both sides) seem to say that you can't just "not work", there is some formal process. If you want to go on strike you should talk to either an employment attorney, or your union if you're in one. I am genuinely curious, if you're down voting my comment, I'd love to know why. [1] https://www.nlrb.gov/strikes https://www.nlrb.gov/strikes [2] https://www.nlrb.gov/resources/faq/nlrb https://www.nlrb.gov/resources/faq/nlrb [3] https://www.nlrb.gov/about-nlrb/rights-we-protect/the-law/employees/right-to-strike-and-picket https://www.nlrb.gov/about-nlrb/rights-we-protect/the-law/em...
  - kwk1 3y ago
    I didn't downvote, but I do see an issue that could be the cause: the statement "you can't be fired for going on strike" misses the essential difference of the law as written versus the law as enforced, ignoring the messy reality of power and who wields it. If you're fired for striking or other protected activity, you can pursue legal recourse; hopefully you can still meet needs for food, shelter, medicine, etc. This may as well be on another planet from "cannot".
    - johnnyanmac 3y ago
      >the statement "you can't be fired for going on strike" misses the essential difference of the law as written versus the law as enforced strikes are pretty effective, that's why the devil in the details isn't trying to go around a strike. It's to either rule a strike a illegal, or try and prevent a union from forming to begin with. I see that statement as pretty much true... once you can establish the union. And I see it as a proper response to "well you don't need a union to strike". Of course no one can make you work if you stop going to work, and you can't be arrested for refusing to work unless you are military (AWOL) or very specific, specialized professions. But that misses the point of a union.
johnnyanmac 3y ago
>There is nothing to stop you and your colleagues from simply declining to log in until the company's attitude improves. They can threaten to fire you, but they were already playing that card the idea behind a Union is that they can't retaliate agaisnt you once you formally announce a legal strike. It's a term written in a contract that the company agrees to. Breaking it is the same as any other contract breech, which should have enough sanctions to make it the worst option. That's how congress ruled those railroad strikes as "illegal". When they do that you can still "technically" strike, but you're no longer being paid and/or are at risk of being fired. Maybe that still is an avenue to look into, but many cannot take that risk.

olliej 3y ago

You cannot be fired for going on strike, and an employer is required to reinstate you post-strike unless they have a "bonafide replacement" (e.g. they can't have hired a contractor, and afaict if the position reopens [presumably with limits?] they're required to offer it to you). Simply stopping work doesn't count, it sounds like you have to go through a formal process of notice, including collective demands, and an agreement to return to work following agreement or a good faith negotiated contract. Of course the benefit of unions is that they have experience in ensuring a strike is legal, and providing legal assistance - in some cases unions can provide financial support for strikers (otherwise you trivially get to a "I just hold out until they lose their homes/children starve" state where strikes are irrelevant) From various legal firms it _sounds_ like you don't need a union to strike, but your strike still needs to be legal (there are illegal strikes). Of course it goes without saying, but I am not a lawyer, and am just going from the NLRB site and various law firms websites (on both worker and employer sides).

olliej 3y ago
I really do not understand these downvotes. Grindr is a US company, even if it weren't the employees in question are in the US, so subject to US employment law, which is what my comment revolves around. The NLRB site explicitly states that striking is a legal action employees can take ('“Employees shall have the right. . . to engage in other concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection.” Strikes are included among the concerted activities protected for employees by this section. Section 13 also concerns the right to strike'[1], 'Employees at union and non-union workplaces have the right to help each other'[2]) The NLRB site explicitly states that firing an employee due to them striking is illegal ('You cannot be fired for participating in a protected strike or picketing, depending on the purposes and means of the strike action.'[3]) The NLRB site, and numerous law firms (on both sides) seem to say that you can't just "not work", there is some formal process. If you want to go on strike you should talk to either an employment attorney, or your union if you're in one. I am genuinely curious, if you're down voting my comment, I'd love to know why. [1] https://www.nlrb.gov/strikes https://www.nlrb.gov/strikes [2] https://www.nlrb.gov/resources/faq/nlrb https://www.nlrb.gov/resources/faq/nlrb [3] https://www.nlrb.gov/about-nlrb/rights-we-protect/the-law/employees/right-to-strike-and-picket https://www.nlrb.gov/about-nlrb/rights-we-protect/the-law/em...
- kwk1 3y ago
  I didn't downvote, but I do see an issue that could be the cause: the statement "you can't be fired for going on strike" misses the essential difference of the law as written versus the law as enforced, ignoring the messy reality of power and who wields it. If you're fired for striking or other protected activity, you can pursue legal recourse; hopefully you can still meet needs for food, shelter, medicine, etc. This may as well be on another planet from "cannot".
  - johnnyanmac 3y ago
    >the statement "you can't be fired for going on strike" misses the essential difference of the law as written versus the law as enforced strikes are pretty effective, that's why the devil in the details isn't trying to go around a strike. It's to either rule a strike a illegal, or try and prevent a union from forming to begin with. I see that statement as pretty much true... once you can establish the union. And I see it as a proper response to "well you don't need a union to strike". Of course no one can make you work if you stop going to work, and you can't be arrested for refusing to work unless you are military (AWOL) or very specific, specialized professions. But that misses the point of a union.

johnnyanmac 3y ago

>There is nothing to stop you and your colleagues from simply declining to log in until the company's attitude improves. They can threaten to fire you, but they were already playing that card the idea behind a Union is that they can't retaliate agaisnt you once you formally announce a legal strike. It's a term written in a contract that the company agrees to. Breaking it is the same as any other contract breech, which should have enough sanctions to make it the worst option. That's how congress ruled those railroad strikes as "illegal". When they do that you can still "technically" strike, but you're no longer being paid and/or are at risk of being fired. Maybe that still is an avenue to look into, but many cannot take that risk.