4 ms·
> Perhaps not, if the union is not yet recognized. That's incorrect. Most of the rights afforded by the NLRA actually apply regardless of whether or not a uni
by chimeracoder 3y ago
> Perhaps not, if the union is not yet recognized.
That's incorrect. Most of the rights afforded by the NLRA actually apply regardless of whether or not a union exists; a union is simply a formal structure for exercising those rights.
In this case, firing employees could be considered retaliatory action. Retaliatory action is illegal regardless of whether or not the union has been recognized (in fact, it is illegal to retaliate against employees for supporting a union even if there is not sufficient support for the union to call an election).
- throwaway-blaze 3y agoI love this legalizing and philosophizing. Bottom line is half the employees lost their jobs, and even if there is some sort of anti-union or NLRB-initiated action here, it will be years before there's a fine or lawsuit. By then the business will be unrecognizable.
- nextaccountic 3y agoIt doesn't matter. The employees should be made whole eventually
- OkayPhysicist 3y agoWhich is why vicious, "take the company out back and Ol' Yeller it" level approaches should be the norm for the NLRB. Make examples of a few high-profile companies, and eventually negotiating with a union will appear more appealing than risking the consequences of union busting.