2 ms·
> In the US federal law does not allow that If I understand correctly, this isn't true. There are laws that make this effectively true, but that's not quite th
by mandmandam 3y ago
> In the US federal law does not allow that
If I understand correctly, this isn't true. There are laws that make this effectively true, but that's not quite the same thing.
For example, secondary boycotts are banned. This limits the rights of workers and unions to freely associate and mobilize for their interests. That little doozy was rationalized by the excuse of protecting the economy (read: the status quo).
Ianal, and idk if this is a distinction without a difference; but it seems worth pointing out.
- nabla9 3y agoI may be wrong, but I think it's the other way around. The law allows only company-level unionization, but there are ways to get effective sectoral bargaining agreements sometimes. In Europe, we have laws that encourage it. For example, Finland has generally applicable collective agreements. If a large representative majority of workers achieve agreement with enterprise representatives in an industry sector, the agreement can become generally applicable. Every employer must observe at least the minimum provisions of a wide national collective agreement once it's considered representative in the relevant sector. (Finland does not have laws about minimum wage. There is very little need for them because generally applicable agreements set the minimums.)