4 ms·
Does a judge want to set the precedent that union busting is legal when you do it with extra steps? 1) Fire everybody 2) Create new corporate entity 3) Rehir
by gizmo 3y ago
Does a judge want to set the precedent that union busting is legal when you do it with extra steps?
1) Fire everybody
2) Create new corporate entity
3) Rehire the meek and compliant
4) Sell corporate entity back to original company
Judges tend to get very cranky when they have to deal with shenanigans like these.
- jacobr1 3y agoExcept there is no #4 in this case. The question really should just be in #1 is legal. The extra shenanigans doesn't change that question.
- gizmo 3y agoBut it would still set the /precedent/ that you can lawfully shed troublesome employees who you could otherwise not fire by changing the ownership structure of a company. #1 by itself is not illegal. When companies move a factory overseas they also just fire everybody. Not nice, but not illegal.
- chimeracoder 3y ago> #1 by itself is not illegal. When companies move a factory overseas they also just fire everybody. Not nice, but not illegal. It's not illegal in se, but it is illegal if it's done in order to retaliate against employees for organizing, in order to target union employees, in order to undermine a union, etc. There's a question of enforcement, and there's the challenge of proving that to the requisite legal standard. But assuming the facts are established, it's actually a very clear violation of the NLRA.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]