3 ms·

It's so weird to me that legally companies can't defend themselves against employees working against them, if it's under the guise of a union. If an employee i

It's so weird to me that legally companies can't defend themselves against employees working against them, if it's under the guise of a union. If an employee is disruptive, hostile, negative and harmful to the environment for any other reason, of course they'd be fired, but if they're agitating for a union then it all becomes protected activity. If an employee was working against the financial interests of the company in favor of the interests of a competitor, a supplier or a favored customer of course they'd be fired, but if it's a union then it becomes protected activity. To be clear, I'm not making any judgement on unions or at-will employment or anything as being good or bad, or appropriate/inappropriate in any given situation, industry, etc. I just think it's super weird that from the perspective of the employer, you have an obviously cancerous group inside your organization which is actively working to harm you, but you're not allowed to defend against. It's weird.

willcipriano 2y ago
Why is the other way around legal, say Perdue Chicken lobbying for more foreign workers or against a minimum wage increase?
weard_beard 2y ago
The other scenarios you have mentioned did not escalate to the point of mass organized violence in the past. If they did I would expect government intervention to prevent that kind of escalation too!
MisterBastahrd 2y ago
Employees who attempt to organize are not doing so to help a supplier or favored customer. They're doing it to improve their relationship with their employer. When you deal with management at a large corporation, you are rarely ever dealing on a 1:1 basis with someone. You are dealing with a group of people. So why should employees not have the same opportunity?
tomoyoirl 2y ago
Some particularly weird parts of that have come when the protection of the union actively conflicts with other employer mandates, like hostile working environments — e.g. from 2015-2017 the NLRB went after Cooper Tire for firing an employee who had used racist slurs on the picket line
Spivak 2y ago
Because it's a compromise that turned a situation that in the past became violent into a peaceful one. Not all rules are written in blood but this one is. So long as everyone plays by the rules the dispute is mediated civilly through the courts instead of the streets. The best defense against unions forming is strong state and federal labor protections but for the life of me I can't understand why certain folks in power seem hell-bent on rolling them back. They have been incredibly effective in the US, they're not adversarial, and they benefit everyone without workers having to do anything. "Right-to-work" states always act so shocked when workers form unions to get those protections back like that isn't exactly why those laws were passed.
GauntletWizard 2y ago
It helps to put it this way: A union is a corporation that has an exclusive contract to provide labor. Company A does not hire the employees. Company B (the union) does. Company A cannot take disciplinary actions against the employees of B, they don't work for company A, they work for company B. This is actually how union contracts work. Most union employees don't understand this; They think they work for company A when it's convenient for them, and company B when it's convenient for them, cherry-picking whatever suits them at the moment. Because legal formalisms aren't real and human behavior is, unions provide a thin veneer over petty human squabbles, one that mostly works. Most union agitators absolutely understand this, but will never admit it. In classic orwellian fashion, they are the pigs, "overthrowing" the farmers "for the good of the farm animals" with every intent of just becoming the new farmers.
pjc50 2y ago
> you have an obviously cancerous group inside your organization which is actively working to harm you This level of adversarial thinking is part of the problem. They're your employees, not your enemy. A sibling comment alludes to violence; the history of labour organizing is full of employers opening fire on their employees, or hiring third parties to do so. The formalization of labour organizing and protected rights gives people a means to negotiate on a more equal footing that doesn't lead to violence.
- em-bee 2y ago
  this. if we had mostly benevolent employers, we would not need unions.
toast0 2y ago
The scope of protected activities is not unlimited. It's a balance, and governments generally choose to impose on the employer to provide a right to the employees. > You have a right to strike, picket, and protest regarding work-related issues, but there are limitations and qualifications on the exercise of that right. Your right to engage in these activities depends on the object or purpose of the action, on its timing, or on the conduct of those involved. https://www.nlrb.gov/about-nlrb/rights-we-protect/the-law/employees/strikes-pickets-and-protest https://www.nlrb.gov/about-nlrb/rights-we-protect/the-law/em...
wyre 2y ago
> I'm not making any judgement on unions > have an obviously cancerous group inside your organization Is comparing unions to cancer not a judgement? Your comment reads anti-union and oblivious to the concept of worker’s right and the history to corporations literally attacking union members.
mrgoldenbrown 2y ago
It makes sense in the context of the history of unions and legislation regarding them in the US. The overall idea is that both employers and unions are limited in what they can do to each other, and in exchange we have less violence of the sort that happened when companies broke strikes with hired guns like the Pinkertons. Like with many regulations, both sides think they are getting screwed more than the other side.

willcipriano 2y ago

Why is the other way around legal, say Perdue Chicken lobbying for more foreign workers or against a minimum wage increase?

weard_beard 2y ago

The other scenarios you have mentioned did not escalate to the point of mass organized violence in the past. If they did I would expect government intervention to prevent that kind of escalation too!

MisterBastahrd 2y ago

Employees who attempt to organize are not doing so to help a supplier or favored customer. They're doing it to improve their relationship with their employer. When you deal with management at a large corporation, you are rarely ever dealing on a 1:1 basis with someone. You are dealing with a group of people. So why should employees not have the same opportunity?

tomoyoirl 2y ago

Some particularly weird parts of that have come when the protection of the union actively conflicts with other employer mandates, like hostile working environments — e.g. from 2015-2017 the NLRB went after Cooper Tire for firing an employee who had used racist slurs on the picket line

Spivak 2y ago

Because it's a compromise that turned a situation that in the past became violent into a peaceful one. Not all rules are written in blood but this one is. So long as everyone plays by the rules the dispute is mediated civilly through the courts instead of the streets. The best defense against unions forming is strong state and federal labor protections but for the life of me I can't understand why certain folks in power seem hell-bent on rolling them back. They have been incredibly effective in the US, they're not adversarial, and they benefit everyone without workers having to do anything. "Right-to-work" states always act so shocked when workers form unions to get those protections back like that isn't exactly why those laws were passed.

GauntletWizard 2y ago

It helps to put it this way: A union is a corporation that has an exclusive contract to provide labor. Company A does not hire the employees. Company B (the union) does. Company A cannot take disciplinary actions against the employees of B, they don't work for company A, they work for company B. This is actually how union contracts work. Most union employees don't understand this; They think they work for company A when it's convenient for them, and company B when it's convenient for them, cherry-picking whatever suits them at the moment. Because legal formalisms aren't real and human behavior is, unions provide a thin veneer over petty human squabbles, one that mostly works. Most union agitators absolutely understand this, but will never admit it. In classic orwellian fashion, they are the pigs, "overthrowing" the farmers "for the good of the farm animals" with every intent of just becoming the new farmers.

pjc50 2y ago

> you have an obviously cancerous group inside your organization which is actively working to harm you This level of adversarial thinking is part of the problem. They're your employees, not your enemy. A sibling comment alludes to violence; the history of labour organizing is full of employers opening fire on their employees, or hiring third parties to do so. The formalization of labour organizing and protected rights gives people a means to negotiate on a more equal footing that doesn't lead to violence.

em-bee 2y ago
this. if we had mostly benevolent employers, we would not need unions.

toast0 2y ago

The scope of protected activities is not unlimited. It's a balance, and governments generally choose to impose on the employer to provide a right to the employees. > You have a right to strike, picket, and protest regarding work-related issues, but there are limitations and qualifications on the exercise of that right. Your right to engage in these activities depends on the object or purpose of the action, on its timing, or on the conduct of those involved. https://www.nlrb.gov/about-nlrb/rights-we-protect/the-law/employees/strikes-pickets-and-protest https://www.nlrb.gov/about-nlrb/rights-we-protect/the-law/em...

wyre 2y ago

> I'm not making any judgement on unions > have an obviously cancerous group inside your organization Is comparing unions to cancer not a judgement? Your comment reads anti-union and oblivious to the concept of worker’s right and the history to corporations literally attacking union members.

mrgoldenbrown 2y ago

It makes sense in the context of the history of unions and legislation regarding them in the US. The overall idea is that both employers and unions are limited in what they can do to each other, and in exchange we have less violence of the sort that happened when companies broke strikes with hired guns like the Pinkertons. Like with many regulations, both sides think they are getting screwed more than the other side.