2 ms·
> It is possible, sometimes, to prove that a company closed a store because of a union. The "sometimes" is doing all the work there. Sure, if the company write
by AnthonyMouse 2y ago
> It is possible, sometimes, to prove that a company closed a store because of a union.
The "sometimes" is doing all the work there. Sure, if the company writes an email that says "we decided to close this store because the employees unionized and we're trying to deter that in other stores" then you could prove it, but then they could just... not do that, and close the store anyway.
- g15jv2dp 2y agoMaybe read up on recent union busting cases. Starbucks, Tesla, Walmart, Amazon... It's a lot more nuanced than that. And note I'm replying to someone claiming it's impossible to charge companies with union busting at all.
- AnthonyMouse 2y ago> It's a lot more nuanced than that. Which is kind of the other problem. You end up trying to mind read the intent behind some possible innuendo with an ambiguous meaning, because the outcome isn't determined by what they do, it's determined by what they write down. > And note I'm replying to someone claiming it's impossible to charge companies with union busting at all. If it's impossible to charge companies that have better lawyers but still use the same tactics, you still have the same problem with the law, because then those companies will have a competitive advantage and the others would either learn to do the same or lose their market position.
- consteval 2y agoI believe in labor disputes the standard is a preponderance of guilt. You don't need proof at all, just the inclination they could have had bad motives.