[HN Gopher] Apple 'created decoy labor group' to derail unioniza...
___________________________________________________________________
Apple 'created decoy labor group' to derail unionization
Author : LinuxBender
Score : 240 points
Date : 2022-12-18 18:02 UTC (4 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.theregister.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.theregister.com)
| renewiltord wrote:
| Thankfully. Labor unions have historically been xenophobic and
| racist. As they have weakened they have become more inclusive.
| Make them strong and they will succumb to their atavism.
|
| Confoederationes commercii delendae sunt
| impeplague wrote:
| There is something as old as unions that is not historically
| xenophobic and racist?
| ngoilapites wrote:
| DannyBee wrote:
| Their main complaint and ask here is not the "decoy group",
| despite the headline. That is because they can't meaningfully
| complain that apple created a non union group to hear concerns
| and give employees a voice (regardless of whether it did). Such a
| complaint would be hilarious.
|
| Instead, the main complaint is that apple held captive audience
| meetings and wants the NLRB to ban them.
|
| As they well know, they are legal. The NLRB did ban them many
| years ago, and the supreme court overturned the ban. See
| https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Captive_audience_meeting
|
| Whatever one may think of them, it will take Congress or States
| to change it, not the NLRB. Congress was very close last year on
| it, too.
| lsy wrote:
| > That is because they can't meaningfully complain that apple
| created a non union group to hear concerns and give employees a
| voice (regardless of whether it did). Such a complaint would be
| hilarious.
|
| This isn't true. Employer unions are prohibited by the NLRA,
| and the linked complaint's third violation is listed as
| "Creating and soliciting employees to join an employer-created
| / employer-dominated labor organization as a means of stifling
| Union activities." This attorney's site gives examples of when
| employer-sponsored groups start to violate the NLRA's
| provisions banning employer unions, which is when these groups
| start to discuss working conditions:
|
| https://laborlaw.foxrothschild.com/2017/08/articles/general-...
|
| > When the employer creates and sponsors an employee group
| where the discussion turns to subjects such as employee pay,
| employee benefits, or even matters such as employee work
| schedules, this creates a risk that the NLRB might find that
| the employer has improperly created something that is the
| equivalent of an employer sponsored union.
| DannyBee wrote:
| The case you cite was overturned by the DC circuit and sent
| back to the NLRB for reconsideration a year or two ago. The
| NLRB found again last month in favor of the CWA, and it will
| be appealed again (and the CWA will lose again) to the DC
| circuit, because it is in, fact, true.
|
| If the employer says "we want to hear what you think can be
| better about your pay, your benefits, or your work
| schedules", there is nothing illegal about this. Even if it
| creates groups to do so.
|
| To the degree the NLRA tries to ban this, it would be struck
| down as applied. Courts will construct it to focus on the
| bargaining aspects of a union rather than speech aspects.
| This is very clear from precedent, and in line with what
| happened at the DC circuit. None of the unions have been dumb
| enough to spin the wheel here because the result is obvious.
| If they tried to control non-union speech-related feedback
| loops, it would fair very poorly, and has so far in court.
|
| It is true the NLRA tries to ban company unions, but the part
| most likely to stand these days, is again, effectively
| "company controlled collective bargaining" (IE the company
| elects representatives and only bargains with a company
| controlled/elected union), etc.
|
| Again, i'm not stating a position of whether this is good or
| not, just trying to accurately state the current legal
| reality.
| Zigurd wrote:
| This is an Americanism. Where workers councils are used
| effectively, it is alongside a unionized workforce, and these
| councils are created with the union as a partner. Only in
| America, where "right to work" means the right to dilute union
| power, would a sham union be legalized instead of prosecuted as
| a fraud.
| zdragnar wrote:
| Actually, isn't "right to work" is the standard for most
| European countries? Forcing workers to join a particular
| union as a condition of being hired (or compulsory payment of
| dues without even joining) is the standard in the US but
| illegal elsewhere.
| svenpeter wrote:
| I work at a unionized company in Germany and didn't have to
| join the union or pay any dues to start working.
|
| Technically employees who aren't part of the union aren't
| entitled to the benefits they negotiated. In reality
| everyone gets the same benefits anyway because otherwise
| the employer would create a huge incentive for everyone to
| join the union which would make strikes hurt even more.
| gtvwill wrote:
| Not really sure how you got to that point. I'd say given the
| way the document words it, point (1) Holding a mandatory
| captive audience meeting in which its representative stated
| that the Employer would refuse to bargain certain subjects if a
| union was formed; and (3) Creating and soliciting employees to
| join an employer-created / employer-dominated labor
| organization as a means of stifling Union activities are both
| equally "unfair labor practices".
|
| >>>"That is because they can't meaningfully complain that apple
| created a non union group to hear concerns and give employees a
| voice (regardless of whether it did). Such a complaint would be
| hilarious."
|
| Why? unfair labor practices can be a whole host of things. I'm
| not American but according to https://www.nlrb.gov/about-
| nlrb/rights-we-protect/the-law/in... it would seem Apple is on
| the wrong side of the law in this one arguably. I wonder if
| they try this stuff in Aus?
| BiteCode_dev wrote:
| Funnily, if it would have been Twitter, it would have been all
| the rage for a week.
|
| Because it's Apple, everybody will have forgotten and forgiven
| tomorrow.
| Macha wrote:
| See also ERGs.
| newaccount2021 wrote:
| gjvc wrote:
| Jobs' "reality distortion field" continues
| jasonhansel wrote:
| > In a memo issued in April, National Labor Relations Board
| General Counsel Jennifer Abruzzo asked the NLRB "to find
| mandatory meetings in which employees are forced to listen to
| employer speech concerning the exercise of their statutory labor
| rights, including captive audience meetings, a violation of the
| National Labor Relations Act.
|
| You can read the memo here--I find its case very compelling:
| https://apps.nlrb.gov/link/document.aspx/09031d458372316b
|
| Normally I'd say "call your congressperson," but this is in the
| executive branch, so I'm not sure how to best support it.
| nerdponx wrote:
| Congress has the power to make laws that the Executive Branch
| is responsible for enforcing.
| changoplatanero wrote:
| When I had a job that was represented by a union they forced us
| all to listen to the union representative who came in and gave
| their pro union propaganda to everyone. I was annoyed that they
| didn't have anybody to present the opposite point of view.
| jcampbell1 wrote:
| Jennifer Abruzzo openly flouts the law of the land. It is hard to
| take the NLRB seriously during her tenure. All she is doing is
| halting action while we wait ages for the courts to dismiss her
| theories.
| onphonenow wrote:
| Yeah, even as a non lawyer the nlrb findings seem out there
| these days. She'll be around for a while - retread Trump is a
| no go in 24 - I'll be donating heavily to dems again and I'm
| confident many others will to vs having him back in charge
| NaturalPhallacy wrote:
| I've defended Apple on a lot of occasions, but this is
| indefensible.
|
| The only thing worse than a bad union is no union.
| sovietmudkipz wrote:
| Embrace, extend, extinguish. The EEE playbook
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2022-12-18 23:00 UTC)