So when a company has a positive response to unionization, just keep in mind that they don’t really have any other option but to “grin and bear it” so to speak.
I don’t agree. We’ve seen many times companies close locations outright after they unionize. At times governing bodies like the NLRB will fine them, and they’ll gladly eat those fines and keep them closed.
If I was reading the NLRB rules change correctly that would be “union busting” activity and would mean they immediately have to recognize and begin bargaining with the union.
Just a heads up, the NLRB has taken an aggressive stance against companies that refuse to allow their employees to unionize.
So when a company has a positive response to unionization, just keep in mind that they don’t really have any other option but to “grin and bear it” so to speak.
I don’t agree. We’ve seen many times companies close locations outright after they unionize. At times governing bodies like the NLRB will fine them, and they’ll gladly eat those fines and keep them closed.
I agree that when the penalty is a fine, it’s just the cost of doing business, but it appears that the NLRB are attempting to go another route.
I hope they’re successful. Time will tell. These greedy companies (like Walmart and Starbucks, not Costco) have a lot of money and good legal teams.
If I was reading the NLRB rules change correctly that would be “union busting” activity and would mean they immediately have to recognize and begin bargaining with the union.
Ah yes, as famously evidenced by Elon Musk backtracking on his Tesla unionization opposition
Tell that to Amazon.
Yeah, plenty of companies have demonstrated a willingness to do things other than grin and bear it