21–30 of 303 posts
Just a tangent that it's strange this is a local story for me (Rochester NY) and there is no local coverage - had to go all the way to the UK to learn about this!
This article made me curious, has any business tried to defend antiunion activities through a desire for free association? As in the business does not want to associate with unions. It made me curious because I've not seen that argument before, in the function of a union seems like it wants to force the company to associate with it whether the company wants to or not.
You cannot "free association" your way out of legally required actions. You can't, say, refuse to deal with the IRS because it's your right not to associate with them.
You are absolutely free to never associate with them as an employee, however. Important distinction.
This article made me curious, has any business tried to defend antiunion activities through a desire for free association? As in the business does not want to associate with unions. It made me curious because I've not seen that argument before, in the function of a union seems like it wants to force the company to associate with it whether the company wants to or not.
I want to know about closing stores in apparent retaliation against unionizing. This has been happening lately in Boston, with the Cambridge Milk Bar location and the Boylston Starbucks location. It seems like that's the new corporate tactic to try to discourage unionizing. Of course, if every store unionized, then they'd be forced to concede at some point that they still need to keep stores open in order to make mon…
SCOTUS has said it is okay to close a place of business to avoid unionization of workers. Frankly I think this is fine, you can't compel someone to operate a business.
This court? Never happen. But this isn't clear-cut, and the same anti-retaliation impulse ought to apply, in my opinion. If a company shuts down a store in which a unionization effort is underway, and wants to claim it was for some other reason, the cost of the inevitable lawsuit ought to be included as a factor.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
SCOTUS has said it is okay to close a place of business to avoid unionization of workers. Frankly I think this is fine, you can't compel someone to operate a business.
That makes sense for smaller businesses, where "closing" might mean closing the entire business. But the situation seems materially different for a large company like Starbucks, where each physical location is only a small part of their overall business operations. What SCOTUS ruling was that? I wonder if it applies to e.g. shutting down a warehouse or dismantling a department within the business, as opposed to shutt…
Just a tangent that it's strange this is a local story for me (Rochester NY) and there is no local coverage - had to go all the way to the UK to learn about this!
That's kind of wild, and a little concerning. 13 WHAM doesn't seem to have even a mention of this on their website. Is ABC connected to anti-labor interests?
This article made me curious, has any business tried to defend antiunion activities through a desire for free association? As in the business does not want to associate with unions. It made me curious because I've not seen that argument before, in the function of a union seems like it wants to force the company to associate with it whether the company wants to or not.
Just a tangent that it's strange this is a local story for me (Rochester NY) and there is no local coverage - had to go all the way to the UK to learn about this!
That's kind of wild, and a little concerning. 13 WHAM doesn't seem to have even a mention of this on their website. Is ABC connected to anti-labor interests?