Hacker News Reader

Comment by paulddraper | Hacker News Reader

> give the cover story more plausibility

Do they need to?

Many employers would rather publicize it: we don't tolerate a union.

Retaliating against someone for trying to unionize is a violation of the National Labor Relations Act, as well as New York state law (Kickstarter is headquartered in New York) – hence the need for a cover story.

Yeah, but for legal purposes it doesn't matter if "everyone knows" about the real reasons.

The company gets to have it both ways. Send a message that unionization isn't tolerated, while saying in court that unionization had nothing to do with the firings.

The whole court case will be about the plausibility of the company's performance claims. So, responding to the root comment: yes, the company very much needs to establish plausible reasons for firing.

You are so right and it's quite Machiavellian. Specifically, chapter 18 - "In what way princes should keep their word".

Oh, interesting.

There was an episode of the U.S. version of The Office where an exec said they'd all be fired if they got "even a whiff" of unionization. And really openly to dozens of people, not in any sort of wink-wink way.

I figured this was a legit threat in the U.S.

I'm guessing that in some states it might be legally questionable while not federally across the board

It's illegal anywhere in the US; the NLRA is a federal law.

IIRC, Jan didn’t threaten to fire them. She simply asserted that unionization would cause them they would lose their jobs because Dunder Mifflin would close down the branch if the workers unionized, as apparently had happened at another branch.

So not advocating that we use The Office (a sitcom) as a reference for American labor law, but I think Jan’s statements might be permissible. As long as her reasoning is that the increased cost of the workers being in a union will lead to the branch closing, not that the branch would be closed in retaliation, it would be fine.

Companies can and often do complain that if workers are in a union, the company’s operating costs will increase, which will consequently have adverse effects on the workers like layoffs, plant closings and so on.

To be clear, this is my understanding of legal issues in a sitcom. I am not necessarily advocating Jan’s point of view, our labor laws as they stand, or anything else.

That's a pretty fine line to draw:

"Due to increased costs (read: unions), we're reducing/eliminating employment."

"Due to decreased productivity (read: FMLA), we're reducing/eliminating employment."

I guess it works. I don't really understand this stuff.

"You don't look like us" - Illegal.

"We don't think you fit in with our culture" - Legal.

I think this is why any crime where the intention is part of it is so hard to prove, like discrimination, hate crimes, etc.

As someone who worked in insurance, legal decisions seem to live and die by fine distinctions. The difference between a payable claim and an unpayable claim could be a single word.

As they say: The devil is in the details.

Closing an entire office/branch for unionizing - legal.

Firing the individuals who are trying to start the union - illegal.

Yes, but.. if the employee is using work time and company resources to print recruitment material and disrupting meetings, etc., etc., that’s an actionable offense. I mean, an employer has a lot of leeway around disruptive employee behavior. The employee can probably get a settlement in such cases if they’re willing to fight long enough on the wrongful term suit. For example by showing that the company was generally tolerant of company equipment being used for personal stuff, etc. But behavior is a tougher matter.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com