Apple threatened workers over their talk about pay and remote work, feds charge
mercurynews.com
mercurynews.com
edit: I'm not going to delete this idea just because people who want a thing to go their way disagree with it. And it's not right that this opinion has been flagged.
However, it is quite clearly stated by the NLRB that the company cannot threaten or retaliate. In my former position, I had this come up twice, much to my surprise. In both cases, I advised the company of the employee's rights, then recommended a discussion to determine why the employee was dissatisfied. In both cases (though one was much more stubborn than the other), we ended up with favorable outcomes for both company and employee.
It can be done, but orgs the size of Apple are more likely to just buy the ability to do whatever they want, anyway. No fine will stop that behavior.
The company doesn't have to do anything. And certainly not actively provide employees with tools to engage in union organizing communications amongst themselves. That's laughable, I'm surprised you believe it.
The ruling is that companies can restrict employees from using the company's assets to communicate about union activities, if they have other means to do so. Employees generally have other means to do so. That is light years different from "the company must provide some means of doing this".
The decision requires that there must be some way for employees to communicate and organize among themselves. Generally courts take a dim view of things like "yes you could technically do it if you broke our policies to grab people's numbers and then started a Signal group". So I don't actually agree with your interpretation of what the ruling says that employers don't have to do anything. I will also note that, while unrelated, employers must provide employees with tools to organize in the physical space (e.g. by putting up posters in common areas). Your shock at the existence of these rules is unwarranted. I would definitely not use company resources to organize if I could avoid it just because it seems like a lot of trouble that is probably not worth it, but there definitely are protections around this kind of thing.
You're clearly an advocate for a side of the argument, not an objective analyst interested in finding out truth. And btw nothing "surprises" or "shocks" me, I have been watching this issue for quite a while and have some expertise in the matter.
You live in past rulings hoping that it means that your position is correct in the present. It is not, and that colors your analysis, which as a result isn't credible or interesting to discuss.
https://www.shrm.org/topics-tools/employment-law-compliance/...
Union organisation should also be part of those protections but the US is still in the 1800 of labour rights for the time being.
A right to do something does not extend to taking over someone else's means to do it. You are free to talk to someone in person about your wages. You are not free to use my equipment to do it. Or to bill me for your time spent discussing it. By your logic, a union organizer should be entitled to photocopy union organizing fliers on a company copy machine.
But you are not.
Notice that I would say that printing union fliers on company printers is fine to not allow, we can have different areas where we draw lines. I think sending an email to employees that a discussion is happening about union is fine. You seem to be on the camp of since the line can be drawn anywhere it should be drawn on the extreme that benefits the employer.
As if me asking Jenna over slack what her bonus was is incredibly taxing on the company for some reason. The only reason that you don't want this to happen over email or company slack/messaging is to prevent this communications to happen at all.
I'm stating facts within the law. You are stating wishes, made unbelievably clear by your saying that I'm trying to get you to side against your data and interests.
Laws don't operate by saying that "unions are beneficial to society and to me" and so therefore it must mean that you're allowed to use other people's equipment to do what you want. Once you bring in that argument, it's clear you've lost.
I guess it's true: "don't argue facts against a man whose livelihood depends on ignoring them."
And I agree with you!
I truly don't understand why this is contentious.