If, in the run-up to or during that election, the employer commits an unfair labor practice, such as illegally firing pro-union workers (which has become routine in nearly every such election over the past 40 years, as the penalties have been negligible), the Board will order the employer to recognize the union and enter forthwith into bargaining.
This is obviously a great ruling, but I'm extremely skeptical about it being enforced.
Why? I’m asking this seriously and don’t intend for this to be an attack - but do you have some reason to believe this other than standard marxist-doomerism?
Since Abruzzo’s appointment, the nlrb has made many pro-labor findings, including against behemoths such as Amazon and Starbucks, for example. One of my friends who is an nlrb attorney was also pretty pumped about it (though he of course has his own biases). And I think the nlrb going through all the effort to revive a what - 50 year old doctrine - (in addition to revive a 2014 rule regarding quick elections) gives a lot to be hopeful toward.
Why would you say this to me out of everyone in the thread
I'm just skeptical generally of enforcement on these sorts of things. My concern is really for the capacity of the NLRB to enforce this effectively at scale. But I'm also optimistic.
This is obviously a great ruling, but I'm extremely skeptical about it being enforced.
Yeah the NLRB is the most "I'll believe it when I see it" organization that has ever existed.
Why? I’m asking this seriously and don’t intend for this to be an attack - but do you have some reason to believe this other than standard marxist-doomerism?
Since Abruzzo’s appointment, the nlrb has made many pro-labor findings, including against behemoths such as Amazon and Starbucks, for example. One of my friends who is an nlrb attorney was also pretty pumped about it (though he of course has his own biases). And I think the nlrb going through all the effort to revive a what - 50 year old doctrine - (in addition to revive a 2014 rule regarding quick elections) gives a lot to be hopeful toward.
Why would you say this to me out of everyone in the thread
I'm just skeptical generally of enforcement on these sorts of things. My concern is really for the capacity of the NLRB to enforce this effectively at scale. But I'm also optimistic.
Fair enough. And sorry, didn’t mean any offense - I just read the “extremely skeptical” as the strongest statement in the thread.