If he can’t get a response from a union via e-mail, then why can’t he drive down to their union hall and talk to somebody? When they ask why he wants to unionize his workforce he can tell them about his social democratic bonafides to assuage their suspicions. Then it’s just a matter of setting up a meeting with his employees and inviting a union representative to the meeting to talk with them. I imagine the union representative would take it from there and if the employees want to unionize it should happen rather quickly.
Yeah, that's all true. But I was unclear on where I stood regarding the law. That's why I asked Matt. As the commenter Peter M points out, me favoring one union over another seems to veer toward something not acceptable. So who I approach and how seems to matter.
I don’t think having a union representative from an organization you picked yourself to talk to your employees about their labor rights is an expression of favoritism. It would be incumbent upon the union rep to explain to the employees that they can choose the representative’s union, another union, form an independent union or choose no union at all. If something untoward happens I don’t see why the employer would be legally liable for the union rep not explaining this during their presentation. Seems kind of asinine and maybe we’re overthinking this here.
Seyedian seems to implicitly understand this already, but there are also certain (criminal!) strictures in 29 USC 186 (a.k.a. Section 302 of the Taft-Hartley Act) which should be flagged, as they are not intuitively obvious unless you think about the issues that led to their passage (in particular, employers attempting to essentially bribe unions as a means of controlling them behind the scenes without facially dominating them). So, for example, you cannot pay employees bonuses for sitting on a union committee, soliciting or obtaining union authorization cards, or serving as a shop steward (although you can excuse them from work time to the extent that they are working on bona fide union business, a.k.a. "official time").
Once you get the concept ("don't bribe the union or its members"), most of the restrictions in Section 302 become pretty clear, although I admit the trust fund provisions are hard to parse on a first reading (but most unions which participate in multi-employer trust funds already have agreements that are written to comply with Section 302's requirements).
We’re not at a size or level of maturity where a bank would lend us money for an ESOP. I am intrigued by bringing employees into governing the organization but without some financial upside I would have to twist their arms to participate. With a financial upside, it’s super similar to just promoting ambitious and interested cleaners into management, which I already do.
One thing I'll add (budding labor lawyer here) is that Aaron may want to have a fuller statement of labor peace.
Part of the kind of "spirit" of 8(a)(2) in practice is to prevent undue favoritism towards particular unions that would, in effect, rob employees of their choice of representation. So if you plan on making card check and neutrality agreements with local unions, you might want to make it extra clear that this option would be available to any union that approaches you.
I will admit that this is a recommendation from a place of caution, but given the current courts' willingness to mess with every provision of the NLRA, I think it might be worthwhile. (And while there's also a real question of who would sue to bring the case forward, the courts mess with standing all the time)
Key point here. Many employers violate 8(a)(2) by entering into card check agreements with shitty unions to protect themselves from unions who will actually secure meaningful benefits for their employees. Not what’s happening here, obviously, but this problem could come up if Seyedian starts talking to two unions and decided to strike a deal with one of them. The law envisions unions being able to compete for workers’ support, not employers picking and choosing which unions their workers will support.
Thank you for bringing this up. This is exactly where my mind went after reading the post. It does seem appropriate to try to find a way to solicit every applicable union local.
Whether anyone actually would care is another thing, as you point out, but the law is the law.
Thanks, Matt! I'll keep you posted on where this goes.
If he can’t get a response from a union via e-mail, then why can’t he drive down to their union hall and talk to somebody? When they ask why he wants to unionize his workforce he can tell them about his social democratic bonafides to assuage their suspicions. Then it’s just a matter of setting up a meeting with his employees and inviting a union representative to the meeting to talk with them. I imagine the union representative would take it from there and if the employees want to unionize it should happen rather quickly.
Yeah, that's all true. But I was unclear on where I stood regarding the law. That's why I asked Matt. As the commenter Peter M points out, me favoring one union over another seems to veer toward something not acceptable. So who I approach and how seems to matter.
I don’t think having a union representative from an organization you picked yourself to talk to your employees about their labor rights is an expression of favoritism. It would be incumbent upon the union rep to explain to the employees that they can choose the representative’s union, another union, form an independent union or choose no union at all. If something untoward happens I don’t see why the employer would be legally liable for the union rep not explaining this during their presentation. Seems kind of asinine and maybe we’re overthinking this here.
Seyedian seems to implicitly understand this already, but there are also certain (criminal!) strictures in 29 USC 186 (a.k.a. Section 302 of the Taft-Hartley Act) which should be flagged, as they are not intuitively obvious unless you think about the issues that led to their passage (in particular, employers attempting to essentially bribe unions as a means of controlling them behind the scenes without facially dominating them). So, for example, you cannot pay employees bonuses for sitting on a union committee, soliciting or obtaining union authorization cards, or serving as a shop steward (although you can excuse them from work time to the extent that they are working on bona fide union business, a.k.a. "official time").
Once you get the concept ("don't bribe the union or its members"), most of the restrictions in Section 302 become pretty clear, although I admit the trust fund provisions are hard to parse on a first reading (but most unions which participate in multi-employer trust funds already have agreements that are written to comply with Section 302's requirements).
What about employee ownership? or other ways of bringing in employees from different levels of the organization into governance?
We’re not at a size or level of maturity where a bank would lend us money for an ESOP. I am intrigued by bringing employees into governing the organization but without some financial upside I would have to twist their arms to participate. With a financial upside, it’s super similar to just promoting ambitious and interested cleaners into management, which I already do.
One thing I'll add (budding labor lawyer here) is that Aaron may want to have a fuller statement of labor peace.
Part of the kind of "spirit" of 8(a)(2) in practice is to prevent undue favoritism towards particular unions that would, in effect, rob employees of their choice of representation. So if you plan on making card check and neutrality agreements with local unions, you might want to make it extra clear that this option would be available to any union that approaches you.
I will admit that this is a recommendation from a place of caution, but given the current courts' willingness to mess with every provision of the NLRA, I think it might be worthwhile. (And while there's also a real question of who would sue to bring the case forward, the courts mess with standing all the time)
Key point here. Many employers violate 8(a)(2) by entering into card check agreements with shitty unions to protect themselves from unions who will actually secure meaningful benefits for their employees. Not what’s happening here, obviously, but this problem could come up if Seyedian starts talking to two unions and decided to strike a deal with one of them. The law envisions unions being able to compete for workers’ support, not employers picking and choosing which unions their workers will support.
Thank you for bringing this up. This is exactly where my mind went after reading the post. It does seem appropriate to try to find a way to solicit every applicable union local.
Whether anyone actually would care is another thing, as you point out, but the law is the law.