Aftermath of the SoCal grocery strike and lockouts

[blowero]

@whatami

So by firing all the employees just to break the union the employer is interfering with the employees rights to organize.

Anyone read it that way?

That’s what I’m wondering. I know for a fact that employees can’t be fired or harassed for union activity; in other words, if Joe checker talks to the other checkers about joining a union, he can’t be fired for that. But if the employees strike, and refuse to return to work on management’s terms, wouldn’t it be legal for management to simply hire a new non-union workforce? I’m talking strictly about legality, not whether one thinks it’s right or wrong.

I know this happens in the music business. I recently worked for a union venue which later decided to hire a non-union orchestra, so the union called me and said not to accept work from them. This is a little different, though, since people are hired per show, but still, I had thought it was legal for an employer to simply decide to dispense with the union and hire non-union workers if they desire. So is that in fact illegal?

I also wonder about the lockout and the profit-sharing between the Big 3. The strike was only against one of the stores, but the other 2 stores joined forces with them, and their combined power made for a formidable force. The strike may have been more successful against only 1 company. Was it strictly legal for the Big 3 to do that?

[Cheesesteak]

@blowero

This is a little different, though, since people are hired per show, but still, I had thought it was legal for an employer to simply decide to dispense with the union and hire non-union workers if they desire. So is that in fact illegal?

I believe the basic idea is that workers have the right to unionize, and that right is protected. You cannot punish people (by firing all of them) merely for creating a union, or because you have trouble negotiating with the union.

[whatami]

@blowero

But if the employees strike, and refuse to return to work on management’s terms, wouldn’t it be legal for management to simply hire a new non-union workforce? I’m talking strictly about legality, not whether one thinks it’s right or wrong.

Well, I think it’s a different situation if they are striking and a settlement can’t be reached. I know that a buddy of mine crossed a line for a job and the company never did settle the contract. Those that wanted to come back were hired, with no seniority but with their pay where it was, and life went on.
In that case the Union lost everything. I suppose that it was legal or I think the union would have filed some type of suit.

We could really use a labor lawyer in here… Anyone?

Bueller? Bueller?

[blowero]

@whatami

Well, I think it’s a different situation if they are striking and a settlement can’t be reached. I know that a buddy of mine crossed a line for a job and the company never did settle the contract. Those that wanted to come back were hired, with no seniority but with their pay where it was, and life went on.
In that case the Union lost everything. I suppose that it was legal or I think the union would have filed some type of suit.

We could really use a labor lawyer in here… Anyone?

Bueller? Bueller?

Yeah, that’s what I was getting at. I know you can’t fire people just for forming a union; that’s a given at this point. What I’m trying to ask is whether union workers have an unlimited legal right to strike. Maybe an extreme example would help: Let’s say union workers demand a million dollars a year each, go on strike, and reject every offer that is less than a million dollars, steadfastly refusing to come back to work. Is management legally obligated to continue to employ these people indefinitely?

[Brad_the_Impaler]

I’m not a labor lawyer, or any sort of lawyer, but I’ve been on strike twice before, so I can tell you what could have happened to my particular union at the times I was on the most recent strike. Also, it’s told from my side, I know there is another side.

We couldn’t strike or be locked out or have major layoffs (Anything over 25 ppl or some % of a depertment, I don’t remember) while we had a contract. The 4 year contract expired with no new contract, so the old contract was renewed on a monthy basis for over a year. Finally, the union didn’t renew the contract, since the company was taking their sweet time negotiating. (And why not, they didn’t have to give out any raises during that time) After the contract stopped being renewed on a monthy basis, anything could have changed, mass layoffs, change in insurance, what ever, because we kept working even though there wasn’t any agreement to protect us. Since we had no contract, the company technically could have just fired all 4000 + union people, and replaced us all. Not practical, a lot of white collar and specialized jobs are unionized here, impossible to replace that quickly. They didn’t lock out the people who crossed the line, if they did, the company would have had to close, and that would have been a very bad thing for them.

I believe the basic idea is that workers have the right to unionize, and that right is protected. You cannot punish people (by firing all of them) merely for creating a union, or because you have trouble negotiating with the union.

So by firing all the employees just to break the union the employer is interfering with the employees rights to organize.

You can fire them all and open a new store, with non-union employees down the street. Or fire them all and move your business to another state, country, what ever. No one can demand you stay in business. I don’t have my cites on hand, but if you’d like them, I’ll look them up later. They are from books, so laws could have changed since then, but I’ll provide them still.

If you chose not to involve yourself in the union - well, you get what you deserve, it is your union. Me, I know what my union officials at the International make, I voted on their salary.

A-fucking-men. I donated to the strike fund for this strike, but christ, the leaders in this one fucked up majorly, and the workers followed like fools, every step of the way. Their union is going to be worthless now, and for a long time after. I can’t stress enough, like any big enterprise, pay attention to what goes on. You don’t vote, you don’t attend meetings, soon enough, the union leaders will screw you just as bad as the management.

They can brag victory all they want in this one, but their union is broke, even if they still exist.

[whatami]

@Brad the Impaler

You can fire them all and open a new store, with non-union employees down the street. Or fire them all and move your business to another state, country, what ever. No one can demand you stay in business. I don’t have my cites on hand, but if you’d like them, I’ll look them up later. They are from books, so laws could have changed since then, but I’ll provide them still.

I’m not trying to argue this, I’m just trying to get some clarification. When I was looking at the NLRB site the other day I saw this…

Examples of violations of Section 8(a)(3). Examples of illegal discrimination under Section 8(a)(3) include:

Discharging employees because they urged other employees to join a union.
Refusing to reinstate employees when jobs they are qualified for are open because they took part in a union’s lawful strike.
Granting of “superseniority” to those hired to replace employees engaged in a lawful strike.
Demoting employees because they circulated a union petition among other employees asking the employer for an increase in pay.
**Discontinuing an operation at one plant and discharging the employees involved followed by opening the same operation at another plant with new employees because the employees at the first plant joined a union. **
Refusing to hire qualified applicants for jobs because they belong to a union. It would also be a violation if the qualified applicants were refused employment because they did not belong to a union, or because they belonged to one union rather than another.

bolding mine

Now, in this circumstance it’s because the employees voted for a union, but if the union is already a presence in the facility, does it matter or is it still in violation?