# Labor Law: business closes in response to union vote **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [November 3, 2017, 3:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/labor-law-business-closes-in-response-to-union-vote/800604 "2017-11-03T15:58:52Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![Fotheringay-Phipps](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/d9b06d/32.png) [@Fotheringay-Phipps](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fotheringay-Phipps)\ **Post date:** [November 3, 2017, 3:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/labor-law-business-closes-in-response-to-union-vote/800604/1 "2017-11-03T15:58:52Z")
[Billionaire Owner Shuts Down DNAinfo, Gothamist Sites A Week After Workers Unionize](http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2017/11/03/561830256/billionaire-owner-shuts-down-dnainfo-gothamist-sites-a-week-after-workers-unioni) > [@](#): > > Just a week ago, the employees at local news websites DNAinfo and Gothamist in New York voted to unionize. > > Thursday evening, the publications’ billionaire owner, Joe Ricketts, announced that he was shutting them down. Ricketts’ letter announcing the closing doesn’t reference the union vote - he just says the businesses were not economically viable - but it’s hard to imagine that this wasn’t at least a major factor, and let’s assume that the closings were a direct response to the union vote. I’m interested in the following quote from that same article: > [@](#): > > “\*t is no secret that threats were made to these workers during the organizing drive,” the union said in a statement. “The Guild will be looking at all of our potential areas of recourse and we will aggressively pursue our new members’ rights.” What are those rights in this scenario? Suppose the guy says straight out that “hey, this business was barely hanging on as it was, and with the union vote the likelihood that I’ll be able to make it a financial success have diminished to the point that it’s not worth keeping at it”, does the union (or anyone else) have grounds for any sort of legal action? ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [November 3, 2017, 5:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/labor-law-business-closes-in-response-to-union-vote/800604/2 "2017-11-03T17:30:46Z")
IANAL, but I cannot imagine any grounds. Ricketts should have offered to sell them the business. Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![Procrustus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/procrustus/32/2994_2.png) [@Procrustus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Procrustus)\ **Post date:** [November 3, 2017, 5:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/labor-law-business-closes-in-response-to-union-vote/800604/3 "2017-11-03T17:38:42Z")
IANA Labor Lawyer, but I think he can shut down his business anytime for any reason. If, however, he reopens as a new business with non union workers, he might have a problem. ---
**Author:** ![rbroome](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/838e76/32.png) [@rbroome](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rbroome)\ **Post date:** [November 3, 2017, 5:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/labor-law-business-closes-in-response-to-union-vote/800604/4 "2017-11-03T17:56:24Z")
I can’t imagine a lego problem with his actions. He has a pretty good excuse-according to the NYT article, the publications have lost money every month of their short existence. Making money in the digital world is tough. And I wish I could get those termination terms: 90 days of “administrative leave at full pay + a termination payment”. I think the guy should have kept the pubs open, but he certainly is saying goodbye with green. ---
**Author:** ![dstarfire](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dstarfire/32/5762_2.png) [@dstarfire](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/dstarfire)\ **Post date:** [November 3, 2017, 6:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/labor-law-business-closes-in-response-to-union-vote/800604/5 "2017-11-03T18:29:31Z")
Shutting down a business to avoid demands on that business, while not common, is definitely not unheard of or without precedent. A similar thing happened with Hostess (makers of Twinkies and other cake treats). However, with Hostess, it was a new labor contract that prompted the shutdown. In Colorado, a baker shutdown his business so he couldn’t be forced into making a cake for a gay wedding. However, if the owners opened a similar business shortly afterwards then a court might have to consider if the closure was an illegal evasion. ---
**Author:** ![Ludovic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/7ab992/32.png) [@Ludovic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ludovic)\ **Post date:** [November 3, 2017, 6:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/labor-law-business-closes-in-response-to-union-vote/800604/6 "2017-11-03T18:36:34Z")
> [@rbroome](#): > > I can’t imagine a lego problem with his actions. I guess the actions all fit together. ---
**Author:** ![running\_coach](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/running_coach/32/15836_2.png) [@running\_coach](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/running_coach)\ **Post date:** [November 3, 2017, 6:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/labor-law-business-closes-in-response-to-union-vote/800604/7 "2017-11-03T18:57:54Z")
What happened to the very rich job-creators using their personal funds to create jobs? He couldn’t kick in some to keep the business going? ---
**Author:** ![md2000](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/73ab20/32.png) [@md2000](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/md2000)\ **Post date:** [November 3, 2017, 7:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/labor-law-business-closes-in-response-to-union-vote/800604/8 "2017-11-03T19:18:32Z")
IIRC, a few provinces in Canada address this - if a new business opens on the same site that is essentially the same as an old business hat shut down, then it inherits the union certification. Walmart in fact did this with a few stores in Quebec - shut down stores where workers voted to certify unions. In Canada, unlike “right to work” USA, laying off employees can get expensive. The legal minimum for termination without cause can be 2 to 5 weeks’ pay, and if they are in a more professional field, possibly up to a month for each year of service to a max of 24 months. Of course, if you have a business with hundreds of locations, the expense of closing one to send a message to the others is worth it for the rabid one-percenter. Should add - most provincial labour laws in Canada, it is illegal for the employer to interfere with the labour signup and vote, to suggest that there would be consequences for voting in a union, or even to tell the workers not to vote for one. ---
**Author:** ![silenus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/silenus/32/166_2.png) [@silenus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/silenus)\ **Post date:** [November 3, 2017, 7:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/labor-law-business-closes-in-response-to-union-vote/800604/9 "2017-11-03T19:43:03Z")
If threats _were_ made before the vote, and this can be **proven** , then it is a major violation of labor law and the fines can be horrific. ---
**Author:** ![Reply](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/reply/32/15952_2.png) [@Reply](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Reply)\ **Post date:** [November 3, 2017, 8:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/labor-law-business-closes-in-response-to-union-vote/800604/10 "2017-11-03T20:12:48Z")
> [@running\_coach](#): > > What happened to the very rich job-creators using their personal funds to create jobs? He couldn’t kick in some to keep the business going? Apparently he did, pumping millions into it every month to keep it afloat. It never made money, AFAIK. ---
**Author:** ![Iggy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iggy/32/3364_2.png) [@Iggy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Iggy)\ **Post date:** [November 3, 2017, 8:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/labor-law-business-closes-in-response-to-union-vote/800604/11 "2017-11-03T20:38:29Z")
Per a [New York Times report](https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/02/nyregion/dnainfo-gothamist-shutting-down.html): > [@](#): > > They are getting three months of paid “administrative leave” at full salary, plus four weeks of severance, DNAinfo said. Losing money every month of operation and still providing effectively four months pay. Not sure that the union could hope for more than that as the owner presumably can prove ongoing loss during the term of the business’ operation. Hardly the first media company to not make it in theSe times. ---
**Author:** ![Reply](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/reply/32/15952_2.png) [@Reply](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Reply)\ **Post date:** [November 3, 2017, 8:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/labor-law-business-closes-in-response-to-union-vote/800604/12 "2017-11-03T20:43:05Z")
What are the chances of the union buying the paper from him and turning it into a co-op, possibly with crowdsourced initial funding? Hell, they have 4 months of paid salary to get it back together… ---
**Author:** ![John\_Bredin](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/96bed5/32.png) [@John\_Bredin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Bredin)\ **Post date:** [November 3, 2017, 8:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/labor-law-business-closes-in-response-to-union-vote/800604/13 "2017-11-03T20:44:28Z")
> [@Iggy](#): > > Per a [New York Times report](https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/02/nyregion/dnainfo-gothamist-shutting-down.html): > > Losing money every month of operation and still providing effectively four months pay. How much more does the union want? I would assume the operation’s primary expense was labor. No printing presses, etc. If so, why not stay open another three months or so, which would still leave about a month’s severance to look for work? 😕 ---
**Author:** ![Reply](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/reply/32/15952_2.png) [@Reply](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Reply)\ **Post date:** [November 3, 2017, 9:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/labor-law-business-closes-in-response-to-union-vote/800604/14 "2017-11-03T21:06:17Z")
Cynically: It was probably more important to send a strong message about unionization; he still has other media outlets he owns and maybe wants to warn. But the last thing he needs is a bunch of angry unemployed journalists suddenly turned against him. 4 months’ pay is probably enough of a bribe that they won’t. ---
**Author:** ![Fotheringay-Phipps](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/d9b06d/32.png) [@Fotheringay-Phipps](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fotheringay-Phipps)\ **Post date:** [November 3, 2017, 9:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/labor-law-business-closes-in-response-to-union-vote/800604/15 "2017-11-03T21:08:41Z")
> [@silenus](#): > > If threats _were_ made before the vote, and this can be **proven** , then it is a major violation of labor law and the fines can be horrific. Would that depend on what the “threats” were? If this guy is intending to close the paper if the vote passes, and if he’s legally allowed to close it, is it possible that he’s not allowed to inform the employees upfront that this is what will happen? That sounds hard to imagine. ---
**Author:** ![Iggy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iggy/32/3364_2.png) [@Iggy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Iggy)\ **Post date:** [November 3, 2017, 9:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/labor-law-business-closes-in-response-to-union-vote/800604/16 "2017-11-03T21:53:47Z")
And digging a bit, it seems the owner is on square legal footing. In [Textile Workers Union v. Darlington Mfg. Co](https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/380/263/) (1965) the Supreme Court ruled that an owner can close his business entirely. “It is not an unfair labor practice for an employer to close his entire business, even if the closing is due to anti-union animus.” The ruling goes on to deal withe closing part of a business and how \*that \*may be an unfair labor practice. ---
**Author:** ![Reply](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/reply/32/15952_2.png) [@Reply](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Reply)\ **Post date:** [November 3, 2017, 10:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/labor-law-business-closes-in-response-to-union-vote/800604/17 "2017-11-03T22:07:48Z")
> [@Iggy](#): > > And digging a bit, it seems the owner is on square legal footing. > > In [Textile Workers Union v. Darlington Mfg. Co](https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/380/263/) (1965) the Supreme Court ruled that an owner can close his business entirely. “It is not an unfair labor practice for an employer to close his entire business, even if the closing is due to anti-union animus.” > > The ruling goes on to deal withe closing part of a business and how \*that \*may be an unfair labor practice. Thank you for this cite. ---
**Author:** ![friedo](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/8edcca/32.png) [@friedo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/friedo)\ **Post date:** [November 3, 2017, 10:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/labor-law-business-closes-in-response-to-union-vote/800604/18 "2017-11-03T22:12:44Z")
> [@md2000](#): > > In Canada, unlike “right to work” USA, laying off employees can get expensive. The legal minimum for termination without cause can be 2 to 5 weeks’ pay, and if they are in a more professional field, possibly up to a month for each year of service to a max of 24 months. You’re talking about at-will employment, not right-to-work laws. And it’s worth noting in this case that the owner gave the employees a very generous severance, though he was not required to give them anything. It’s a shitty situation all around; there was no way DNAInfo would have ever been viable in the near future, with or without a union, and he cut his losses in about the least assholish way he could. ---
**Author:** ![Snnipe\_70E](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/b5a626/32.png) [@Snnipe\_70E](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Snnipe_70E)\ **Post date:** [November 4, 2017, 12:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/labor-law-business-closes-in-response-to-union-vote/800604/19 "2017-11-04T00:35:15Z")
Severance pay is not necessarily required. If he gives proper notice. He would be required to give 90 days notice before laying anyone off. With out the notice then severance pay would be required. ---
**Author:** ![amarone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/e0b2c6/32.png) [@amarone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/amarone)\ **Post date:** [November 4, 2017, 1:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/labor-law-business-closes-in-response-to-union-vote/800604/20 "2017-11-04T01:29:09Z")
> [@Snnipe\_70E](#): > > Severance pay is not necessarily required. If he gives proper notice. He would be required to give 90 days notice before laying anyone off. With out the notice then severance pay would be required. Cite please. This is certainly not the case in my state, but maybe you can show that it is in NY. [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/labor-law-business-closes-in-response-to-union-vote/800604.md?page=2)