When did the ALRB determine that remedial certification was an “egregious stick”?
How can a Union “bait” a company into doing something illegal? Jedi mind trick?
A Union would have a pretty hard time threatening to apply for a remedial certification and an even more challenging time to get the ALRB to award one if an employer didn’t violate the code.
As for the need for a vote, since you are clearly knowledgeable in labour relations matters you must be aware that the employees could freely apply for decertification if they really didn’t want a Union representing them so I’m not understanding how you consider it to be a hardship.
You’re free to elaborate on the “tactics” that Unions use to “force” employees to sign and fill out a card with all of their personal information and pay the $2 fee which was required under the code, though I expect none of that would explain why employees wouldn’t contact the board once the notice of the application is posted in their workplace(which is required by law) to complain about the hypothetical tactics you’re claiming could be used. You’re also free to elaborate on how those tactics are more effective in influencing an employee than their employer’s threats/tactics to dissuade them from wanting to join a Union.
It would be a pretty idle threat if the employer didn’t actually violate the code, no?
I get the sense that you don’t think an employer should be able to violate the law by interfering with their employees when they consider unionizing, but at the same time you’re not really offering any alternative remedies that would prevent employers from doing just that. Instead you’re giving vague examples to argue why one of the only remedies that I’m sure you would agree actually deters employers from violating the law is “a bit much”.
I think you’re contradicting yourself here. If the board only applied it rarely and when they felt that it was necessary what is leading you to expect that it would be abused? Unless you have an example of a board awarding a remedial certification when the employer wasn’t found guilty of violating the law I don’t think it’s a very plausible scenario.
Well in that case I hope that you’re just as willing to share examples of all of the steps you’ve seen employers take to not interfere in a Union organizing campaign once they are aware of one as you are to bring up hypothetical boogeyman scenarios to criticize laws meant to eliminate employer interference. If I had to guess I’d say the list of steps taken by employers to not interfere would be rather short.
