If WfJ is in favor open discussion, why is it demanding neutrality from the administration and managers?
Neutrality makes a democratic vote is possible. Most employers who face unionization now prefer the NLRB process because enforcement of workers’ rights to organize is lax, remedies for violating those rights are weak; trials and appeals can take from two to six years. Employers know the cost of violating the NLRA and intervening aggressively in workers’ union vote is far less than the cost of a unionized workforce. Employers routinely use sophisticated propaganda, captive audience meetings, surveillance, threats, and discipline to discourage unionization. Many of these tactics, like hiring professional union-busters and subjecting workers to mandatory anti-union meetings, are actually legal. But even employers who intentionally break the law know punishment is unlikely, years away, and will not include punitive damages. The NLRA does not provide workers with a level playing field, as was intended. The NLRB process is not democratic. In labor peace agreements manager neutrality is stand
Related Questions
- Why does WfJ and its supporters want to stifle open public discussion about the union and prevent the administration from participating in public forums or newspaper interviews?
- Do the Obama administrations competitions favor urban schools over rural populations?
- DO BUSH ADMINISTRATION POLICIES FAVOR...?
