The new ruling forces employers found interfering with a union election to immediately recognize the union without a new election.

The new ruling forces employers found interfering with a union election to immediately recognize the union without a new election.

  • bitwise
    16•10 months ago

    I would honestly love a rule banning the submission of articles that use the “slammed/blasted” headline.

    • @Steeve@lemmy.ca
      9•10 months ago

      Political Group A FUCKING SUPLEXES Political Group B, Follows Up With a FIGURE FOUR LEG LOCK on Policy Debate. PEOPLE’S ELBOW At Eleven!

    • Franzia
      6•10 months ago

      Put it in an instance meta, it’s just off topic in this post

  • Franzia
    7•10 months ago

    [Cemex Co.] “threatened, harassed, surveilled, intimidated and deceived its own workers with rampant illegality in order to disrupt their union organizing campaign. . .”

    . . . "Hired security guards to stand outside of the voting locations as a form of suppression. We look forward to this process playing out again, this time without terrorization or chicanery, just like it should have in the first place.”

    - Bubba Davis, Director of the Teamsters Building Materials and Construction Trade Division (Teamsters vs Cemex Ruling)

    No one in the U.S. will have to go through this again. Not Amazon workers who sat through long seminars with think tank lawyers, not Starbucks workers who had their stores pulled out from under them. The safety in forming a union has been greatly increased.

    • @fidodo@lemm.ee
      3•10 months ago

      This is a pretty damn good slam. It’s not fines or jail time but this gives the unions the result they want, so seems like a great ruling to me.