The main issue that this doesn’t deal with is that it in no way stops a company from straight up closing any location that does try to unionize.
“Oh no, we must recognize your union… and in unrelated news, your location is now closed. Feel free to apply to the new location we’re opening up a block away.”
B) It’s fucking expensive, both in actual costs and lost revenue, to keep doing that. Eventually the company will realize they can’t afford it and stop, or they’ll go bankrupt.
C) Being forced to recognize the union means you need to negotiate with the union. Which means you need to make a union contract. Which can include language about how closing down locations is handled. Or how opening up new locations is handled. Like, say, they can only hire new union workers. So they can close down 1 location, then they have to hire union anyway at the new location, so what’s the point?
To be blunt, what you’re describing has exactly 0% chance of working out in the company’s favour over the long term. More than that, it has little chance of even working in the first place. It’s this absurd idea based in nothing.
This is huge.
If it’s actually enforced, anyway.
NLRB and DOL tend not to fuck around
The main issue that this doesn’t deal with is that it in no way stops a company from straight up closing any location that does try to unionize.
“Oh no, we must recognize your union… and in unrelated news, your location is now closed. Feel free to apply to the new location we’re opening up a block away.”
Sure they could do that, year after year, but they might as well sink that cost into giving the union what it wants after once or twice
Tell that to Starbucks. Already doing it
They’ll keep paying union electricians and carpenters to do it.
They can’t do it forever. They’re desperately hoping the union drive will give up soon.
That’s literally why there’s a Starbucks on every corner; they want the option of closing down up to 90% of them to keep away from Unions
That doesn’t change that they can’t do it forever.
A) That is union busting
B) It’s fucking expensive, both in actual costs and lost revenue, to keep doing that. Eventually the company will realize they can’t afford it and stop, or they’ll go bankrupt.
C) Being forced to recognize the union means you need to negotiate with the union. Which means you need to make a union contract. Which can include language about how closing down locations is handled. Or how opening up new locations is handled. Like, say, they can only hire new union workers. So they can close down 1 location, then they have to hire union anyway at the new location, so what’s the point?
To be blunt, what you’re describing has exactly 0% chance of working out in the company’s favour over the long term. More than that, it has little chance of even working in the first place. It’s this absurd idea based in nothing.
I want to believe you but five decades on this earth remind me that what you say is just pie in the sky