Captive Audience Meetings: The Right Not to Attend

Paul M. Secunda
{"title":"Captive Audience Meetings: The Right Not to Attend","authors":"Paul M. Secunda","doi":"10.1017/9781108610070.026","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"For nearly seventy years, the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB or \"Board\") and various courts have interpreted the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA or \"Act\") as permitting employers to give captive audience meetings during labor organizational campaigns in the private-sector. Employees, in the midst of deciding whether to join a union, must attend such meetings where \"labor relations consultants\" usually dictate management's views about the evils of unionism. These meeting occur during working hours, when management is best situated to shackle employees through the exertion of its economic authority and to play on fears of job loss if employees vote in favor of unionization. During these meetings, employees are not permitted to question the employer representative and employers are not obligated to provide the union access to the workplace to present opposing views. While in a formal sense employees are free to leave these meetings, they do so in reality at the peril of losing their jobs. \nPut simply, rightfully motivated by the necessity of continued employment for basic economic survival, employees will not miss the threatening subtexts of carefully crafted message. Such messages, while free from overt statutorily prohibited threats of reprisal or promise of benefits, will nonetheless convey the detrimental effects of failing to agree with the employer's anti-union stance. Even though eventual voting on unionization will be completed by secret ballot, most employees by that point seem to lose all interest in supporting a cause that will surely draw their employer's ire. Thus, the central argument of this Chapter is that captive audience meetings are not about employer speech rights at all, but rather amount to coercive conduct against employees in derogation of employees' right to self-organization under the NLRA. Of course, employers are free to express or discuss anti-union views with their employees. However, doing so through the mechanism of forced listening, implied coercion, and fear is conduct that should be regulated under the NLRA. Utilizing the conduct/speech distinction in labor picketing law and sexual harassment law, this Chapter will establish the similar conduct-like nature of captive audience meetings and contend that the Board should make employer captive audience meetings a per se violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the NLRA, as it is conduct that directly interferes with, restrains and/or intimidates employees in Section 7 organizational rights to decide whether they wish to join a union.","PeriodicalId":306856,"journal":{"name":"Economic Inequality & the Law eJournal","volume":"43 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2018-10-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Economic Inequality & the Law eJournal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108610070.026","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

For nearly seventy years, the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB or "Board") and various courts have interpreted the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA or "Act") as permitting employers to give captive audience meetings during labor organizational campaigns in the private-sector. Employees, in the midst of deciding whether to join a union, must attend such meetings where "labor relations consultants" usually dictate management's views about the evils of unionism. These meeting occur during working hours, when management is best situated to shackle employees through the exertion of its economic authority and to play on fears of job loss if employees vote in favor of unionization. During these meetings, employees are not permitted to question the employer representative and employers are not obligated to provide the union access to the workplace to present opposing views. While in a formal sense employees are free to leave these meetings, they do so in reality at the peril of losing their jobs. Put simply, rightfully motivated by the necessity of continued employment for basic economic survival, employees will not miss the threatening subtexts of carefully crafted message. Such messages, while free from overt statutorily prohibited threats of reprisal or promise of benefits, will nonetheless convey the detrimental effects of failing to agree with the employer's anti-union stance. Even though eventual voting on unionization will be completed by secret ballot, most employees by that point seem to lose all interest in supporting a cause that will surely draw their employer's ire. Thus, the central argument of this Chapter is that captive audience meetings are not about employer speech rights at all, but rather amount to coercive conduct against employees in derogation of employees' right to self-organization under the NLRA. Of course, employers are free to express or discuss anti-union views with their employees. However, doing so through the mechanism of forced listening, implied coercion, and fear is conduct that should be regulated under the NLRA. Utilizing the conduct/speech distinction in labor picketing law and sexual harassment law, this Chapter will establish the similar conduct-like nature of captive audience meetings and contend that the Board should make employer captive audience meetings a per se violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the NLRA, as it is conduct that directly interferes with, restrains and/or intimidates employees in Section 7 organizational rights to decide whether they wish to join a union.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
强制性的听众会议:不参加的权利
近70年来,国家劳工关系委员会(NLRB或“委员会”)和各种法院都将《国家劳工关系法》(NLRA或“法案”)解释为允许雇主在私营部门的劳工组织运动期间举行强制听众会议。在决定是否加入工会的过程中,员工必须参加这样的会议,在那里,“劳资关系顾问”通常会口述管理层对工会主义弊端的看法。这些会议在工作时间举行,这是管理层通过行使其经济权力来束缚员工的最佳时机,也是利用员工投票支持工会组织而担心失业的最佳时机。在这些会议中,雇员不得向雇主代表提问,雇主也没有义务让工会进入工作场所提出反对意见。虽然在正式意义上,员工可以自由离开这些会议,但实际上,他们这样做可能会丢掉工作。简单地说,出于基本经济生存需要继续就业的正当动机,员工不会错过精心制作的信息的威胁潜台词。这些信息,虽然没有公开的法律禁止的报复威胁或福利承诺,但仍然会传达不同意雇主反工会立场的有害影响。尽管最终的工会投票将通过无记名投票完成,但到那时,大多数员工似乎对支持一项肯定会引起雇主愤怒的事业失去了所有兴趣。因此,本章的中心论点是,强制听众会议根本不是关于雇主的言论权利,而是一种针对雇员的强制性行为,损害了雇员在NLRA下的自我组织权利。当然,雇主可以自由地与员工表达或讨论反工会的观点。然而,通过强迫倾听、隐含胁迫和恐惧的机制来做到这一点,是应该受到NLRA监管的行为。本章将利用劳工纠集法和性骚扰法中行为/言论的区别,确立俘虏听众会议类似行为的性质,并主张董事会应将雇主俘虏听众会议本身定为违反NLRA第8(a)(1)条的行为,因为这种行为直接干扰、限制和/或恐吓雇员在第7条的组织权利中决定他们是否希望加入工会。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Civil Probation Are We Richer Than Our Parents Were? Absolute Income Mobility in Australia Electrification and Welfare for the Marginalized: Evidence from India Segregation and the Spatial Externalities of Inequality: A Theory of Collateral Cooperation for Public Goods in Cities Fees, Fines, and the Funding of Public Services: A Curriculum for Reform
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1