zlacker

How does at-will employment work with union busting? I remember working at Amazon they were very adamant about everything being at-will. Furthermore, in their management training, they didn't even tiptoe around their hatred of unions. They basically have a formal system developed to rat out any union organizers. The only reason I can infer for the existence of such a system is so that they can bust unions. They seem willing to take the legal risks that come with retaliation.

>>darksa+(OP)
It is my understanding, that from a legal perspective firing an employee in retaliation for engaging in organized labor even if their employment agreement is "at-will" (which is the default), is illegal. But IANAL.

Source: https://blogs.findlaw.com/law_and_life/2014/10/can-you-be-fi...

>>darksa+(OP)
“Union busting” is a pretty vague term. There’s no legal issue with a company hating unions or trying to prevent a union from forming, as long as they don’t prevent employees from talking or retaliate against them for it.

>>SpicyL+k2
That may be true, but in this instance there is clear evidence that Mr. Smalls was retaliated against for his labor organizing actions.

>>kitana+E8
Allegedly.

>>darksa+(OP)
>How does at-will employment work with union busting?

It's similar to the way at-will employment works with ADA protected classes - sure, they can fire you, but if you can show that them firing you was because of a protected action (union organizing), you can sue and will likely win.

Given the likely fact that Amazon only cared about quarantine for this individual, only after they organized a strike, and three weeks (!) after exposure, it's pretty clear that what Amazon did here was illegal.

>>SpicyL+k2
Actually its has a particular meaning in US labour law

>>darksa+(OP)
> How does at-will employment work with union busting?

No relation whatsoever.

>>kitana+E8
"Mr. Smalls was retaliated against for his labor organizing actions"

This is actually quite unclear

>>alasda+ik
Amazon is simply betting that the employee either can't afford a lawyer or their lawyer isn't better than Amazon's legal team. They can spend a lot of money on making sure of that.

>>zaarn+jM1
No, they don't care, they're simply betting that it'll cost them less to pay him off in a settlement than to deal with a union.