This is an Americanism. Where workers councils are used effectively, it is alongside a unionized workforce, and these councils are created with the union as a partner. Only in America, where "right to work" means the right to dilute union power, would a sham union be legalized instead of prosecuted as a fraud.

Actually, isn't "right to work" is the standard for most European countries? Forcing workers to join a particular union as a condition of being hired (or compulsory payment of dues without even joining) is the standard in the US but illegal elsewhere.

I work at a unionized company in Germany and didn’t have to join the union or pay any dues to start working.

Technically employees who aren’t part of the union aren’t entitled to the benefits they negotiated. In reality everyone gets the same benefits anyway because otherwise the employer would create a huge incentive for everyone to join the union which would make strikes hurt even more.

> That is because they can't meaningfully complain that apple created a non union group to hear concerns and give employees a voice (regardless of whether it did). Such a complaint would be hilarious.

This isn't true. Employer unions are prohibited by the NLRA, and the linked complaint's third violation is listed as "Creating and soliciting employees to join an employer-created / employer-dominated labor organization as a means of stifling Union activities." This attorney's site gives examples of when employer-sponsored groups start to violate the NLRA's provisions banning employer unions, which is when these groups start to discuss working conditions:

https://laborlaw.foxrothschild.com/2017/08/articles/general-...

> When the employer creates and sponsors an employee group where the discussion turns to subjects such as employee pay, employee benefits, or even matters such as employee work schedules, this creates a risk that the NLRB might find that the employer has improperly created something that is the equivalent of an employer sponsored union.

The case you cite was overturned by the DC circuit and sent back to the NLRB for reconsideration a year or two ago. The NLRB found again last month in favor of the CWA, and it will be appealed again (and the CWA will lose again) to the DC circuit, because it is in, fact, true.

If the employer says "we want to hear what you think can be better about your pay, your benefits, or your work schedules", there is nothing illegal about this. Even if it creates groups to do so.

To the degree the NLRA tries to ban this, it would be struck down as applied. Courts will construct it to focus on the bargaining aspects of a union rather than speech aspects. This is very clear from precedent, and in line with what happened at the DC circuit. None of the unions have been dumb enough to spin the wheel here because the result is obvious. If they tried to control non-union speech-related feedback loops, it would fair very poorly, and has so far in court.

It is true the NLRA tries to ban company unions, but the part most likely to stand these days, is again, effectively "company controlled collective bargaining" (IE the company elects representatives and only bargains with a company controlled/elected union), etc.

Again, i'm not stating a position of whether this is good or not, just trying to accurately state the current legal reality.

Not really sure how you got to that point. I'd say given the way the document words it, point (1) Holding a mandatory captive audience meeting in which its representative stated that the Employer would refuse to bargain certain subjects if a union was formed; and (3) Creating and soliciting employees to join an employer-created / employer-dominated labor organization as a means of stifling Union activities are both equally "unfair labor practices".

>>>"That is because they can't meaningfully complain that apple created a non union group to hear concerns and give employees a voice (regardless of whether it did). Such a complaint would be hilarious."

Why? unfair labor practices can be a whole host of things. I'm not American but according to https://www.nlrb.gov/about-nlrb/rights-we-protect/the-law/in... it would seem Apple is on the wrong side of the law in this one arguably. I wonder if they try this stuff in Aus?

On the latter - The NLRB's view of the NLRA is not the same as the courts view of the NLRA a lot of times.

The administrative judges of the NLRB are frequently overturned in the relative scheme of things.

What happens is that they are appointed by the president (and confirmed by the senate). So depending on the party in power/remaining terms of service, you can get fairly ideological collections of judges. It has become more bi-modal over the years, like a lot of the US.

So depending on prevailing legal ideologies vs partisan ideologies, you end up with lots of overturned cases.

Here's the last 10 years:

https://www.nlrb.gov/reports/nlrb-case-activity-reports/unfa...

So last year, they lost in appeals court 35% of the time.

The average agency reversal rate is closer to ~15%, so 35% is a lot.

The spike in 2016 is also interesting, not sure what happened there (IE it's not obvious that it's related to obama leaving office in jan, 2017). I suspect instead someone funded clearing of backlog or something.

All that said, the NLRB pushes parties to settle 90+% of cases to start (this combines their two overall areas), which is actually theoretically great. NLRB proceedings are not that expensive for people, unlike court, so it's unlikely to be people trying to bankrupt each other as you would find in straight civil court. Once it gets into appeals, it gets expensive (leading into the above).

So it's not all bad.