Some Stats from the Wired Article

[Umbran]

I dont think theres anything stopping Paizo just firing and replacing them?

Oh, in the US it is illegal to fire employees for supporting a union - protection is in the National Labor Relations Act of 1935, iirc.

 

[R_J_K75]

Well, they did.

Paizo - Paizo Recognizes Union!

The ‘will they, won’t they?’ conjecture around whether or not Paizo would voluntarily recognise the new United Paizo Workers union was mercifully short. Paizo today announced that it would work with the union to improve working conditions at the company. United Paizo Workers consists of more...

www.enworld.org

Congratulations to them.

 

[payn]

I went to the bar tonight. The waitress told me she just quit her full time job at a law office. She was a clerk (not an attorney) and made $16/hr. She made more waiting tables part time.

 

[thirdkingdom]

Oh, in the US it is illegal to fire employees for supporting a union - protection is in the National Labor Relations Act of 1935, iirc.

How does that work in "Right to Work" states?

 

[Umbran]

How does that work in "Right to Work" states?

Pretty simply - Federal law trumps State law. If you feel you were let go for supporting a union, you take your employer to Federal court - the state law just isn't relevant.

 

[MGibster]

How does that work in "Right to Work" states?

A right to work state is one that has enacted laws stating that no person can be forced to join a union or pay its fees as a condition of employment. What you're thinking of is at-will employment where an employer can terminate employment for any reason save for those which are illegal. Legally, Paizo cannot fire employees for union activity because of the federal National Labor Relations Act of 1935. And Federal law reigns supreme in the United States.

 

[MGibster]

Pretty simply - Federal law trumps State law. If you feel you were let go for supporting a union, you take your employer to Federal court - the state law just isn't relevant.

I don't mean to be pedantic here, but some states actually have laws providing more protection than what's offered on the federal level. I'm unfamiliar with Washington state's employment laws, but it's possible they offer more protection than the federal laws and they would be relevant in court. It's why states are able to establish their own minimum wage just so long as it isn't below what's federally mandated.

 

[Umbran]

I don't mean to be pedantic here, but some states actually have laws providing more protection than what's offered on the federal level.

Yep. And that's not in conflict. My statement above is in reference to a state that on first blush has less protection, not more.

The Federal law establishes the minimum protection. This is fairly common - and means that there are times you can be sued or charged under both Federal and State laws, if their protections differ.

 

[aramis erak]

Yeah that usually comes under the part where I said accepting the job. Once youve accepted the job in a unionless position you are at the mercy of HR and upper management regarding compensation and working conitions. Id be suprised if they unionize so at that point you stick with the job youre at or move along

Strange thing to say? I take that as an insult to my mentallity.

Whether or not that's reasonable depends upon contract and location. All unionless positions in the US have certain protections by law, and others which vary. And the ability to unionize varies state by state in the US. In some, it has to be organized entirely off-site. In others, it can be done on the clock at work.

 

[aramis erak]

Oh, in the US it is illegal to fire employees for supporting a union - protection is in the National Labor Relations Act of 1935, iirc.

In some states it's legal to replace them should they go on strike.
And several fields are not allowed to use strikes at all by federal law: Police, Fire, EMS, ATC.