> The agency can require remedies, such as posting of notices and reversals of policies or punishments, but it has no authority to impose punitive damages on companies.
So, in essence, there is zero incentive for Apple to change its behavior.
I believe unions are necessary in a world of humongous companies.
That is because, in case of disagreements, an employee's prospect (losing 100% of their income) is a much worse negotiating position than a large company losing <1% of its workforce.
That Starbucks, Apple, Amazon, Walmart and basically every extraordinarily profitable company in America are so stridently anti-union that they're willing to break the law to prevent them, is probably the biggest selling point for workers to join them.
Anti-union tactics aren't illegal so long as the company that employs them isn't completely ruined as a result of the punishment they get.
While the NLRB has previously held that companies can require employees to attend anti-union meetings, the agency’s current general counsel, Jennifer Abruzzo, views such “captive audience” gatherings as inherently coercive and illegal. Her office is pursuing cases that could change the precedent, including at Amazon.com Inc. and Starbucks Corp., both of which have denied wrongdoing.
So it sounds like Apple's tactics weren't illegal but this new counsel wants to reverse precedent to make sure they are now illegal. Seems bizarre to try and change precedent from the side of the lawyers rather than the judges. Paired with the PR-tone of this article, it looks like an upstart lawyer trying to win the court of public opinion rather than a legal court.
It's heart warming to see the US rediscover labour unions Republicans wrote American socialists out of the history books but you can't keep the people down!
You'll see increased lobbying from companies for increased migration to keep wages down.
https://archive.ph/ld0KF