[IfOnlyYouKnew]

This tool is something that Facebook is trying to sell. To other companies. So you're missing the point with your superficial speculation as to the balance of power between Facebook and its employees.

For that reason, I'll keep the rebuttal short: laws are still valid, as far as I know. And this tool is blatantly illegal. Facebook employees also don't typically face starvation if they can't find a new job right away. And considering how rare unions are in the tech sector, and how common they are in, for example, automotive, my hunch is unionisation is more likely to happen at companies facing economic pressure.

[TakawaraJu]

Whilst it may be distasteful, it is entirely legal.

An employer cannot inhibit the formation or function of a union but are under no obligation to provide the facilities or platform to form one. What FB have done is akin to not allowing an organizer to use the company photocopier to print union leaflets

[erikpukinskis]

I think you’re wrong... It’s only legal if they prohibit all non-work discussions. So if they also block discussions about politics, sports, music, etc they can block talk about unions.

But they can’t target union talk specifically:

Companies may prohibit workers from talking about nonwork issues in work areas during work hours. ... In other words, a company can prohibit extraneous conversation, but may not prohibit only union discussions while allowing employees to talk about anything else they wish.

Source: https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/shop-talk-rules-unio...

[horsemessiah]

This is only true if they block all non-work discussions. Law explicitly allows union related discussion if other non-work related discussions are allowed.