[aaomidi]

> Sell a store to an independent operator who in turn hires workers, then sell goods to the independent operator, something like that.

NLRB has recently ruled that in these cases you're still _employee of the parent company_ when it comes to companies using this as an anti-union tactic. It's very obvious to anyone when a company is actively using this as an anti-union tactic.

[AnthonyMouse]

Is it obvious though?

Maybe it is when they turn the store they're "closing" into an "independent" store "owned" by the previous store manager who then enters into an exclusive purchasing contracts with the previous owner. But then they'll do the nearest thing which is less obvious.

How does a rule like that even work? If an independent store makes wholesale purchases from both Walmart and Target, are its employees supposed to be employees of Walmart or employees of Target?

[aaomidi]

When Walmart does it, as they're getting unionized, its obvious.

This is why ideally, this is supposed to have a few judges look at the realities of the case and the various (yes, including circumstantial) evidence to make a determination here.

The rules are don't try to get out of having a unionized employee base using _business tactics_. The example you gave is obvious that its not anti-union.

[AnthonyMouse]

> When Walmart does it, as they're getting unionized, its obvious.

Does what? Make any change to their operations whatsoever?

Suppose they want to close the store while this is happening. Then they no longer have a local store, but they still have a logistics operation capable of supplying a store, so they solicit some other local store that wants to be supplied. That's exactly what you'd expect anyone to do who has a regional warehouse and no longer has a local store, regardless of anything happening with a union.

Is "it" supposed to be closing the store? Their underlying business model is to operate with low margins to keep prices down and make it up on volume. If their costs increase as a result of a union it could easily make the store unprofitable, or less profitable than the market value of the real estate (currently quite high), because then a competitor could undercut them on price. Are they obligated to keep operating an underperforming store forever?

I honestly don't get it. There is a prevailing local wage for retail workers, and customers are price sensitive. A union that only secures the prevailing wage is collecting dues and accomplishing nothing. A union that tries to non-trivially increase the labor costs at that store makes the store uncompetitive, so either the company finds a way to avoid that or they close the store. Neither of those is the union doing the workers any good.