The Law of Work
  • Home
  • About
  • Professor David Doorey
  • Osgoode Hall LLM
  • Books
  • Guest Contributors
  • Useful Links
    • Archive
  • Home
  • About
  • Professor David Doorey
  • Osgoode Hall LLM
  • Books
  • Guest Contributors
  • Useful Links
    • Archive
The Law of Work
Law of Work Archive

What Policy is Advanced by Employer Captive Audience Meetings?

by David Doorey August 2, 2008
written by David Doorey August 2, 2008

Did you catch this story in the Globe about how Wal-Mart is forcing employees to listen to their views on which political party they should support?  Wal-Mart doesn’t like the idea that the Obama camp is sympathetic to the recent push to legalize a card-check certification model that would allow unions to be certified without a vote if they gather majority support in the form of membership cards.   This is the model we still use in several Canadian jurisdictions.  Wal-Mart, that guardian of employee interests, is holding captive audience meetings in the States intended to persuade employees that they not support the law, and presumably its supporters.
Personally, I find the idea of my employer trying to tell me how to think about matters unrelated to the specifics of how to do my job very spooky and patronizing.  But do you think the law should prevent employers from ordering employees to attend a meeting to listen to the employer proselytize its views on things?  I have stated my opinion on captive audience meetings at which employers try to persuade employees to reject collective bargaining very clearly.  I don’t think they shouldn’t be permitted, at least if unions are not permitted the same opportunity.  Employer’s have lots of other less invasive ways to express their views on unions (how about a letter?) without forcing employees to sit through prepared speeches when they should be working.  The British model makes sense:  it requires unions to be permitted into the workplace to address workers about the unionization decision to a degree a least equal to the extent the employer used meeting to address workers.   In Ontario (and most jurisdictions in Canada) and the U.S., the law permits employers to hold captive audience meetings without providing unions with any opportunity to talk to workers at the workplace.  
There is no question that our model encourages very unequal access to workers during the union organizing campaigns.  The question is what policy objective is advanced by this model?   And here’s another question:  Do you think a Canadian employer could hold a captive audience meeting of employees to persuade the employees to vote Conservative (or some other way)?  If not, what law would prevent this?

0 comment
0
FacebookTwitterLinkedinEmail
David Doorey

Professor Doorey is an Associate Professor of Work Law and Industrial Relations at York University. He is Academic Director of Osgoode Hall Law School’s executive LLM Program in Labour and Employment Law and a Senior Research Associate at Harvard Law School’s Labor and Worklife Program. Professor Doorey is a graduate of Osgoode Hall Law School (LL.B., Ph.D), London School of Economics (LLM Labour Law), and the University of Toronto (B.A., M.I.R.).

Leave a Comment Cancel Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

previous post
The LSUC Retention of Women Initiative
next post
Guest Blog: Michael Lynk on Hydro-Quebec & the Duty to Accommodate

You may also like

This Blog Entry is About the Lunacy of...

July 21, 2019

A Cross Country Update on the Card-Check versus...

October 3, 2018

The Folly of Not Voting to Strike in...

September 16, 2018

Unifor Posts Photos of Replacement Workers as Gander...

September 10, 2018

A Wrongful Dismissal Case and the Absence of...

August 29, 2018

China Said to Quickly Withdraw Approval for New...

August 27, 2018

The Latest Hot E-Commerce Idea in China: The...

August 27, 2018

The Trump Administration Just Did Something Unambiguously Good...

August 27, 2018

Unstable Situations Require Police In Riot Gear Face...

August 27, 2018

Trump’s War on the Justice System Threatens to...

August 27, 2018

Subscribe via Email

Enter your email address to subscribe and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 337 other subscribers

Follow Us On Social Media

Twitter

Latest Tweets

David J. Doorey🇨🇦Follow

Law Prof. Talking #labor & #employment #law #Gig to the masses. Alpaca ❤️ @YorkUniversity @OsgoodeNews @LSELaw @LWPHarvard @Jacobin @OnLaborBlog https://t.co/5V9r8VPHsh

David J. Doorey🇨🇦
TheLawofWorkDavid J. Doorey🇨🇦@TheLawofWork·
7h

If one these dimwits was a Sacha Baron Cohen-like comedian playing the role of a Republican would any one notice?

PatriotTakes 🇺🇸@patriottakes

Marjorie Taylor Greene believes generating electricity from “wind turbines and solar panels” will result in the loss of air conditioning and home appliances.

Greene: “I like the lights on. I want to stay up later at night. I don’t want to have to go to bed when the sun sets.”

Reply on Twitter 1558630572783722497Retweet on Twitter 15586305727837224972Like on Twitter 15586305727837224974Twitter 1558630572783722497
TheLawofWorkDavid J. Doorey🇨🇦@TheLawofWork·
9h

A student told me she is translating chapters of my book into Korean because she learned a lot and wants it as a reference but English is her second language.

Any Korean speakers out there? What does this say?

일의 법칙

Reply on Twitter 1558595466182393858Retweet on Twitter 1558595466182393858Like on Twitter 1558595466182393858Twitter 1558595466182393858
TheLawofWorkDavid J. Doorey🇨🇦@TheLawofWork·
10h

I have no idea who this person is or what is going on in Peterborough.

There’s a world of crazy around me that I’m missing.

Caryma Sa'd - Lawyer + Political Satirist@CarymaRules

Romana Didulo provides entertainment for the thinned out crowd in the form of her favourite song, Rasputin.

#cdnpoli #Peterborough #QAnon

Reply on Twitter 1558592062097956865Retweet on Twitter 1558592062097956865Like on Twitter 15585920620979568653Twitter 1558592062097956865
Load More...

Categories

  • Alberta
  • Artificial Intelligence
  • Australia
  • British Columbia
  • Charter of Rights and Freedoms
  • Childcare
  • Class Action
  • Climate and Just Transition
  • Collective Bargaining
  • Common Law of Employment
  • Comparative Work Law
  • competition law
  • construction
  • COVID-19
  • Diversity
  • Employee Classification
  • Employment Insurance
  • Employment Regulation
  • Europe
  • Financial Industry
  • Fissured Work
  • Freedom of Association
  • frustration of contract
  • Gig Work
  • Health and Safety
  • Health Care
  • Human Rights
  • Immigration
  • Interest Arbitration
  • International Law
  • Labour Arbitration
  • Labour Economics
  • Law of Work Archive
  • Legal Profession
  • Manitoba
  • Migrant Workers
  • Minimum Wage
  • Nova Scotia
  • OLRB
  • Ontario
  • Pension Bankruptcy
  • Privacy
  • Public Sector
  • Quebec
  • Real Life Pleadings
  • Saskatchewan
  • Scholarship
  • Sports Labour
  • Strikes and Lockouts
  • Student Post
  • Supreme Court of Canada
  • technology
  • Transnational Law
  • Uncategorized
  • Unions and Collective Bargaining
  • United States
  • Videos
  • Women and Work
  • Wrongful Dismissal
  • Home
  • About
  • Guest Contributors
Menu
  • Home
  • About
  • Guest Contributors
  • Legal Scholarship
  • Useful Links
  • Archive
Menu
  • Legal Scholarship
  • Useful Links
  • Archive

2020. Canadian Law of Work Forum. All Rights Reserved.