The implications of this for all-remote companies are fairly chilling.
Yes, in principle, staff could put together outside channels, but it's a significant chilling effect. And without legal shielding, even "using corporate email to get non-corporate contact info to unionize" might not be safe. I wonder if this could end up with unionization pressure driving companies to accept more remote work?
Your break room comparison seems apt. The NLRB rationale of "using employer equipment to organize" sounds reasonable, but we're not talking about a consumable resource like using company ink to print pro-union fliers. If the company is already providing a platform for informal/social employee communication, restricting union-related content is clearly not aimed at conserving resources but at impeding union activity.
Yes, in principle, staff could put together outside channels, but it's a significant chilling effect. And without legal shielding, even "using corporate email to get non-corporate contact info to unionize" might not be safe. I wonder if this could end up with unionization pressure driving companies to accept more remote work?
Your break room comparison seems apt. The NLRB rationale of "using employer equipment to organize" sounds reasonable, but we're not talking about a consumable resource like using company ink to print pro-union fliers. If the company is already providing a platform for informal/social employee communication, restricting union-related content is clearly not aimed at conserving resources but at impeding union activity.