It's legalese; they CANNOT be anti-union because the law says so, but they can doublespeak their way around it.
This video's script has been thoroughly vetted by a team of legal experts to make sure it conveys an anti-union stance, without saying it out loud and making them liable for union busting.
How can they be banned from having a position on unions? What legislation proscribes that? How has this legislation survived legal challenges on constitutional grounds?
I like how hidden in the middle of a list of normal or at least defensible things there's bizarre stuff like "Convey the message that selecting a union would be futile."
Tried to look into the actual law[1] and it includes the following sentence: "The expressing of any views, argument, or opinion, or the dissemination thereof, whether in written, printed, graphic, or visual form, shall not constitute or be evidence of an unfair labor practice under any of the provisions of this subchapter, if such expression contains no threat of reprisal or force or promise of benefit."
Seems kinda scummy that the NLRB's guidance to it's own enabling act explicitly contradicts the protections for a basic human right enshrined in the act.
Makes you wonder how much US businessmen's union busting is based on fear of organized labor, and how much of it is not wanting to give the NLRB power over them. Wouldn't be surprised if China or South-East Asia has better labor relations than the US in a few decades.
I've felt the same way about several employers, actually. I'm not anti-union in principle, but I was anti-union at specific jobs and pro-union in others.
The line is about whether management treats employees fairly. If an employer has reasonable policies, feedback channels, wages, benefits, etc. and employees have reasonable bargaining power, then unions are usually counterproductive. If an employer abuses employees and employees don't have individual bargaining power, than unions are usually helpful.
Union needed: Major local factory is the only employer in an area. (reason: no individual bargaining power)
Union harmful: SWEs in Silicon Valley during a boom cycle (reason: extensive bargaining power, good workplace conditions)
Amazon sweatshops and delivery services are, pardon the pun, prime examples of where unions make sense. Things like the Google unionizing efforts make no sense to me, though.
I have not worked for many employers where I've wanted to be in a union because I try to do due diligence on workplace conditions before taking a job, and usually employers compete for me and not the other way around. In retrospect, the place where a union most made sense in my career was as a graduate student.
It's because the US do not have unions covering the whole population, it's mostly segregated per industry. I'm part of an union, but it's absolutely not for my or in a confrontation agaisnt my direct employer. Howver, i have comrades (dockers recently) that had to strike, and this allowed me, a tech worker, to support them.
for myself, the line is usually drawn right around how a boss would respond to you stepping out for an hour to deal with something at a normal non-critical time (or leaving early, or arriving late). If they're prying trying to figure out what could possibly be so important that I dare disrespect them like that, its usually indicative of a severe culture problem between management and workers. If they trust me as a professional to meet my deadlines, then it's probably not much use to unionise.
When I was starting out my career, I felt similar. However, today, I have a rather higher bar. The older I've grown, the more I've come to believe employers should treat employees humanely.
I'm not quite sure how, if old me met young me, I could communicate the bug in my thinking back then.
On its own, that sentence doesn't seem self-contradictory per se, even if they're not pro-union. It's like an employee saying "I'm not anti-employer, but I'm not neutral" (when it comes to salary negotiations), or an activist saying "I'm not anti-government, but I'm not neutral" (when it comes to government powers). It just means you're not arguing against the existence or operation of that entity, as you acknowledge they clearly have an important role to play, but that you have conflicting interests, so you're clearly advocating for your side to advance your own interests.
However, the rest of the video makes it clear they're against the very existence of their employees forming any union whatsoever, which seems pretty clearly anti-union...
So pro-union?