In the United States, the National Labor Relations Act (1935) covers most collective agreements in the private sector. The Act makes it illegal for employers to discriminate, spy, harass or terminate workers because of their union membership, or to retaliate against them because they participate in campaigns or other « concerted activities », form company unions or refuse to negotiate collective agreements with the union representing their employees. It is also illegal to require any employee to join a union as a condition of employment.  Trade unions are also able to guarantee safe working conditions and fair remuneration for their work. « This agreement establishes in part the relationship between these two parties, for example in provisions relating to the recognition of the trade union as the exclusive representative of the workers in the bargaining unit or to the settlement of contractual disputes through an appeal procedure. Collective agreements in Germany are legally binding, which is accepted by the population and does not worry them.  [Failed verification] While in Britain there was (and still is) an attitude of « she and us » in labour relations, the situation is very different in post-war Germany and other northern European countries. Germany has a much broader spirit of cooperation between the social partners. For more than 50 years, German workers have been legally represented on company boards.  Together, management and workers are considered « social partners ».  Similarly, a successor employer must not simply refuse recognition of the union for bargaining purposes.
Instead, the courts have asked employers to recognize the existing union if there is « substantial continuity » between the two employers (NLRB v. Burns Security Service, 406 U.S. 272, 92 at ct. 1571, 32 L. Ed. 2d 61 ). In order to determine whether there is essential continuity, the courts will consider, among other things, whether both employers operate in the same enterprise, whether the workers of both employers essentially perform similar tasks, whether the customer base remains broadly the same, and whether the successor employer continues to use the same industrial or commercial processes as its predecessor (Frye v. Specialty Envelope, 10 F.3d 1221 [6 cir. 1993]).