In Finland, collective agreements are of general application. This means that a collective agreement in an industry becomes a universally applicable legal minimum for the employment contract of each individual, whether a member of a union or not. For this condition to apply, half of the workers in this sector must be unionized and therefore support the agreement. Every year, millions of American workers negotiate or negotiate their negotiated contracts. However, some employers are trying to undermine existing bargaining relationships and cancel many hard-won contract terms. Trade unions continue to fight for the internal rights of workers and to restore the balance of economic power in our country through collective agreements. Unilateral changes During the period of application of a collective agreement, the employer may not change a mandatory working condition without first negotiating with the union (29 U.S.C.A. § 158[d]). Even after the collective agreement expires, the employer must maintain the status quo and must not unilaterally alter the issues of mandatory bargaining until the parties reach an impasse (Louisiana Dock Co.c. NLRB, 909 F.2d 281 [7th Cir. 1990]). This prohibition of unilateral amendments continues even if the employer denies that the union is the sole representative (Livingston Pipe & Tube v.
NLRB, 987 F.2d 422 [7th Cir. 1993]; NLRB v. Parents & Friends of the Specialized Living Center, 879 F.2d 1442 [7th Cir. 1989]). Since negotiations in good faith between the parties “exhaust the prospect of reaching an agreement”, the parties have reached an impasse and the implementation of unilateral changes to working conditions does not constitute an unfair labour practice (NLRB v. Plainville Ready Mix Concrete Co., 44 F.3d 1320 [6th Cir. 1995]; United Paperworkers International Union v. NLRB, 981 F.2d 861 [6th Cir. 1992]; Southwest Forest Industry v. NLRB, 841 F.2d 270 [9.
Cir. 1988]). The law of collective bargaining includes four fundamental points: the American Federation of Labor was founded in 1886 and offered unprecedented bargaining powers to a variety of workers.  The Railway Labour Act (1926) required employers to bargain collectively with trade unions. Similarly, a successor employer cannot simply refuse to recognize the union for bargaining purposes. Instead, the courts have required successor employers to recognize the incumbent union if there is “substantial continuity” between the two employers (NLRB v. Burns Security Service, 406 U.S. 272, 92 pp.
Ct. 1571, 32 L. Ed. 2d 61 ). In order to determine whether there is substantial continuity, the courts will consider, among other things, whether the two employers carry out the same activity, whether the employees perform substantially similar tasks between the two employers, whether the clientele remains largely the same, and whether the successor employer continues to use the same industrial or commercial processes as its predecessor (Frye v. Specialized Envelope, Envelope 10 F.3d 1221 [6 Cir. 1993]). The result of collective bargaining is a collective agreement. .