Yes, because that wouldn't be a union under federal law.
The NLR{A,B} is very precise about what it considers to be a legitimate form of organized labor, the fact of which does not detract from it being illegal for an employer to fire you for attempting to organize in a form recognized under the NLRA.
Sure. The NLRB can be as precise as it wishes. My point is only that a "union" is not merely what the NLRB deigns to be the state-sanctioned form of worker organizing. There were clearly recognizable unions in the 19th century that were not sanctioned by law. That does not make them any less of a union.
It is only illegal to fire an employ for attempting to form a union of the NLRB sanctioned structure. An organization of workers that undertakes a wildcat strike can be legally fired.
Okay, I see what you mean now. Yeah, the protections are not as encompassing as a non-NLRB-approved use of the word "union" might lead people to believe.
That's precisely the point I was trying to make in my OP. In theory freedom of association affords one the ability to form a union in any manner they please, but a union which does not conform to the requirements of the NLRA is not entitled to the special legal protections granted by that act.
The NLR{A,B} is very precise about what it considers to be a legitimate form of organized labor, the fact of which does not detract from it being illegal for an employer to fire you for attempting to organize in a form recognized under the NLRA.