Did you read the decision? The company must provide some means of doing this. They’re allowed to say “ok email is for work only” but if they have a platform that is used for non-work communication then it must be able to host union and pay-related communication. Apple has one: Slack.

It might be good to follow your own advice and read legal judgements more carefully.

The company doesn't have to do anything. And certainly not actively provide employees with tools to engage in union organizing communications amongst themselves. That's laughable, I'm surprised you believe it.

The ruling is that companies can restrict employees from using the company's assets to communicate about union activities, if they have other means to do so. Employees generally have other means to do so. That is light years different from "the company must provide some means of doing this".

I don't know why you are so surprised given this decision actually overturns a previous one that basically ruled that not only must there be some means of this communication, but that the employer can't choose what it is (Purple Communications as mentioned in the post). So at one point the rules were actually stronger than they are now.

The decision requires that there must be some way for employees to communicate and organize among themselves. Generally courts take a dim view of things like "yes you could technically do it if you broke our policies to grab people's numbers and then started a Signal group". So I don't actually agree with your interpretation of what the ruling says that employers don't have to do anything. I will also note that, while unrelated, employers must provide employees with tools to organize in the physical space (e.g. by putting up posters in common areas). Your shock at the existence of these rules is unwarranted. I would definitely not use company resources to organize if I could avoid it just because it seems like a lot of trouble that is probably not worth it, but there definitely are protections around this kind of thing.

I'm not really going to spend any more time coming back here for discussion, as it has become uninteresting.

You're clearly an advocate for a side of the argument, not an objective analyst interested in finding out truth. And btw nothing "surprises" or "shocks" me, I have been watching this issue for quite a while and have some expertise in the matter.

You live in past rulings hoping that it means that your position is correct in the present. It is not, and that colors your analysis, which as a result isn't credible or interesting to discuss.