3 ms·

> It's deeply misleading to suggest that a group of employees availing themselves of the protections of the NLRA are putting themselves on a slippery slope to b

> It's deeply misleading to suggest that a group of employees availing themselves of the protections of the NLRA are putting themselves on a slippery slope to becoming the Teamsters. That's not what I said. What I said: It's misleading to suggest that professional associations require the NLRA to operate.

tptacek 9y ago
What you appear to be arguing is that it would be better for tech workers if they could be fired for organizing.
- chimeracoder 9y ago
  > What you appear to be arguing is that it would be better for tech workers if they could be fired for organizing. I've done my best to explain why the NLRA and "labor unions" (as asked in the original question) are completely orthogonal to professional associations (which you mentioned in your reply). I've explained why the rights that the NLRA grants are relevant to labor unions, but are different from the ones that professional associations require and use in their operations. I've explained why bringing up professional associations in a thread specifically about labor unions is a red herring. I've mentioned some of the history, and I've proposed a thought experiment to try and illustrate this difference better. If after all of that, you really, genuinely think the best summary of what I've said is "it would be better for tech workers if they could be fired for organizing," then I don't know what to say. That's an unbelievably uncharitable way to twist the things I've said in good faith.
  - tptacek 9y ago
    If you would stop citing the NLRA and constrain your comments to just unions, we wouldn't have an argument. But you keep implying that the NLRA means unions, and in fact the NLRA is the law that prevents companies from firing their employees for any kind of organizing. It does other things, but you don't have to engage with those other things to get the protection I'm talking about. So when you cite the NLRA as a bad thing, you are literally making the argument I just suggested you were.
    - chimeracoder 9y ago
      > So when you cite the NLRA as a bad thing, you are literally making the argument I just suggested you were. I never once cited the NLRA as "a bad thing".
      - tptacek 9y ago
        It's misleading to suggest that professional associations require the NLRA to operate. Without the NLRA, employees can simply be fired for attempting to organize. Sorry, I should have been clearer earlier.
        chimeracoder 9y ago
        > Without the NLRA, employees can simply be fired for attempting to organize. Sort of, but not really. The NLRA does prevent the right to organize, which is mostly (though not exclusively) used in the context of labor unions. The NLRA was passed with the expectation that organization would generally take the form of labor unions. The ability to organize outside of a unionized workplace was specified largely to solve the "chicken and egg" problem of forming a union in the first place. That said, the NLRA isn't the only thing (or even the primary thing) that prevents employees from being fired for joining a professional association. Which is what I've been saying all along: professional associations are notably different from labor unions which draw their power largely from the NLRA and are overseen by the NLRB.
        tptacek 9y ago
        I think you're just factually off here. It's the NLRA that federally prohibits the termination of employees for protected concerted action. Without the NLRA, you can indeed be fired for organizing --- any kind of organizing. Employment in the US is at-will.

tptacek 9y ago

What you appear to be arguing is that it would be better for tech workers if they could be fired for organizing.

chimeracoder 9y ago
> What you appear to be arguing is that it would be better for tech workers if they could be fired for organizing. I've done my best to explain why the NLRA and "labor unions" (as asked in the original question) are completely orthogonal to professional associations (which you mentioned in your reply). I've explained why the rights that the NLRA grants are relevant to labor unions, but are different from the ones that professional associations require and use in their operations. I've explained why bringing up professional associations in a thread specifically about labor unions is a red herring. I've mentioned some of the history, and I've proposed a thought experiment to try and illustrate this difference better. If after all of that, you really, genuinely think the best summary of what I've said is "it would be better for tech workers if they could be fired for organizing," then I don't know what to say. That's an unbelievably uncharitable way to twist the things I've said in good faith.
- tptacek 9y ago
  If you would stop citing the NLRA and constrain your comments to just unions, we wouldn't have an argument. But you keep implying that the NLRA means unions, and in fact the NLRA is the law that prevents companies from firing their employees for any kind of organizing. It does other things, but you don't have to engage with those other things to get the protection I'm talking about. So when you cite the NLRA as a bad thing, you are literally making the argument I just suggested you were.
  - chimeracoder 9y ago
    > So when you cite the NLRA as a bad thing, you are literally making the argument I just suggested you were. I never once cited the NLRA as "a bad thing".
    - tptacek 9y ago
      It's misleading to suggest that professional associations require the NLRA to operate. Without the NLRA, employees can simply be fired for attempting to organize. Sorry, I should have been clearer earlier.
      - chimeracoder 9y ago
        > Without the NLRA, employees can simply be fired for attempting to organize. Sort of, but not really. The NLRA does prevent the right to organize, which is mostly (though not exclusively) used in the context of labor unions. The NLRA was passed with the expectation that organization would generally take the form of labor unions. The ability to organize outside of a unionized workplace was specified largely to solve the "chicken and egg" problem of forming a union in the first place. That said, the NLRA isn't the only thing (or even the primary thing) that prevents employees from being fired for joining a professional association. Which is what I've been saying all along: professional associations are notably different from labor unions which draw their power largely from the NLRA and are overseen by the NLRB.
        tptacek 9y ago
        I think you're just factually off here. It's the NLRA that federally prohibits the termination of employees for protected concerted action. Without the NLRA, you can indeed be fired for organizing --- any kind of organizing. Employment in the US is at-will.