2 ms·

that protection doesn't apply if what you're organizing about pertains to an area where the NLRB gives deference to employers. Those precedents exist to preven

that protection doesn't apply if what you're organizing about pertains to an area where the NLRB gives deference to employers. Those precedents exist to prevent employees from organizing active resistance to the NLRB's goals. If you read Damore's memo at face value, he's proposing modifying the way in which Google pursues those goals, taking differences in preferences into account. Strangely enough, Google and YouTube executives have spoken in public and have basically taken James Damore's memo's position and advocated the same kind of action he proposes in the memo. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VrOp8ewzJDc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VrOp8ewzJDc Given the broad power possessed by the NLRB, how can this situation not result in a moral hazard?

tptacek 9y ago
What broad power are you referring to? Without the NLRB, Damore would have no recourse under "protected concerted action". He was an at-will employee. It's Google, it seems to me, that has the broad power --- and that's a situation conservatives brought about.
- stcredzero 9y ago
  What broad power are you referring to? It seems like HR and "diversity officers" have effectively become the "political officers" of the 21st century left of collectivist grievance politics. Employers are required to have certain policies, and the NLRB can conveniently "defer" to them when they are effectively supporting the NLRB's power. The problem is that many of the nouns involved in this kind of regulation are fairly nebulous. This situation shows that such accusations can be made on the basis of "feels" and it doesn't even matter if it comes down to factual readings of communication or interpretations of science. Effectively, an "everyone is exactly equal" ideological nonsense science has now been instantiated into de-facto law in the US through regulatory action, and the NLRB has furthermore supported the notion that you can be fired for disagreeing with it.
  - andylei 9y ago
    > Employers are required to have certain policies there are no anti discrimination policies required by the NRLB. you're probably thinking of the EEOC. > the NLRB can conveniently "defer" to them when they are effectively supporting the NLRB's power what power are you talking about?
  - YeGoblynQueenne 9y ago
    >> It seems like HR and "diversity officers" have effectively become the "political officers" of the 21st century left of collectivist grievance politics. That's contradicted by the reported behaviour of HR in cases of sexual harassment of women engineers by their male colleagues, as for example in the case of Susan Fowler, the Uber engineer who left the company because of harassment and a discriminatory culture. I quote from the relevant post on her website: When I reported the situation, I was told by both HR and upper management that even though this was clearly sexual harassment and he was propositioning me, it was this man's first offense, and that they wouldn't feel comfortable giving him anything other than a warning and a stern talking-to. One HR rep even explicitly told me that it wouldn't be retaliation if I received a negative review later because I had been "given an option". The HR rep began the meeting by asking me if I had noticed that I was the common theme in all of the reports I had been making, and that if I had ever considered that I might be the problem. Less than a week after this absurd meeting, my manager scheduled a 1:1 with me, and told me we needed to have a difficult conversation. He told me I was on very thin ice for reporting his manager to HR. California is an at-will employment state, he said, which means we can fire you if you ever do this again. etc etc. https://www.susanjfowler.com/blog/2017/2/19/reflecting-on-one-very-strange-year-at-uber https://www.susanjfowler.com/blog/2017/2/19/reflecting-on-on...

tptacek 9y ago

What broad power are you referring to? Without the NLRB, Damore would have no recourse under "protected concerted action". He was an at-will employee. It's Google, it seems to me, that has the broad power --- and that's a situation conservatives brought about.

stcredzero 9y ago
What broad power are you referring to? It seems like HR and "diversity officers" have effectively become the "political officers" of the 21st century left of collectivist grievance politics. Employers are required to have certain policies, and the NLRB can conveniently "defer" to them when they are effectively supporting the NLRB's power. The problem is that many of the nouns involved in this kind of regulation are fairly nebulous. This situation shows that such accusations can be made on the basis of "feels" and it doesn't even matter if it comes down to factual readings of communication or interpretations of science. Effectively, an "everyone is exactly equal" ideological nonsense science has now been instantiated into de-facto law in the US through regulatory action, and the NLRB has furthermore supported the notion that you can be fired for disagreeing with it.
- andylei 9y ago
  > Employers are required to have certain policies there are no anti discrimination policies required by the NRLB. you're probably thinking of the EEOC. > the NLRB can conveniently "defer" to them when they are effectively supporting the NLRB's power what power are you talking about?
- YeGoblynQueenne 9y ago
  >> It seems like HR and "diversity officers" have effectively become the "political officers" of the 21st century left of collectivist grievance politics. That's contradicted by the reported behaviour of HR in cases of sexual harassment of women engineers by their male colleagues, as for example in the case of Susan Fowler, the Uber engineer who left the company because of harassment and a discriminatory culture. I quote from the relevant post on her website: When I reported the situation, I was told by both HR and upper management that even though this was clearly sexual harassment and he was propositioning me, it was this man's first offense, and that they wouldn't feel comfortable giving him anything other than a warning and a stern talking-to. One HR rep even explicitly told me that it wouldn't be retaliation if I received a negative review later because I had been "given an option". The HR rep began the meeting by asking me if I had noticed that I was the common theme in all of the reports I had been making, and that if I had ever considered that I might be the problem. Less than a week after this absurd meeting, my manager scheduled a 1:1 with me, and told me we needed to have a difficult conversation. He told me I was on very thin ice for reporting his manager to HR. California is an at-will employment state, he said, which means we can fire you if you ever do this again. etc etc. https://www.susanjfowler.com/blog/2017/2/19/reflecting-on-one-very-strange-year-at-uber https://www.susanjfowler.com/blog/2017/2/19/reflecting-on-on...