6 ms·

Once again I'm not positing a right to "science-based discussion". I'm saying the right to discuss workplace issues, granted by the NLRA, should include scienc

Once again I'm not positing a right to "science-based discussion". I'm saying the right to discuss workplace issues, granted by the NLRA, should include science-based discussion of these issues.

joshuamorton 9y ago
It does. So far, about 4 people have explained this across many threads, and you still don't seem to acknowledge it. Edit because rate limited: The problem is not what was said, necessarily, but the way in which it was said. Hence citing the Honda ruling. This is at least my, not-a-lawyer interpretation. That is, just because you are saying something to discuss workplace issues does not give you the right to say literally anything. Sufficiently disruptive discussion of workplace issues is still disruptive enough to merit a response, not because of the content, but because it is disruptive. Apparently the NLRB draws the line for sufficiently disruptive somewhere before "results in the demonstrated loss of multiple perspective candidates".
- leereeves 9y ago
  Several people have claimed that. I dispute that claim because that's not what I see in the memo. > the statements regarding biological differences between the sexes were so harmful, discriminatory, and disruptive as to be unprotected. Notice the reason the NLRB gave in this statement for why they are unprotected: not because they are unrelated to the discussion of workplace issues, but because they are offensive.
  - andrewprock 9y ago
    > Several people have claimed that. I dispute that claim because that's not what I see in the memo. It matters little what you see in the memo. Google and the NLRB saw enough to terminate his employment, and to uphold that termination. This is generally how at-will employment works.
    - leereeves 9y ago
      > It matters little what you see in the memo. You don't care what the memo actually says? Then what's the basis of your opinions on this matter?
      - andrewprock 9y ago
        I generally support the rule of law, freedom of association, and due process.
      - ncallaway 9y ago
        He didn't say it doesn't matter what's in the memo. He said it doesn't matter how you interpret the memo.
        leereeves 9y ago
        If you want to convince me, show me the evidence from the memo. Throughout this discussion I mostly see people stating their own opinions with nary a quote from the actual memo.
        nsgoetz 9y ago
        It sounds like you are saying the law and precedent is good. You just disagree with their interpretation of the facts in this particular case. Not everyone in a scociety can come to a consensus on every issue. That’s we have the court system decide.

Once again I'm not positing a right to "science-based discussion". I'm saying the right to discuss workplace issues, granted by the NLRA, should include science-based discussion of these issues.

joshuamorton 9y ago

It does. So far, about 4 people have explained this across many threads, and you still don't seem to acknowledge it. Edit because rate limited: The problem is not what was said, necessarily, but the way in which it was said. Hence citing the Honda ruling. This is at least my, not-a-lawyer interpretation. That is, just because you are saying something to discuss workplace issues does not give you the right to say literally anything. Sufficiently disruptive discussion of workplace issues is still disruptive enough to merit a response, not because of the content, but because it is disruptive. Apparently the NLRB draws the line for sufficiently disruptive somewhere before "results in the demonstrated loss of multiple perspective candidates".

leereeves 9y ago
Several people have claimed that. I dispute that claim because that's not what I see in the memo. > the statements regarding biological differences between the sexes were so harmful, discriminatory, and disruptive as to be unprotected. Notice the reason the NLRB gave in this statement for why they are unprotected: not because they are unrelated to the discussion of workplace issues, but because they are offensive.
- andrewprock 9y ago
  > Several people have claimed that. I dispute that claim because that's not what I see in the memo. It matters little what you see in the memo. Google and the NLRB saw enough to terminate his employment, and to uphold that termination. This is generally how at-will employment works.
  - leereeves 9y ago
    > It matters little what you see in the memo. You don't care what the memo actually says? Then what's the basis of your opinions on this matter?
    - andrewprock 9y ago
      I generally support the rule of law, freedom of association, and due process.
    - ncallaway 9y ago
      He didn't say it doesn't matter what's in the memo. He said it doesn't matter how you interpret the memo.
      - leereeves 9y ago
        If you want to convince me, show me the evidence from the memo. Throughout this discussion I mostly see people stating their own opinions with nary a quote from the actual memo.
        nsgoetz 9y ago
        It sounds like you are saying the law and precedent is good. You just disagree with their interpretation of the facts in this particular case. Not everyone in a scociety can come to a consensus on every issue. That’s we have the court system decide.