4 ms·

…allegedly, in a complaint filed by a union. The company’s announcement of the layoffs said it was for other business reasons.

by gojomo 9y ago

webbles 9y ago
Which the company now has to prove in court. What is your point?
- gojomo 9y ago
  That headlines should be fair about unresolved allegations in pending legal disputes. (The original headline here omitted “, union claims” at the end.)
mywittyname 9y ago
Well, they wouldn't come out and say that it was due to illegal reasons. Now, we can't prove intent, but we can look for evidence that supports their statements. Such as, if other non-engineers were laid off, if these engineers are eligible for rehire, if only people who signed the petition were let go, or if there are open positions for engineers on their website, etc.
- gojomo 9y ago
  Yes, but the HN submission headline (before ‘, union claims’ was added) didn’t allow for a subtler interpretion. (And, the SFChron didn’t dig much into these obvious followup details, for determining what really happened, before reporting the allegations rather uncritically – maybe as a sort of punishment for the company refusing to comment.) In this and other coverage, it’s mentioned that more than just the employees discussing a union were laid-off. There’s hints of layoffs being started, or signalled, before union discussion began. That could mean the unionization discussion was a reaction to immminent layoffs, rather than the other way around.
wccrawford 9y ago
So many people are so quick to downvote things that don't fit their narrative. I think the word 'allegedly' should have been in the title, at least, until it's been proven.
- webbles 9y ago
  Actually the title is a fact. What is alleged is the reason. It is a fact that the engineers seeking to organize were fired. And they are alleging that it is because they tried to organize. But it is still a fact that the ones who tried were fired.
  - gojomo 9y ago
    Then “SF company Lanetix lays off engineers, union alleges illegally” would be a fair headline. (The original headline here did not include “, union claims”.)
  - wccrawford 9y ago
    The title has now changed since I saw it. I don't remember exactly what it said before, but I remember it saying something like "fired software engineers for seeking to unionize". I'll admit it's possible I misread it and the "for" wasn't actually in there.
idbehold 9y ago
The employees were laid off 8 business days after they announced they were unionizing.

…allegedly, in a complaint filed by a union. The company’s announcement of the layoffs said it was for other business reasons.

by gojomo 9y ago

…allegedly, in a complaint filed by a union. The company’s announcement of the layoffs said it was for other business reasons.

webbles 9y ago

Which the company now has to prove in court. What is your point?

gojomo 9y ago
That headlines should be fair about unresolved allegations in pending legal disputes. (The original headline here omitted “, union claims” at the end.)

mywittyname 9y ago

Well, they wouldn't come out and say that it was due to illegal reasons. Now, we can't prove intent, but we can look for evidence that supports their statements. Such as, if other non-engineers were laid off, if these engineers are eligible for rehire, if only people who signed the petition were let go, or if there are open positions for engineers on their website, etc.

gojomo 9y ago
Yes, but the HN submission headline (before ‘, union claims’ was added) didn’t allow for a subtler interpretion. (And, the SFChron didn’t dig much into these obvious followup details, for determining what really happened, before reporting the allegations rather uncritically – maybe as a sort of punishment for the company refusing to comment.) In this and other coverage, it’s mentioned that more than just the employees discussing a union were laid-off. There’s hints of layoffs being started, or signalled, before union discussion began. That could mean the unionization discussion was a reaction to immminent layoffs, rather than the other way around.

wccrawford 9y ago

So many people are so quick to downvote things that don't fit their narrative. I think the word 'allegedly' should have been in the title, at least, until it's been proven.

webbles 9y ago
Actually the title is a fact. What is alleged is the reason. It is a fact that the engineers seeking to organize were fired. And they are alleging that it is because they tried to organize. But it is still a fact that the ones who tried were fired.
- gojomo 9y ago
  Then “SF company Lanetix lays off engineers, union alleges illegally” would be a fair headline. (The original headline here did not include “, union claims”.)
- wccrawford 9y ago
  The title has now changed since I saw it. I don't remember exactly what it said before, but I remember it saying something like "fired software engineers for seeking to unionize". I'll admit it's possible I misread it and the "for" wasn't actually in there.

idbehold 9y ago

The employees were laid off 8 business days after they announced they were unionizing.