4 ms·
> Also, restrictions on your efforts to communicate with co-workers cannot be discriminatory. For example, your employer cannot prohibit you from talking about
by vertex-four 7y ago
> Also, restrictions on your efforts to communicate with co-workers cannot be discriminatory. For example, your employer cannot prohibit you from talking about the union during working time if it permits you to talk about other non-work-related matters during working time.
I imagine that Googlers are generally permitted to socialise during work time, so they also get to unionise during work time. I even imagine they sometimes use work-provided services to organise non-work-related activity and this is permitted by the company.
- leereeves 7y agoI'm fairly sure that quote means workers can talk about the union while working, not stop working and stage a demonstration during work hours. That said, I do wonder if the fired workers could argue that they were merely taking an unscheduled break (permitted under Google's flextime policy) when demonstrating.
- vertex-four 7y agoWho stopped work and staged a demonstration during work hours? The article doesn’t state that anyone did. 200 people demonstrated on a Friday, but it’s quite possible that they had that day off. Nobody was fired, supposedly, in relation to that demonstration.
- leereeves 7y ago> Nobody was fired, supposedly, in relation to that demonstration. According to Google, but the workers are claiming otherwise. > but it’s quite possible that they had that day off. Indeed. In fact, with Google's flextime policy, can't they simply choose to have that day off?
- gjm11 7y agoStopping working and staging demonstrations is pretty core to what unions do.
- leereeves 7y agoYou're right of course, but not all such actions are protected. Intermittent strikes, for example, are not.