3 ms·

This is becoming ad nauseum. You're missing the point about how the law applies differently to company policy and actions, but my guess is that you desperately

This is becoming ad nauseum. You're missing the point about how the law applies differently to company policy and actions, but my guess is that you desperately want them to be the same hence your repeated arguments and confirmation bias. The lawyer blogs you and another commenter linked to are trying to sell services to sue employers and are not valid analyses.

manfredo 7y ago
> This is becoming ad nauseum. You're missing the point about how the law applies differently to company policy and actions Where are you getting this idea that this law only applies to company "policy". Reread the protections: > No employer shall coerce or influence or attempt to coerce or influence his employees through _or_ by means of threat of discharge or loss of employment to adopt or follow or refrain from adopting or following any particular course or line of political action or political activity. Where does it say that this is only prohibited by policy? It says "No employer shall..." not "No employer shall implement policy to...". The law does not apply differently to company "policy" versus "actions".