3 ms·
Reading the complaint (thanks for the link), the action in 15(a) is part of describing what happened as part of a larger whole. I'm talking about 15(a). IANAL,
by knorker 6y ago
Reading the complaint (thanks for the link), the action in 15(a) is part of describing what happened as part of a larger whole.
I'm talking about 15(a). IANAL, but it's not clear to me (even reading section 16) that NLRB is saying that any amount of sabotage and circumvention of access systems is authorized in order to spread information about workers rights. Nor do I hope a court does (imagine the precedent, well you don't have to because I've already given examples), and I can't understand how anyone would think it's remotely ethical.
- drewbug01 6y agoI’m interested to know the outcome of the case (if it’s not sealed, or something) next year because I think you have a good point - the NLRB seems to be making a really broad argument. I’m assuming that their logic to support that claim is more nuanced. I don’t know, of course, but my read of the document is that it’s charging google with violations and not necessarily outlining all of the exact reasons that support it. Akin to being charged with any other crime, perhaps - all of the prosecutor’s evidence and arguments aren’t laid out from the very beginning.
- knorker 6y agoSection 7-15 are laid out as facts, not necessarily as individual allegations of misconduct by Google. Seems like a reasonable starting point for a negotiation.