3 ms·

Really? So you think corporations don't use their lawyers before they do things? They just go and do whatever without assessing the risks? I think is actually

Really? So you think corporations don't use their lawyers before they do things? They just go and do whatever without assessing the risks? I think is actually naive to think otherwise. You can still feel something is illegal even though you have the clear of your legal team. I'm not debating that. Also you could take decisions on gray areas against the advice of your lawyers. I'm not debating that either. I would like to understand your side? How is my take staggeringly naive?

ahelwer 6y ago
If you've ever interacted with a lawyer you would know that "right vs not" is not a binary and all advice is tempered with discussion of risk. In this case, the risk is Amazon has action brought against it by the heavily neutered NLRB and possibly faces consequences many years down the road - consequences that clearly, to them, pale in comparison to the cost of having their workforce unionized. What you've said above basically amounts to "if a corporation does something, it must be legal, because corporations employ lawyers to tell them whether something is legal". Which is just straight false on the facts of history, and naive.
- whoisjuan 6y ago
  That’s not what I said. I’m saying that the baseline behavior is not illegal. The fundamentals of disincentivizing unions are legal. I don’t know if this particular instance is illegal. On print doesn’t sound good. I was replying to the parent commenter who seemed to think that desincentivizing union formation/joining is illegal which is clearly not. I agree with you that law isn’t binary, but the final interpretation of a law is a binary decision. You engage on what you think is lawful behavior or you don’t. If they did this, they clearly think that the pros outweigh the cons, and they believe they are operating within their legal rights.
  - ahelwer 6y ago
    > If they did this, they clearly think that the pros outweigh the cons, and they believe they are operating within their legal rights. No, they don't necessarily believe they are operating within their legal rights. They believe the penalty for noncompliance with the law is low enough to be worth it. This is an important distinction, because it means we need much greater penalties for labor violations.
    - whoisjuan 6y ago
      Yeah. I agree. That is another possibility on why they decided to so this. The rewards of preventing unionization outweighs the penalties of engaging in unlawful behavior.

ahelwer 6y ago

If you've ever interacted with a lawyer you would know that "right vs not" is not a binary and all advice is tempered with discussion of risk. In this case, the risk is Amazon has action brought against it by the heavily neutered NLRB and possibly faces consequences many years down the road - consequences that clearly, to them, pale in comparison to the cost of having their workforce unionized. What you've said above basically amounts to "if a corporation does something, it must be legal, because corporations employ lawyers to tell them whether something is legal". Which is just straight false on the facts of history, and naive.

whoisjuan 6y ago
That’s not what I said. I’m saying that the baseline behavior is not illegal. The fundamentals of disincentivizing unions are legal. I don’t know if this particular instance is illegal. On print doesn’t sound good. I was replying to the parent commenter who seemed to think that desincentivizing union formation/joining is illegal which is clearly not. I agree with you that law isn’t binary, but the final interpretation of a law is a binary decision. You engage on what you think is lawful behavior or you don’t. If they did this, they clearly think that the pros outweigh the cons, and they believe they are operating within their legal rights.
- ahelwer 6y ago
  > If they did this, they clearly think that the pros outweigh the cons, and they believe they are operating within their legal rights. No, they don't necessarily believe they are operating within their legal rights. They believe the penalty for noncompliance with the law is low enough to be worth it. This is an important distinction, because it means we need much greater penalties for labor violations.
  - whoisjuan 6y ago
    Yeah. I agree. That is another possibility on why they decided to so this. The rewards of preventing unionization outweighs the penalties of engaging in unlawful behavior.