4 ms·

I don't quite get that objection though, why do you need stated rules that a certain internal site is internal information? Everything is assumed to be internal

I don't quite get that objection though, why do you need stated rules that a certain internal site is internal information? Everything is assumed to be internal information unless stated otherwise. That violates any HR policy anywhere. More so the guy was putting it on facebook to literally get people to stalk the guy. So I'm surprised he didn't get criminal charges.

seoaeu 6y ago
You don't need the rules to know that sharing information from internal sites might be prohibited. You need them to be able to prove that sharing information like this would get somebody fired. The other possibility (which the NLRB seems to believe) is that Tesla normally would have been OK with this sort of sharing or given only a warning, but this time was specifically looking for an excuse to fire the employee.
dundarious 6y ago
Do you have info on the stalking? It is common practice when organizing a union to note the likely strongly anti-union people, to not solicit them, and inform them last of the effort. I say this because I presumed they were just screenshotting the guy's employment photo and name, and posting in the private group, "don't solicit this guy, he might scupper the effort."
- adolph 6y ago
  Accessing org info for private purposes seems ethically deficient.
  - dundarious 6y ago
    In the abstract I would agree, but there are degrees of offense before firing someone -- I would imagine I would not be fired for doing same when organizing who to invite or not invite if I was organizing a poker game ("invite anyone, except this guy"). So the actions here seem quite harsh and retaliatory. I haven't read the NLRB's report, but my thoughts are similar to https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26598779 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26598779
- mlindner 6y ago
  Really? It would seem more likely they would try to harass the guy who's anti-union.
  - dundarious 6y ago
    Doesn't seem that way to me. As I said, one of the first steps in organizing is usually identifying your strong-no to strong-yes people, and building support among the yes side first. I don't have experience in organizing a workplace, but the information above is second-hand from conversations with people who have. I have participated in "get out the vote" operations. In that case it's quite similar: you mostly want to avoid knocking on the door of likely-strong-no households, as you have so many likely-strong-yes doors to knock, and debating people on the doorstep is a waste of precious time when close to an election/primary -- so you can see the value in having a good data operation to know which houses are likely one way or the other, and spreading that knowledge to your canvassers.

seoaeu 6y ago

You don't need the rules to know that sharing information from internal sites might be prohibited. You need them to be able to prove that sharing information like this would get somebody fired. The other possibility (which the NLRB seems to believe) is that Tesla normally would have been OK with this sort of sharing or given only a warning, but this time was specifically looking for an excuse to fire the employee.

dundarious 6y ago

Do you have info on the stalking? It is common practice when organizing a union to note the likely strongly anti-union people, to not solicit them, and inform them last of the effort. I say this because I presumed they were just screenshotting the guy's employment photo and name, and posting in the private group, "don't solicit this guy, he might scupper the effort."

adolph 6y ago
Accessing org info for private purposes seems ethically deficient.
- dundarious 6y ago
  In the abstract I would agree, but there are degrees of offense before firing someone -- I would imagine I would not be fired for doing same when organizing who to invite or not invite if I was organizing a poker game ("invite anyone, except this guy"). So the actions here seem quite harsh and retaliatory. I haven't read the NLRB's report, but my thoughts are similar to https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26598779 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26598779
mlindner 6y ago
Really? It would seem more likely they would try to harass the guy who's anti-union.
- dundarious 6y ago
  Doesn't seem that way to me. As I said, one of the first steps in organizing is usually identifying your strong-no to strong-yes people, and building support among the yes side first. I don't have experience in organizing a workplace, but the information above is second-hand from conversations with people who have. I have participated in "get out the vote" operations. In that case it's quite similar: you mostly want to avoid knocking on the door of likely-strong-no households, as you have so many likely-strong-yes doors to knock, and debating people on the doorstep is a waste of precious time when close to an election/primary -- so you can see the value in having a good data operation to know which houses are likely one way or the other, and spreading that knowledge to your canvassers.