3 ms·

That would be fair. When I said "this practice should be banned," I meant the way it is now, where the employer gets to abuse their position to shove their opi

That would be fair. When I said "this practice should be banned," I meant the way it is now, where the employer gets to abuse their position to shove their opinion down peoples' throats. Make them invite in a union rep and give them equal time, and I'd be good with it.

SllX 6y ago
Well about that. There is presently a case before SCOTUS regarding a law in California that allows union organizers to go onto private farm property and sell their message to the workers there if the workers quarters are not accessible to organizers otherwise up to some defined amount of time for up to some defined amount of days out of the year. Google tells me 3 hours a day, 120 days a year. It is being argued by the property owner’s that this is a taking. Not even a regulatory taking, just a straight up taking. Here we go: Cedar Point Nursery v Hassid ( https://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/cedar-point-nursery-v-hassid/ https://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/cedar-point-nurs... ) Oral arguments were heard last Monday. Advisory Opinions (a podcast) had a pretty good take on the oral arguments, but SCOTUS hasn’t put out an opinion yet.
- pmiller2 6y ago
  If that's the way it falls, then ban all "information sessions" during work hours altogether. I'm fine either way.
  - SllX 6y ago
    Arguably that would infringe on Amazon’s own First Amendment interest. Their house after all. That said I have no idea how this case is going to turn out. I’m not sure if they would have been better off arguing it was a regulatory taking because there was some indication they could have narrowly won that. SCOTUS may not issue an opinion, but punt this back down. Arguing that it was a taking was a bold move. I can see it, but that is a tough argument to make and win on.
    - pmiller2 6y ago
      No, it wouldn't. They could still host sessions outside of work, and make them truly voluntary. There is no particular reason Amazon must speak their message in their house, under threat of dismissal, except to coerce employees into listening.
      - SllX 6y ago
        When you work for someone else, it is your employer’s prerogative to spend your time how they want. They can pay you for useful productive work or they can fritter it away talking your ear off in the office, within the confines of the agreement. Certainly it would be fairer to the union organizers for Amazon to not spend work time on anti-union messages, but there isn’t a legal problem with it. Amazon’s house, Amazon’s choice. The union has to work with the time people are willing to give them outside of the time they sell to Amazon.
        pmiller2 6y ago
        > When you work for someone else, it is your employer’s prerogative to spend your time how they want. They can pay you for useful productive work or they can fritter it away talking your ear off in the office, within the confines of the agreement. This is correct. The employer's ability to de facto force someone to sit and listen to a prescribed message, while the union doesn't have the same ability is precisely why either both sides should have that power, or neither. > Certainly it would be fairer to the union organizers for Amazon to not spend work time on anti-union messages.... Are you against fairness? > Amazon’s house, Amazon’s choice. The union has to work with the time people are willing to give them outside of the time they sell to Amazon. Or are you somehow missing or overlooking the fact that I'm literally proposing a change to what the law is?
        SllX 6y ago
        Not missing or overlooking it; disagreeing with your proposed change to the law. I’m against prescribed fairness written into statute.

SllX 6y ago

Well about that. There is presently a case before SCOTUS regarding a law in California that allows union organizers to go onto private farm property and sell their message to the workers there if the workers quarters are not accessible to organizers otherwise up to some defined amount of time for up to some defined amount of days out of the year. Google tells me 3 hours a day, 120 days a year. It is being argued by the property owner’s that this is a taking. Not even a regulatory taking, just a straight up taking. Here we go: Cedar Point Nursery v Hassid ( https://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/cedar-point-nursery-v-hassid/ https://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/cedar-point-nurs... ) Oral arguments were heard last Monday. Advisory Opinions (a podcast) had a pretty good take on the oral arguments, but SCOTUS hasn’t put out an opinion yet.

pmiller2 6y ago
If that's the way it falls, then ban all "information sessions" during work hours altogether. I'm fine either way.
- SllX 6y ago
  Arguably that would infringe on Amazon’s own First Amendment interest. Their house after all. That said I have no idea how this case is going to turn out. I’m not sure if they would have been better off arguing it was a regulatory taking because there was some indication they could have narrowly won that. SCOTUS may not issue an opinion, but punt this back down. Arguing that it was a taking was a bold move. I can see it, but that is a tough argument to make and win on.
  - pmiller2 6y ago
    No, it wouldn't. They could still host sessions outside of work, and make them truly voluntary. There is no particular reason Amazon must speak their message in their house, under threat of dismissal, except to coerce employees into listening.
    - SllX 6y ago
      When you work for someone else, it is your employer’s prerogative to spend your time how they want. They can pay you for useful productive work or they can fritter it away talking your ear off in the office, within the confines of the agreement. Certainly it would be fairer to the union organizers for Amazon to not spend work time on anti-union messages, but there isn’t a legal problem with it. Amazon’s house, Amazon’s choice. The union has to work with the time people are willing to give them outside of the time they sell to Amazon.
      - pmiller2 6y ago
        > When you work for someone else, it is your employer’s prerogative to spend your time how they want. They can pay you for useful productive work or they can fritter it away talking your ear off in the office, within the confines of the agreement. This is correct. The employer's ability to de facto force someone to sit and listen to a prescribed message, while the union doesn't have the same ability is precisely why either both sides should have that power, or neither. > Certainly it would be fairer to the union organizers for Amazon to not spend work time on anti-union messages.... Are you against fairness? > Amazon’s house, Amazon’s choice. The union has to work with the time people are willing to give them outside of the time they sell to Amazon. Or are you somehow missing or overlooking the fact that I'm literally proposing a change to what the law is?
        SllX 6y ago
        Not missing or overlooking it; disagreeing with your proposed change to the law. I’m against prescribed fairness written into statute.