3 ms·

Also first amendment. Why can't CEO say anti-union things? Are they allowed to say pro-union things?

ceejayoz 6y ago
Employees have rights, too. When they conflict with each other, the courts get involved. They've repeatedly done so on this issue. https://www.mtsu.edu/first-amendment/article/495/associated-press-v-national-labor-relations-board https://www.mtsu.edu/first-amendment/article/495/associated-... > In addressing the First Amendment issue, Roberts observed that although the AP claimed to have discharged the employee for biased reporting, the record revealed the actual reason to be his union activity, which had no bearing on First Amendment issues: “The business of the Associated Press is not immune from regulation because it is an agency of the press. The publisher of a newspaper has no special immunity from the application of general laws. He has no special privilege to invade the rights and liberties of others.”
- temp8964 6y ago
  How did he invade employees' rights?
  - ceejayoz 6y ago
    Employees have specific rights under the National Labor Relations Act, which has long held up to Constitutional review by the Supreme Court, to organize unions without this sort of retaliation or other "unfair labor practices". https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/29/158 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/29/158 Musk would similarly find himself in trouble if he said, say, "OHSA rules are bullshit and you don't have to follow them", despite it being First Amendment speech.
    - temp8964 6y ago
      Where is the retaliation? He is stating the change of payment schedule after the unionization. This is not allowed?
      - ceejayoz 6y ago
        "We will take away the stock options if you unionize" would be pretty clear retaliation, yes.
        temp8964 6y ago
        Not at all. It is clearly not targeting one person. It simply means we will change how we pay if unionized. Is it allowed?
        detaro 6y ago
        "you" is clearly "you workers" and not a single person in this context, and no, threatening more people doesn't make it more legal.
        temp8964 6y ago
        If the practice of changing payment schedule legal?
        TheDong 6y ago
        In this case, I don't think it would be legal even if it normally is. Doing it in this case would be retaliation for a protected action. The National Labor Relations Act ensures the right to organize unions, and changing pay as a result of union-related activity would be illegal retaliation. This is similar to how an at-will employee can be fired for any reason _except_ for a protected class, like their race / gender / religion, etc.
        temp8964 6y ago
        What? He is not talking about targeting anybody.
        natch 6y ago
        “Threaten” is a highly charged word here, and it reveals the bias of those who use it. I’ll take my downvotes, but think about it. It’s a startup, they didn’t have huge profits at that time. People should be allowed to state facts, or opinions for that matter.
tyingq 6y ago
He's allowed to say anti-union things. He's not allowed to make threats. Even if he didn't mean it to be one, it reasonably looks like one to employees. See https://apps.nlrb.gov/link/document.aspx/09031d45833ef7a1 https://apps.nlrb.gov/link/document.aspx/09031d45833ef7a1 for the actual language. A snippet: "The General Counsel argues that to remedy fully CEO Musk’s unlawful May 20, 2018 tweet, which coercively threatened that employees would lose their stock options if they selected the Union as their representative, the Board should order the Respondent to have Musk delete that tweet and to post a notice addressing that violation at its facilities nationwide. Consistent with our recent decision in FDRLST Media, LLC, we shall order the Respondent to direct Musk to delete the unlawful tweet from the @elonmusk Twitter account and to take appropriate steps to ensure that Musk complies with the directive."
- temp8964 6y ago
  He didn't make threats. He is simply stating the fact that unionization will cause the company to change payment schedule, because circumstance changed, which is not a retaliation.
  - tyingq 6y ago
    If he'd included more context perhaps. At best, the tweet reads as ambiguous, at worse a threat. What he meant isn't what's at issue. It's what it appears to be to employees.

Employees have rights, too. When they conflict with each other, the courts get involved. They've repeatedly done so on this issue. https://www.mtsu.edu/first-amendment/article/495/associated-press-v-national-labor-relations-board https://www.mtsu.edu/first-amendment/article/495/associated-... > In addressing the First Amendment issue, Roberts observed that although the AP claimed to have discharged the employee for biased reporting, the record revealed the actual reason to be his union activity, which had no bearing on First Amendment issues: “The business of the Associated Press is not immune from regulation because it is an agency of the press. The publisher of a newspaper has no special immunity from the application of general laws. He has no special privilege to invade the rights and liberties of others.”

temp8964 6y ago
How did he invade employees' rights?
- ceejayoz 6y ago
  Employees have specific rights under the National Labor Relations Act, which has long held up to Constitutional review by the Supreme Court, to organize unions without this sort of retaliation or other "unfair labor practices". https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/29/158 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/29/158 Musk would similarly find himself in trouble if he said, say, "OHSA rules are bullshit and you don't have to follow them", despite it being First Amendment speech.
  - temp8964 6y ago
    Where is the retaliation? He is stating the change of payment schedule after the unionization. This is not allowed?
    - ceejayoz 6y ago
      "We will take away the stock options if you unionize" would be pretty clear retaliation, yes.
      - temp8964 6y ago
        Not at all. It is clearly not targeting one person. It simply means we will change how we pay if unionized. Is it allowed?
        detaro 6y ago
        "you" is clearly "you workers" and not a single person in this context, and no, threatening more people doesn't make it more legal.
        temp8964 6y ago
        If the practice of changing payment schedule legal?
        TheDong 6y ago
        In this case, I don't think it would be legal even if it normally is. Doing it in this case would be retaliation for a protected action. The National Labor Relations Act ensures the right to organize unions, and changing pay as a result of union-related activity would be illegal retaliation. This is similar to how an at-will employee can be fired for any reason _except_ for a protected class, like their race / gender / religion, etc.
        temp8964 6y ago
        What? He is not talking about targeting anybody.
        natch 6y ago
        “Threaten” is a highly charged word here, and it reveals the bias of those who use it. I’ll take my downvotes, but think about it. It’s a startup, they didn’t have huge profits at that time. People should be allowed to state facts, or opinions for that matter.

tyingq 6y ago

He's allowed to say anti-union things. He's not allowed to make threats. Even if he didn't mean it to be one, it reasonably looks like one to employees. See https://apps.nlrb.gov/link/document.aspx/09031d45833ef7a1 https://apps.nlrb.gov/link/document.aspx/09031d45833ef7a1 for the actual language. A snippet: "The General Counsel argues that to remedy fully CEO Musk’s unlawful May 20, 2018 tweet, which coercively threatened that employees would lose their stock options if they selected the Union as their representative, the Board should order the Respondent to have Musk delete that tweet and to post a notice addressing that violation at its facilities nationwide. Consistent with our recent decision in FDRLST Media, LLC, we shall order the Respondent to direct Musk to delete the unlawful tweet from the @elonmusk Twitter account and to take appropriate steps to ensure that Musk complies with the directive."

temp8964 6y ago
He didn't make threats. He is simply stating the fact that unionization will cause the company to change payment schedule, because circumstance changed, which is not a retaliation.
- tyingq 6y ago
  If he'd included more context perhaps. At best, the tweet reads as ambiguous, at worse a threat. What he meant isn't what's at issue. It's what it appears to be to employees.