3 ms·
Where is the retaliation? He is stating the change of payment schedule after the unionization. This is not allowed?
by 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 agoNot 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 agoIf the practice of changing payment schedule legal?
- TheDong 6y agoIn 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 agoWhat? 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.
- natch 6y agoOr a simple statement of facts or opinion about what could or could not be doable under altered circumstances. At that time Tesla was ramping up and its success was by no means assured.