3 ms·
But these two were not speaking about the “terms and conditions” of their employment. They were broadly criticizing the company on other matters ranging from cl
by throwawaysea 6y ago
But these two were not speaking about the “terms and conditions” of their employment. They were broadly criticizing the company on other matters ranging from climate change to more directly political issues. I feel like the scope of the NLRA is extending to include just about everything.
- burnished 6y agoWhat? It sounds like you are implying that you need your employers permission to speak your mind, broadly, on any topic?
- throwawaysea 6y agoI'm not necessarily saying that's how it should be, but I am observing that this is how it is in practice. Otherwise what do you make of companies regularly firing people for saying something on social media or on their own time? For example Disney+ fired Gina Carano for holding certain political positions and expressing them online. It seems like left-leaning activists want it both ways - protection for their own activities but not for the activities of moderates or conservatives.
- burnished 6y ago'protection for moderates or conservative' I see this opined frequently, but what specific views are in need of protection here? Real question because it usually seems like a smoke screen for troubling or racist views.
- rideontime 6y ago> I feel like the scope of the NLRA is extending to include just about everything. You say this like it's a bad thing.
- rtkwe 6y agoYou've got it backwards the law allows companies certain things they can forbid people from doing not an explicit list of things employees are allowed to say [0]. Companies can only prevent employees from speaking about specific things like trade secrets or other confidential things. [0] This would have some pretty obvious 1A implications.