5 ms·

Fortunately the law disagrees with your regressive, anti-employee perspective.

chad_strategic 5y ago
Are you familiar with at-will employment? If I'm the owner of company and employee talks to be about Harry Potter in the break room. Later that day, or on the spot, I can terminate that employee, without cause or reason. Sure they the employee can sue me for wrongful termination, but the laws are stacked against the employee. (I have been on both side of the argument.) Please reference a law to support your claim. You might want to study up on your law, history and economics.
- decebalus1 5y ago
  I think you either haven't actually read the article, any of the replies in this thread or you're just a troll. We're not here to educate you, just look up the current US labor laws and see for yourself whether or not your argument has any standing.
  - chad_strategic 5y ago
    >Please reference a law to support your claim. ?
    - decebalus1 5y ago
      If I do reference a law to support that claim, do you promise to stop posting on HN?
      - chad_strategic 5y ago
        Having worked extensively with employment law and little union work I feel comfortable you will never find an example. However there never can be can be a resolution to your proposal, so with that I will have to pass on your entertaining offer. I will just leave this here for anybody who cares about employment law. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/At-will_employment https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/At-will_employment
        decebalus1 5y ago
        From your link: > The National Labor Relations Act provides protection to employees who wish to join or form a union and those who engage in union activity. The act also protects employees who engage in a concerted activity. That's the law you should be looking for. Check it out. It has some provisions about distributing union literature in break rooms and stuff. Pretty interesting.
        chad_strategic 5y ago
        So are we arguing about the security officer or the person that was disturbing material? "In Spence’s case, the NLRB has made a finding of merit to the charges, and has indicated that it plans to issue a formal complaint. A finding of merit is not an official decision, but a crucial step in an ongoing proceeding. Amazon will now have the opportunity to settle. If Amazon does not agree to do so, then the NLRB will schedule a hearing before an administrative law judge." From the article the NLRB appears following the letter of the law. I'm not a big fan of labor laws, but they are the law so it's good know that everybody is getting a fair chance. Violations happen and there are penalties. "An NLRB investigation found that Amazon illegally prohibited Connor Spence, a Staten Island employee involved in union organizing, from distributing pro-union literature in a break room on May 16—and then confiscated the literature—also in violation of U.S. labor law, according to evidence provided by the NLRB to the union’s attorney. " As far as I can see, Connor Spence wasn't terminated. He filed a complaint via the NLRB. Good for him, we should always have a healthy distrust of corporation and governments. Were there could be confusion, was my explanation of AT-WILL employment regarding some other comment about Harry Potter be discussed at the work place. Had Spence been fired for spreading union material then yes it probably would have been a violation of labor laws. Although I have been restless down voted and trolled and trashed. The real crux of the issue and the article might be here, with who told the security officer to do what and when. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28055091 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28055091
        deleted 5y ago
        [deleted]
        5y ago
- slumpt_ 5y ago
  My family all work in labor law. These suits come up regularly. Over-confident and under-educated small-time business owners such as yourself get owned by employees regularly for this very reason. I have no need to crack a book and cite labor law to you. Use Google or something. Or don’t. Pray you avoid future lawsuits. You’re ridiculous, but also morally reprehensible.
  - chad_strategic 5y ago
    Yet you don't work in labor law... Coward.
    - slumpt_ 5y ago
      Of course I don’t. I married a lawyer. I like engineering, they like law. Not sure how that makes one a coward, though I can definitely see how disrespecting your employees’ labor rights does.

Are you familiar with at-will employment? If I'm the owner of company and employee talks to be about Harry Potter in the break room. Later that day, or on the spot, I can terminate that employee, without cause or reason. Sure they the employee can sue me for wrongful termination, but the laws are stacked against the employee. (I have been on both side of the argument.) Please reference a law to support your claim. You might want to study up on your law, history and economics.

decebalus1 5y ago
I think you either haven't actually read the article, any of the replies in this thread or you're just a troll. We're not here to educate you, just look up the current US labor laws and see for yourself whether or not your argument has any standing.
- chad_strategic 5y ago
  >Please reference a law to support your claim. ?
  - decebalus1 5y ago
    If I do reference a law to support that claim, do you promise to stop posting on HN?
    - chad_strategic 5y ago
      Having worked extensively with employment law and little union work I feel comfortable you will never find an example. However there never can be can be a resolution to your proposal, so with that I will have to pass on your entertaining offer. I will just leave this here for anybody who cares about employment law. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/At-will_employment https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/At-will_employment
      - decebalus1 5y ago
        From your link: > The National Labor Relations Act provides protection to employees who wish to join or form a union and those who engage in union activity. The act also protects employees who engage in a concerted activity. That's the law you should be looking for. Check it out. It has some provisions about distributing union literature in break rooms and stuff. Pretty interesting.
        chad_strategic 5y ago
        So are we arguing about the security officer or the person that was disturbing material? "In Spence’s case, the NLRB has made a finding of merit to the charges, and has indicated that it plans to issue a formal complaint. A finding of merit is not an official decision, but a crucial step in an ongoing proceeding. Amazon will now have the opportunity to settle. If Amazon does not agree to do so, then the NLRB will schedule a hearing before an administrative law judge." From the article the NLRB appears following the letter of the law. I'm not a big fan of labor laws, but they are the law so it's good know that everybody is getting a fair chance. Violations happen and there are penalties. "An NLRB investigation found that Amazon illegally prohibited Connor Spence, a Staten Island employee involved in union organizing, from distributing pro-union literature in a break room on May 16—and then confiscated the literature—also in violation of U.S. labor law, according to evidence provided by the NLRB to the union’s attorney. " As far as I can see, Connor Spence wasn't terminated. He filed a complaint via the NLRB. Good for him, we should always have a healthy distrust of corporation and governments. Were there could be confusion, was my explanation of AT-WILL employment regarding some other comment about Harry Potter be discussed at the work place. Had Spence been fired for spreading union material then yes it probably would have been a violation of labor laws. Although I have been restless down voted and trolled and trashed. The real crux of the issue and the article might be here, with who told the security officer to do what and when. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28055091 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28055091
        deleted 5y ago
        [deleted]
        5y ago
slumpt_ 5y ago
My family all work in labor law. These suits come up regularly. Over-confident and under-educated small-time business owners such as yourself get owned by employees regularly for this very reason. I have no need to crack a book and cite labor law to you. Use Google or something. Or don’t. Pray you avoid future lawsuits. You’re ridiculous, but also morally reprehensible.
- chad_strategic 5y ago
  Yet you don't work in labor law... Coward.
  - slumpt_ 5y ago
    Of course I don’t. I married a lawyer. I like engineering, they like law. Not sure how that makes one a coward, though I can definitely see how disrespecting your employees’ labor rights does.