3 ms·

In this particular example, it's not a false equivalence at all. The NLRB specifically does not give special protection to union literature. As long as the empl

In this particular example, it's not a false equivalence at all. The NLRB specifically does not give special protection to union literature. As long as the employer treats all literature equally (such as soccer literature, harry potter literature, etc), they are allowed to ban non-work literature in work areas during work time. Union literature does not get any special treatment. see: https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/shop-talk-rules-union-related-conversations-activities-work.html https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/shop-talk-rules-unio...

cratermoon 5y ago
Yes, they can ban all literature, or they can ban none of it. They can't ban some and allow some, which is what happened here.
- awsthro00945 5y ago
  How do you know that's what happened here? The OP linked article does not contain such information.
  - cratermoon 5y ago
    I don't know why anyone would bother to engage on this subject with an account named 'awsthro00945' that was created 44 days ago. Is this one of those infamous Amazon fc ambassador astroturf accounts we were reading about a year ago?
    - awsthro00945 5y ago
      I create various accounts for posting on HN that I cycle through, because there are some individuals on HN that participate in ingenuine ad-hominen attacks (case and point) rather than actually engaging in the discussion at hand. Because of this, I try to limit my personal details shared via HN accounts. This particular account was created because it was a throwaway to respond to a post regarding working conditions at AWS, hence the name. I am not shy about the fact that I work at AWS, and if you read my comment history you'll find that I think it's a garbage company that I am currently trying to leave, and I support unionization of workers. But none of that actually addresses the question that was asked of you. Where are you getting your information that "They can't ban some and allow some, which is what happened here."? Because that information is not in the article, and it seems like you're just making it up. If there is such information available somewhere else, I'd like to read about it. If you have an actual answer to the question at hand rather than trying to avoid the question and make dumbass assumptions based on my username, please do respond. Otherwise, I'll just assume that you are resorting to ad hominem attacks because you don't actually have any facts to back you up.
      - cratermoon 5y ago
        it's "case IN point"
    - yjftsjthsd-h 5y ago
      > Please don't post insinuations about astroturfing, shilling, brigading, foreign agents and the like. It degrades discussion and is usually mistaken. If you're worried about abuse, email hn@ycombinator.com and we'll look at the data. - https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
      - cratermoon 5y ago
        If you're really worried about the quality of discussion, then treat astroturfing and brigading for what it is: the intentional effort to destroy discourse.
        dang 5y ago
        You're breaking the site guidelines badly. On HN, you don't get to sling accusations of astroturfing and brigading with zero evidence. Someone else disagreeing with you isn't evidence of those things. It's just evidence that someone disagrees with you. Please read https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and don't post anything more like this. If you're worried about abuse, email hn@ycombinator.com, as the guidelines ask, and we'll look into it. There's years' worth of past explanation at https://hn.algolia.com/?sort=byDate&dateRange=all&type=comment&storyText=false&prefix=true&page=0&query=by:dang%20astroturf https://hn.algolia.com/?sort=byDate&dateRange=all&type=comme... if anyone wants more.
pavon 5y ago
According to the article you posted that only applies when and where employees are working. Union literature is given special treatment in that companies must allow it to be distributed in non-work areas such as the break room, which is where it was distributed and confiscated in this case.
- awsthro00945 5y ago
  No, the linked article specifically states that union literature is not given any special treatment, at all. Companies can indeed restrict it from being spread, even in break rooms, if: 1) not spreading materials in the break room is necessary to maintain work productivity, and 2) all other materials are treated equally and are also not allowed to be distributed in break rooms. edit: the above is actually for union discussions in break rooms. It's not clear if the same rules apply for literature in break rooms, but given that other parts of the article specifically call out that all literature must be treated equal in other areas (ie not break rooms), I'm not convinced that it doesn't apply. The stance of the NLRB regarding union materials is that it is explicitly not given any special treatment, neither in regards to protecting its spread, nor in regards to preventing its spread. It must always be treated equally to materials on other topics: either everything is banned, including union materials, or nothing is banned, also including union materials.

cratermoon 5y ago

Yes, they can ban all literature, or they can ban none of it. They can't ban some and allow some, which is what happened here.

awsthro00945 5y ago
How do you know that's what happened here? The OP linked article does not contain such information.
- cratermoon 5y ago
  I don't know why anyone would bother to engage on this subject with an account named 'awsthro00945' that was created 44 days ago. Is this one of those infamous Amazon fc ambassador astroturf accounts we were reading about a year ago?
  - awsthro00945 5y ago
    I create various accounts for posting on HN that I cycle through, because there are some individuals on HN that participate in ingenuine ad-hominen attacks (case and point) rather than actually engaging in the discussion at hand. Because of this, I try to limit my personal details shared via HN accounts. This particular account was created because it was a throwaway to respond to a post regarding working conditions at AWS, hence the name. I am not shy about the fact that I work at AWS, and if you read my comment history you'll find that I think it's a garbage company that I am currently trying to leave, and I support unionization of workers. But none of that actually addresses the question that was asked of you. Where are you getting your information that "They can't ban some and allow some, which is what happened here."? Because that information is not in the article, and it seems like you're just making it up. If there is such information available somewhere else, I'd like to read about it. If you have an actual answer to the question at hand rather than trying to avoid the question and make dumbass assumptions based on my username, please do respond. Otherwise, I'll just assume that you are resorting to ad hominem attacks because you don't actually have any facts to back you up.
    - cratermoon 5y ago
      it's "case IN point"
  - yjftsjthsd-h 5y ago
    > Please don't post insinuations about astroturfing, shilling, brigading, foreign agents and the like. It degrades discussion and is usually mistaken. If you're worried about abuse, email hn@ycombinator.com and we'll look at the data. - https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
    - cratermoon 5y ago
      If you're really worried about the quality of discussion, then treat astroturfing and brigading for what it is: the intentional effort to destroy discourse.
      - dang 5y ago
        You're breaking the site guidelines badly. On HN, you don't get to sling accusations of astroturfing and brigading with zero evidence. Someone else disagreeing with you isn't evidence of those things. It's just evidence that someone disagrees with you. Please read https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and don't post anything more like this. If you're worried about abuse, email hn@ycombinator.com, as the guidelines ask, and we'll look into it. There's years' worth of past explanation at https://hn.algolia.com/?sort=byDate&dateRange=all&type=comment&storyText=false&prefix=true&page=0&query=by:dang%20astroturf https://hn.algolia.com/?sort=byDate&dateRange=all&type=comme... if anyone wants more.

pavon 5y ago

According to the article you posted that only applies when and where employees are working. Union literature is given special treatment in that companies must allow it to be distributed in non-work areas such as the break room, which is where it was distributed and confiscated in this case.

awsthro00945 5y ago
No, the linked article specifically states that union literature is not given any special treatment, at all. Companies can indeed restrict it from being spread, even in break rooms, if: 1) not spreading materials in the break room is necessary to maintain work productivity, and 2) all other materials are treated equally and are also not allowed to be distributed in break rooms. edit: the above is actually for union discussions in break rooms. It's not clear if the same rules apply for literature in break rooms, but given that other parts of the article specifically call out that all literature must be treated equal in other areas (ie not break rooms), I'm not convinced that it doesn't apply. The stance of the NLRB regarding union materials is that it is explicitly not given any special treatment, neither in regards to protecting its spread, nor in regards to preventing its spread. It must always be treated equally to materials on other topics: either everything is banned, including union materials, or nothing is banned, also including union materials.