4 ms·

> ... it may be prohibited to fire an employee for requesting better working conditions, but if an employee refuses to serve a particular customer because they

> ... it may be prohibited to fire an employee for requesting better working conditions, but if an employee refuses to serve a particular customer because they don't like them, that would seem to me a quite reasonable reason for termination. I agree completely. However, if an employee doesn't refuse to serve a particular customer, but instead voices to management that they do not want to serve that customer, I don't think it should be ok to fire them. In this case, it seems to be less about declining to serve and more about voicing an opinion (showing a petition throughout the office).

chii 5y ago
> voicing an opinion (showing a petition throughout the office) voicing an opinion with the intent to gather enough employee consensus to pressure the employer to not serve a particular customer. So the end result is the same - an employee was able to override the decision on who to serve made by management/shareholder. An employee voicing an opinion is not wrong - but if the reason for said opinion is not in the best interest of the employer, that would mean the employer won't want to heed it unless forced by law.
- jrochkind1 5y ago
  > voicing an opinion with the intent to gather enough employee consensus to pressure the employer to not serve a particular customer That's literally what makes it potentially protected by labor law though. Now, it's only protected if it counts as "working conditions". But gathering employee consensus to pressure the employer about "working conditions" is literally exactly what is protected by labor law. Whether the "reasons for their opinions" on working conditions are "in the best interest of the employer" or not. Under what circumstances and conditions do you think this law came about? --- > Section 7 of the National Labor Relations Act (the Act) guarantees employees "the right to self-organization, to form, join, or assist labor organizations, to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing, and to engage in other concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection," https://www.nlrb.gov/about-nlrb/rights-we-protect/the-law/interfering-with-employee-rights-section-7-8a1 https://www.nlrb.gov/about-nlrb/rights-we-protect/the-law/in... "To engage in other concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection" is in fact what's protected, not "voicing opinions". Employers actually do have the right to fire you for "voicing opinions", in theory (the first ammendment constrains the government, not employers), although in practice it probably shouldn't be an opinion related to all that stuff above, or voicing the opinion might have been part of those activities which the employee has the right to do.
  - perl4ever 5y ago
    I don't think it's reasonable to pretend voicing opinions can be separated from "concerted activities". It's too cute to claim that even if only one person is expressing an opinion, that it isn't "concerted" and "for mutual aid". Even the first person to speak up about something is trying to get support from others, and if we used sophistry to allow employers to suppress that, then how do you get to the next step of organizing people? An honest person looks at their argument and if it leads to an absurdity, such as with any law completely negating it, the argument must be BS.
    - jrochkind1 5y ago
      Yeah, totally. But legally the voicing of opinions is protected because it's related to those "concerted activities". (as opposed to original commenter who thought it should be protected only when unrelated to those activities!) One reason this matters, is that employees do not in fact generally have the equivalent of first ammendment rights at work. I'm just saying the law in the US, agree or not. (although I'm not a lawyer, this is not legal advice). So for instance, if you work at, I dunno, a company that sells the color Blue, and you go around speaking at conferences on how Blue is actually the worst color and everyone should use Yellow instead, it's unlikely this would be considered a protected activity they can't fire you for. You don't generally have "free speech" rights at work. (The current law, whether we like it or not). If the original commenter thinks you should, that you should generally be able to voice whatever opinion you want totally unrelated to "organizing" activities, go around telling everyone that Blue is a terrible mistake of a color while working at Blue Inc and they shouldn't be able to fire you for it since you're just expressing your opinion... they are actually arguing for an expansion of labor rights, which is to say a restriction on employer ability to fire, that does not currently exist in the US. Which, sure, I could welcome that. It's not the way it works now. https://www.forbes.com/sites/tomspiggle/2018/09/28/free-speech-work-rights/ https://www.forbes.com/sites/tomspiggle/2018/09/28/free-spee...
      - perl4ever 5y ago
        This all sounds like stuff that's not in the law, but seems like "common sense" to some people and not others. The rights you take for granted are not permitted to workers, even when the law says so, everybody assumes stockholders have. Look at GameStop and its followers. It was selling "Blue", that is, video games in stores, and some weirdos on reddit became obsessed, caused a short squeeze, or so the myth goes, and some of them had strong opinions that the company should and could totally pivot to some sort of completely different business that's substantially online. That is, "Yellow". So if shareholders can engage in that sort of activity, why not a union? And if a union can, then surely the law requires that people be able to do it whether or before there is an official union; the whole point is to enable and protect collective action. "employees do not in fact generally have the equivalent of first ammendment rights at work" Ok, but nobody said they did - they have specific rights from a different source. Sometimes companies, even large or long-lived ones, do have to totally change their business. I forget which one it was, but there was one of those snack cake/junk food companies that went bankrupt a while ago. Ideally, management and workers would find a way together to save things. When a company goes down the toilet like that, management usually blames the union, so it would be perverse to declare that in general, the workers need to stfu and gbtw instead of having opinions on the business.

chii 5y ago

> voicing an opinion (showing a petition throughout the office) voicing an opinion with the intent to gather enough employee consensus to pressure the employer to not serve a particular customer. So the end result is the same - an employee was able to override the decision on who to serve made by management/shareholder. An employee voicing an opinion is not wrong - but if the reason for said opinion is not in the best interest of the employer, that would mean the employer won't want to heed it unless forced by law.

jrochkind1 5y ago
> voicing an opinion with the intent to gather enough employee consensus to pressure the employer to not serve a particular customer That's literally what makes it potentially protected by labor law though. Now, it's only protected if it counts as "working conditions". But gathering employee consensus to pressure the employer about "working conditions" is literally exactly what is protected by labor law. Whether the "reasons for their opinions" on working conditions are "in the best interest of the employer" or not. Under what circumstances and conditions do you think this law came about? --- > Section 7 of the National Labor Relations Act (the Act) guarantees employees "the right to self-organization, to form, join, or assist labor organizations, to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing, and to engage in other concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection," https://www.nlrb.gov/about-nlrb/rights-we-protect/the-law/interfering-with-employee-rights-section-7-8a1 https://www.nlrb.gov/about-nlrb/rights-we-protect/the-law/in... "To engage in other concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection" is in fact what's protected, not "voicing opinions". Employers actually do have the right to fire you for "voicing opinions", in theory (the first ammendment constrains the government, not employers), although in practice it probably shouldn't be an opinion related to all that stuff above, or voicing the opinion might have been part of those activities which the employee has the right to do.
- perl4ever 5y ago
  I don't think it's reasonable to pretend voicing opinions can be separated from "concerted activities". It's too cute to claim that even if only one person is expressing an opinion, that it isn't "concerted" and "for mutual aid". Even the first person to speak up about something is trying to get support from others, and if we used sophistry to allow employers to suppress that, then how do you get to the next step of organizing people? An honest person looks at their argument and if it leads to an absurdity, such as with any law completely negating it, the argument must be BS.
  - jrochkind1 5y ago
    Yeah, totally. But legally the voicing of opinions is protected because it's related to those "concerted activities". (as opposed to original commenter who thought it should be protected only when unrelated to those activities!) One reason this matters, is that employees do not in fact generally have the equivalent of first ammendment rights at work. I'm just saying the law in the US, agree or not. (although I'm not a lawyer, this is not legal advice). So for instance, if you work at, I dunno, a company that sells the color Blue, and you go around speaking at conferences on how Blue is actually the worst color and everyone should use Yellow instead, it's unlikely this would be considered a protected activity they can't fire you for. You don't generally have "free speech" rights at work. (The current law, whether we like it or not). If the original commenter thinks you should, that you should generally be able to voice whatever opinion you want totally unrelated to "organizing" activities, go around telling everyone that Blue is a terrible mistake of a color while working at Blue Inc and they shouldn't be able to fire you for it since you're just expressing your opinion... they are actually arguing for an expansion of labor rights, which is to say a restriction on employer ability to fire, that does not currently exist in the US. Which, sure, I could welcome that. It's not the way it works now. https://www.forbes.com/sites/tomspiggle/2018/09/28/free-speech-work-rights/ https://www.forbes.com/sites/tomspiggle/2018/09/28/free-spee...
    - perl4ever 5y ago
      This all sounds like stuff that's not in the law, but seems like "common sense" to some people and not others. The rights you take for granted are not permitted to workers, even when the law says so, everybody assumes stockholders have. Look at GameStop and its followers. It was selling "Blue", that is, video games in stores, and some weirdos on reddit became obsessed, caused a short squeeze, or so the myth goes, and some of them had strong opinions that the company should and could totally pivot to some sort of completely different business that's substantially online. That is, "Yellow". So if shareholders can engage in that sort of activity, why not a union? And if a union can, then surely the law requires that people be able to do it whether or before there is an official union; the whole point is to enable and protect collective action. "employees do not in fact generally have the equivalent of first ammendment rights at work" Ok, but nobody said they did - they have specific rights from a different source. Sometimes companies, even large or long-lived ones, do have to totally change their business. I forget which one it was, but there was one of those snack cake/junk food companies that went bankrupt a while ago. Ideally, management and workers would find a way together to save things. When a company goes down the toilet like that, management usually blames the union, so it would be perverse to declare that in general, the workers need to stfu and gbtw instead of having opinions on the business.