3 ms·
You suggest having a line, but as a top-level comment alludes to, there historically has been one and it's right where the author of this article drew it. Comp
by elicash 5y ago
You suggest having a line, but as a top-level comment alludes to, there historically has been one and it's right where the author of this article drew it.
Companies have the right in most circumstances to say "no hanging up non-work pamphlets on the bulletin board." But once you allow non-work pamphlets, you can't discriminate against against these types of issues. That, sadly in my view, changed under the Trump NLRB specifically when it came to email (which one could argue slack is similar to). Though it's likely to change again under Democrats.
By the way, in terms of "bullying" it's worth noting that the law protecting the ability of people to talk about workplace conditions using company resources like a bulletin board or slack channel doesn't have to allow for abuse behavior by coworkers. If you're seeking a line, that can be it, and it's based in current law, too.
This final comment isn't aimed at you, but I wish the "anti-cancel culture" activists took this seriously as a free speech issue. This kind of thing is much more common and a bigger deal than a select group of folks who have to rely on substack for their audiences to follow their thoughts.
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- pessimizer 5y agoIt's not even much more common: it's the same thing. "Canceling" is people losing their jobs over suspicion, rumors, accusations and unpopular opinions on no material grounds. With labor rights, that can't happen. You have to have a specific, pre-negotiated reason. Somehow the people who moan endlessly about someone getting fired for liking a tweet are the same people who will fight to the death to preserve the ability for employers to fire you for liking a tweet.