4 ms·

It's only retaliation if the employee is engaging in an exercise of their legally-protected rights. If someone is fired after complaining about sexual harassme

It's only retaliation if the employee is engaging in an exercise of their legally-protected rights. If someone is fired after complaining about sexual harassment in the workplace, that's retaliation because you have a legal right to a workplace free of such harassment. If someone is reassigned after complaining about their employer's ESG policies, you're going to have to explain to me what the nature of the legal protection is in that case for me to see that as retaliation.

zozbot234 5y ago
Discussing workplace conditions is explicitly an exercise of legally-protected rights.
- NovemberWhiskey 5y ago
  Yes, but that is not what we're talking about: "she said Apple had begun trying to reassign her after she complained that the company’s work on the minerals was not, in some cases, leading to meaningful change in some war-torn countries"
  - zozbot234 5y ago
    Dealing with the minerals supply chain situation was part of her job description. She can't discuss how she's practically being set up for failure? How's that not part of her work conditions?
    - NovemberWhiskey 5y ago
      Her responsibility to deal with the minerals supply chain situation is not open-ended; it is scoped by Apple's plans and policies. Believing your job should be something different from what your employer has hired you to do doesn't put you in a legally protected position; nor does believing that the extent to which your employer pursues a particular objective is insufficient. Complaining that your boss doesn't let you do something based on your own interpretation of your job description isn't a "discussion of working conditions" in the NLRA sense - that's absurdly over expansive.
      - yunohn 5y ago
        > Complaining that your boss doesn't let you do something based on your own interpretation of your job description Her job was to improve the rare mineral supply chain. Her complaint was that it wasn’t doing that. Seems like a super valid criticism, and what employees should be doing.
        NovemberWhiskey 5y ago
        This isn't a debate where the moral strength of the argument about the sufficiency of a particular policy carries the day - the employer gets the final say because they're writing the check. Your option as an employee is to leave. The idea that you can demand to stay in your position and continue to pursue your own agenda is so odd. If you want that kind of freedom, you're not going to find it in corporate life.
yunohn 5y ago
It is quite telling that you’re sticking to the strictest possible definition of “retaliation”. A reasonable person would consider reassignment due to complaining about the ineffectivity of their role and green washing by their employer (often covered by whistle-blowing protections), as retaliation.
- NovemberWhiskey 5y ago
  I'm sticking to the definition of "retaliation" in which it's actually illegal. Please don't try to muddy the waters here by attempting to rely on the common language meaning of the word when you set up the discussion to be about the employment law meaning.

zozbot234 5y ago

Discussing workplace conditions is explicitly an exercise of legally-protected rights.

NovemberWhiskey 5y ago
Yes, but that is not what we're talking about: "she said Apple had begun trying to reassign her after she complained that the company’s work on the minerals was not, in some cases, leading to meaningful change in some war-torn countries"
- zozbot234 5y ago
  Dealing with the minerals supply chain situation was part of her job description. She can't discuss how she's practically being set up for failure? How's that not part of her work conditions?
  - NovemberWhiskey 5y ago
    Her responsibility to deal with the minerals supply chain situation is not open-ended; it is scoped by Apple's plans and policies. Believing your job should be something different from what your employer has hired you to do doesn't put you in a legally protected position; nor does believing that the extent to which your employer pursues a particular objective is insufficient. Complaining that your boss doesn't let you do something based on your own interpretation of your job description isn't a "discussion of working conditions" in the NLRA sense - that's absurdly over expansive.
    - yunohn 5y ago
      > Complaining that your boss doesn't let you do something based on your own interpretation of your job description Her job was to improve the rare mineral supply chain. Her complaint was that it wasn’t doing that. Seems like a super valid criticism, and what employees should be doing.
      - NovemberWhiskey 5y ago
        This isn't a debate where the moral strength of the argument about the sufficiency of a particular policy carries the day - the employer gets the final say because they're writing the check. Your option as an employee is to leave. The idea that you can demand to stay in your position and continue to pursue your own agenda is so odd. If you want that kind of freedom, you're not going to find it in corporate life.

yunohn 5y ago

It is quite telling that you’re sticking to the strictest possible definition of “retaliation”. A reasonable person would consider reassignment due to complaining about the ineffectivity of their role and green washing by their employer (often covered by whistle-blowing protections), as retaliation.

NovemberWhiskey 5y ago
I'm sticking to the definition of "retaliation" in which it's actually illegal. Please don't try to muddy the waters here by attempting to rely on the common language meaning of the word when you set up the discussion to be about the employment law meaning.