3 ms·

These are strikers, not fired employees, and what is happening is a protest. It's no different than mailing in a bunch of applications, it's just digital instea

by tedivm 5y ago

These are strikers, not fired employees, and what is happening is a protest. It's no different than mailing in a bunch of applications, it's just digital instead. They aren't burning down the offices (although I think it's fair to point out that most of our labor rights do come from unions threatening- and in some cases doing- things exactly like that).

bhhaskin 5y ago
Except they are fired employees. Kellogg fired them. Wether you believe that's right or wrong, let's not distort reality.
- sdfjksbdf 5y ago
  They haven't fired them. They're beginning to attempt to start to replace them. "Rutgers University professor Todd Vachon, who teaches classes about labor relations, said he's not sure the company will be able to hire enough workers to replace the ones who are out on strike in the current economy, and Kellogg's may have a hard time finding people willing to cross a picket line." https://www.cbsnews.com/news/kelloggs-will-replace-striking-workers-after-offer-is-rejected/ https://www.cbsnews.com/news/kelloggs-will-replace-striking-...
  - bhhaskin 5y ago
    If they are permanently replacing the old workers that pretty much means they no longer have a job. So yes. They have been fired. Kellogg has announced that.
    - gremlinsinc 5y ago
      In an economy where finding workers is really tough, where target, walmart, etc have had to raise min wage to 15+ and add free college tuition.... They cannot fire the employees in question, they can only replace them 1:1 and w/ the amount of publicity, and the striking it's bound to deter a lot of potential applicants, and with people using automated and manual methods to spoof applications --some presumably locally even going through the entire application process, going through training, and quitting day one on the floor... seems to me like it'll bleed Kellogg's dry long before they ever find the employees they need to continue. They're more likely to fully automate 100% of the plant before they find the staff they need for permanent replacements. I'm seriously betting Kellogg's does a full reversal, esp when profits start to fall, and revenue expectations get dwarfed by the boycotts that are ongoing. Personally, I can do without ever buying poptarts, eggo waffles, or any of their cereal. There's plenty of alternative junk food out there to fill the gap.
dreyfan 5y ago
I would encourage you to look at how prosecutors have successfully utilized the CFAA as a blunt instrument before making analogies that may garner upvotes on HN but wouldn’t reduce a prison sentence. Logic is not part of the CFAA.
josephcsible 5y ago
If something's not okay to do, calling it a protest doesn't make it okay. For example, consider what should happen to someone who robodials 911 to protest police corruption.
- tedivm 5y ago
  I 100% think this is right to do. The only thing this harms is the company's bottom line, and frankly it's ridiculous how much power corporations already. Your metaphor to police corruption is also why "context" is an important thing. In that case people would actually get hurt, in this case a company loses money. They are different scenarios completely.
onphonenow 5y ago
Be careful with the claim that a "protest" makes something legal. A bunch of trump supports went to Washington to "protest" - not turning out very well for them. Similarly with many other protests (BLM etc etc), folks getting picked up breaking windows, stealing, burning down buildings etc - they don't get off free because it's a protest or there is not something in the law that makes calling something illegal a protest legal.
- tedivm 5y ago
  > Be careful with the claim that a "protest" makes something legal. No one made that claim.
  - onphonenow 5y ago
    There was a claim that because this was a protest it was OK to use code to flood a website with applications. For anyone who has paid attention to CFAA if you have a computer used in interstate commerce and someone knowingly causes the transmission of a program, information, code, or command, and as a result of such conduct, intentionally causes damage without authorization, to a protected computer, then whamo, down you go. This code that has been written to disrupt the operations of this business (Kellog) if it does disrupt their operations and they complain, the person knowingly transmitting it is at risk. Again, calling something a protest is not a free pass.
gruez 5y ago
>These are strikers, not fired employees, and what is happening is a protest Why is this relevant? Does being labeled as a "striker" give you additional legal rights that you wouldn't otherwise have? >It's no different than mailing in a bunch of applications, it's just digital instead. They aren't burning down the offices "not burning down offices" seems like a pretty low bar for acceptable conduct. that doesn't mean their behavior is legal. The obvious analogy would be: would it be legal to spam a pizza restaurant with fake orders? Or spamming a doctor/hospital with fake appointments? Or spamming police departments with fake tips?
- fennecfoxen 5y ago
  > Does being labeled as a "striker" give you additional legal rights that you wouldn't otherwise have? Actually, yes. For instance, if you are an employee who is striking, you have the right to use racial slurs to abuse and harass employees who are not striking, without being fired for use of those remarks. See Cooper Tire & Rubber Co. v. NLRB. (Remarks included: "Go back to Africa, you bunch of f--- losers!", statements regarding fried chicken, watermelon, etc.) There are a variety of other rights conferred by law.
- likpok 5y ago
  Being a striker does give additional legal rights you wouldn't other wise have, but I don't think that this is one of them. It's also unclear whether the author or people using the script are actually fired employees or bored teenagers jumping on the bandwagon. Spamming a police department with fake tips is specifically illegal (making a false police report and/or obstruction of justice and/or USC 1001). I'm not sure about fake appointments for a hospital, that seems the most unclear of the cases you've listed.
- hello_marmalade 5y ago
  Yes, strikes are okay as long as they aren’t inconvenient or worse, effective.

by tedivm 5y ago

bhhaskin 5y ago

Except they are fired employees. Kellogg fired them. Wether you believe that's right or wrong, let's not distort reality.

sdfjksbdf 5y ago
They haven't fired them. They're beginning to attempt to start to replace them. "Rutgers University professor Todd Vachon, who teaches classes about labor relations, said he's not sure the company will be able to hire enough workers to replace the ones who are out on strike in the current economy, and Kellogg's may have a hard time finding people willing to cross a picket line." https://www.cbsnews.com/news/kelloggs-will-replace-striking-workers-after-offer-is-rejected/ https://www.cbsnews.com/news/kelloggs-will-replace-striking-...
- bhhaskin 5y ago
  If they are permanently replacing the old workers that pretty much means they no longer have a job. So yes. They have been fired. Kellogg has announced that.
  - gremlinsinc 5y ago
    In an economy where finding workers is really tough, where target, walmart, etc have had to raise min wage to 15+ and add free college tuition.... They cannot fire the employees in question, they can only replace them 1:1 and w/ the amount of publicity, and the striking it's bound to deter a lot of potential applicants, and with people using automated and manual methods to spoof applications --some presumably locally even going through the entire application process, going through training, and quitting day one on the floor... seems to me like it'll bleed Kellogg's dry long before they ever find the employees they need to continue. They're more likely to fully automate 100% of the plant before they find the staff they need for permanent replacements. I'm seriously betting Kellogg's does a full reversal, esp when profits start to fall, and revenue expectations get dwarfed by the boycotts that are ongoing. Personally, I can do without ever buying poptarts, eggo waffles, or any of their cereal. There's plenty of alternative junk food out there to fill the gap.

dreyfan 5y ago

I would encourage you to look at how prosecutors have successfully utilized the CFAA as a blunt instrument before making analogies that may garner upvotes on HN but wouldn’t reduce a prison sentence. Logic is not part of the CFAA.

josephcsible 5y ago

If something's not okay to do, calling it a protest doesn't make it okay. For example, consider what should happen to someone who robodials 911 to protest police corruption.

tedivm 5y ago
I 100% think this is right to do. The only thing this harms is the company's bottom line, and frankly it's ridiculous how much power corporations already. Your metaphor to police corruption is also why "context" is an important thing. In that case people would actually get hurt, in this case a company loses money. They are different scenarios completely.

onphonenow 5y ago

Be careful with the claim that a "protest" makes something legal. A bunch of trump supports went to Washington to "protest" - not turning out very well for them. Similarly with many other protests (BLM etc etc), folks getting picked up breaking windows, stealing, burning down buildings etc - they don't get off free because it's a protest or there is not something in the law that makes calling something illegal a protest legal.

tedivm 5y ago
> Be careful with the claim that a "protest" makes something legal. No one made that claim.
- onphonenow 5y ago
  There was a claim that because this was a protest it was OK to use code to flood a website with applications. For anyone who has paid attention to CFAA if you have a computer used in interstate commerce and someone knowingly causes the transmission of a program, information, code, or command, and as a result of such conduct, intentionally causes damage without authorization, to a protected computer, then whamo, down you go. This code that has been written to disrupt the operations of this business (Kellog) if it does disrupt their operations and they complain, the person knowingly transmitting it is at risk. Again, calling something a protest is not a free pass.

gruez 5y ago

>These are strikers, not fired employees, and what is happening is a protest Why is this relevant? Does being labeled as a "striker" give you additional legal rights that you wouldn't otherwise have? >It's no different than mailing in a bunch of applications, it's just digital instead. They aren't burning down the offices "not burning down offices" seems like a pretty low bar for acceptable conduct. that doesn't mean their behavior is legal. The obvious analogy would be: would it be legal to spam a pizza restaurant with fake orders? Or spamming a doctor/hospital with fake appointments? Or spamming police departments with fake tips?

fennecfoxen 5y ago
> Does being labeled as a "striker" give you additional legal rights that you wouldn't otherwise have? Actually, yes. For instance, if you are an employee who is striking, you have the right to use racial slurs to abuse and harass employees who are not striking, without being fired for use of those remarks. See Cooper Tire & Rubber Co. v. NLRB. (Remarks included: "Go back to Africa, you bunch of f--- losers!", statements regarding fried chicken, watermelon, etc.) There are a variety of other rights conferred by law.
likpok 5y ago
Being a striker does give additional legal rights you wouldn't other wise have, but I don't think that this is one of them. It's also unclear whether the author or people using the script are actually fired employees or bored teenagers jumping on the bandwagon. Spamming a police department with fake tips is specifically illegal (making a false police report and/or obstruction of justice and/or USC 1001). I'm not sure about fake appointments for a hospital, that seems the most unclear of the cases you've listed.
hello_marmalade 5y ago
Yes, strikes are okay as long as they aren’t inconvenient or worse, effective.