3 ms·

I am Jeff's complete lack of surprise... Let's hope the complaint is sustained. It's bad enough that this tactic is even tried. The right to unionize is meanin

I am Jeff's complete lack of surprise... Let's hope the complaint is sustained. It's bad enough that this tactic is even tried. The right to unionize is meaningless if organizers can be silenced this easily. It's difficult to balance at-will employment, the right to fire people for cause, and the protection of union leaders and members. But there have been far too many cases like this in the last few months alone to believe these are all justified by individuals' behavior and not attempts to stop unionization.

AnthonyMouse 5y ago
> But there have been far too many cases like this in the last few months alone to believe these are all justified by individuals' behavior and not attempts to stop unionization. To play devil's advocate, a sociopath could recognize the PR problems it creates for a company to fire someone working toward unionization, and therefore start agitating when it becomes clear they're about to be fired, or just before they do something they know would otherwise be over the line. That doesn't mean everyone working toward unionization is a sociopath, but the population of people fired "while unionizing" will contain both sets of people, and therefore be larger than you might expect.
- KarlKemp 5y ago
  That's not "devil's advocate", that's just an example of the meaning of "difficult to balance". There's this idea in the tech crowd that laws governing circumstances that aren't quantifiable or boolean with zero doubt or error are either entirely impossible or tantamount to just anything-goes subjectivity of judges. But the entire purpose of a system of laws and the courts is to match the ambiguity of the rules to the complexity of life. Because, as it turns out, it's the cases that can be captured by a fixed set of algorithms that are almost non-existent. Which is sort-of the problem "smart contracts" ran into, and that motivated them to create the useless simulation of real-world ownership that is NFTs.
  - AnthonyMouse 5y ago
    > That's not "devil's advocate", that's just an example of the meaning of "difficult to balance". You expressed skepticism that this many people could be fired for legitimate reasons while promoting unions. That makes sense if you assume that misconduct and union organizing are independent variables. But since individuals engaged in misconduct have the incentive to become union organizers to make it more expensive for the company to punish them, that isn't true, and the observed result would be expected either way. Your original argument was that the uncertainty was resolved. > But the entire purpose of a system of laws and the courts is to match the ambiguity of the rules to the complexity of life. The entire purpose of a system of laws and the courts is to let what the law actually says happen unless the balance of political power strongly favors something else happening, in which case the other thing happens and a justification gets retconned by the judge. We all know how big corporations work. They have a big book of rules that nobody reads and therefore everybody violates continuously. Then if anybody screws up or becomes disfavored, management opens up the book to see which rule(s) they violated so they can be punished or fired for cause. It's the same thing that happens with laws and prosecutors. It works the same way whether the reason they're getting fired was the same as the rule they violated or not. It's that way on purpose because it makes it easy for management to fire someone for things they're not allowed to prohibit, by finding something the target did which they are allowed to prohibit. But that still doesn't tell you which thing it was in a particular case, and a judge doesn't have any good way of knowing that either. Probably the best you could do is look at whether there were a lot of other people breaking the rules, but everybody else has the incentive to conceal that because anybody who admits to breaking the rules would be subject to firing as well, which the company would have the incentive to do both to show that they're being consistent and to punish anyone who admits that breaking the rules is common. The ambiguity was created on purpose, but that doesn't make it easy to resolve.
    - stefan_ 5y ago
      I don't understand, did you read the article? The ambiguity was resolved. The board ruled against Amazon. It's just you left arguing some absurd "what if", no part of which makes any sense; Amazon has the funds to pay all the infinitesimally many "bad worker that joins the union drive to avoid being fired" people till the end of the millennia, an obviously better strategy than firing them on bad excuses only to have them publically reinstated with back pay.

AnthonyMouse 5y ago

> But there have been far too many cases like this in the last few months alone to believe these are all justified by individuals' behavior and not attempts to stop unionization. To play devil's advocate, a sociopath could recognize the PR problems it creates for a company to fire someone working toward unionization, and therefore start agitating when it becomes clear they're about to be fired, or just before they do something they know would otherwise be over the line. That doesn't mean everyone working toward unionization is a sociopath, but the population of people fired "while unionizing" will contain both sets of people, and therefore be larger than you might expect.

KarlKemp 5y ago
That's not "devil's advocate", that's just an example of the meaning of "difficult to balance". There's this idea in the tech crowd that laws governing circumstances that aren't quantifiable or boolean with zero doubt or error are either entirely impossible or tantamount to just anything-goes subjectivity of judges. But the entire purpose of a system of laws and the courts is to match the ambiguity of the rules to the complexity of life. Because, as it turns out, it's the cases that can be captured by a fixed set of algorithms that are almost non-existent. Which is sort-of the problem "smart contracts" ran into, and that motivated them to create the useless simulation of real-world ownership that is NFTs.
- AnthonyMouse 5y ago
  > That's not "devil's advocate", that's just an example of the meaning of "difficult to balance". You expressed skepticism that this many people could be fired for legitimate reasons while promoting unions. That makes sense if you assume that misconduct and union organizing are independent variables. But since individuals engaged in misconduct have the incentive to become union organizers to make it more expensive for the company to punish them, that isn't true, and the observed result would be expected either way. Your original argument was that the uncertainty was resolved. > But the entire purpose of a system of laws and the courts is to match the ambiguity of the rules to the complexity of life. The entire purpose of a system of laws and the courts is to let what the law actually says happen unless the balance of political power strongly favors something else happening, in which case the other thing happens and a justification gets retconned by the judge. We all know how big corporations work. They have a big book of rules that nobody reads and therefore everybody violates continuously. Then if anybody screws up or becomes disfavored, management opens up the book to see which rule(s) they violated so they can be punished or fired for cause. It's the same thing that happens with laws and prosecutors. It works the same way whether the reason they're getting fired was the same as the rule they violated or not. It's that way on purpose because it makes it easy for management to fire someone for things they're not allowed to prohibit, by finding something the target did which they are allowed to prohibit. But that still doesn't tell you which thing it was in a particular case, and a judge doesn't have any good way of knowing that either. Probably the best you could do is look at whether there were a lot of other people breaking the rules, but everybody else has the incentive to conceal that because anybody who admits to breaking the rules would be subject to firing as well, which the company would have the incentive to do both to show that they're being consistent and to punish anyone who admits that breaking the rules is common. The ambiguity was created on purpose, but that doesn't make it easy to resolve.
  - stefan_ 5y ago
    I don't understand, did you read the article? The ambiguity was resolved. The board ruled against Amazon. It's just you left arguing some absurd "what if", no part of which makes any sense; Amazon has the funds to pay all the infinitesimally many "bad worker that joins the union drive to avoid being fired" people till the end of the millennia, an obviously better strategy than firing them on bad excuses only to have them publically reinstated with back pay.