4 ms·
I specifically mentioned the private sector twice. I go back and forth, and I only started off with government because it was contextual where I was replying. I
by trulyawful 5y ago
I specifically mentioned the private sector twice. I go back and forth, and I only started off with government because it was contextual where I was replying. It has never happened to me in either context and I left Apple quite acrimoniously.
Apple lying at all is bad. It doesn’t matter to who. It’s potential liability if a candidate gets wind of it, but if these folks are going after the NLRB to address the concern, I suspect it means their lawyer told them they don’t have a case (probably because Apple confirmed their role accurately to the investigation in question regardless of what the credit reporting database says, I would guess).
- sangnoir 5y ago> I suspect it means their lawyer told them they don’t have a case Since we're speculating, my take is that having the NLRB investigate the issue first and finding Apple was being punitive would bolster their civic case, and give them more leverage in the eventual settlement - they'll skip from having to prove Apple caused harm directly to how much harm was done. Besides, outsourcing the investigations to the NLRB would cost them less (discovery is expensive!), and the NLRB has a clear mandate and can't be bogged down by appeals and other forms of delaying legal warfare. The NLRB is also likely to cast a broader net, and better resourced.
- trulyawful 5y agoThat’s a better take than mine. Good read.
- codehitchhiker 5y agoI can assure you many lawyers have told me I do have a case. I went to the NLRB because the law that was being violated was the NLRA, and I was filing charges on behalf of others, not just me.