11 ms·
Federal court requires Amazon to stop firing employees for protected activities
- Terretta 4y agoFrom actual order linked from article: On November 18, 2022, Judge Diane Gujarati of the United States District Court for the District of Eastern New York issued a Section 10(j) injunction against Amazon.com Services LLC directing Amazon to cease and desist from discharging employees, and from engaging in any like or related conduct, in retaliation for employees engaging in protected activities. The injunction also directs Amazon to post, distribute, and read the Court’s order to employees at the Employer’s Staten Island facility (“JFK8”). https://www.nlrb.gov/news-outreach/news-story/nlrb-region-29-wins-federal-court-order-requiring-amazon-to-cease-and https://www.nlrb.gov/news-outreach/news-story/nlrb-region-29...
- dang 4y agoWe've changed the url to that from https://labor411.org/411-blog/federal-judge-orders-amazon-to-cease-and-desist-from-anti-union-retaliation/ https://labor411.org/411-blog/federal-judge-orders-amazon-to..., which copies it. "Please submit the original source. If a post reports on something found on another site, submit the latter." https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
- EarthIsHome 4y ago"Now let the court enforce it." -Andrew Jackson
- ceejayoz 4y agoThe current executive is likely to have a different take.
- nebula8804 4y agoUnclear....he just threw some of his bread and butter people (the unionized rail workers) under the bus(or train).
- thrill 4y agoIt's different when it hurts his constituancy.
- nebula8804 4y agoNo, he has been all over the place. The chips act, the student loan forgiveness(pending), the pro union EV moves pissed off his rich buddies but gave some crumbs to the people who voted for him.
- tyre 4y agoand was extraordinarily hesitant to do so. The supply chains are a mess as it is, the US can’t stomach a rail shutdown this winter, and the votes aren’t there to pass sick leave. Biden isn’t a hypocrite; he’s never been a union absolutist.
- ethbr0 4y agoAnd furthermore, there are a lot of working-class voters who depend on jobs that would be impacted by a rail strike. And the deal the unions were forced to accept was one brokered by the White House after the unions and rail companies couldn't come to agreement. So presumably more than the rail companies would have been willing to settle on, on their own. So in terms of voters pissed off vs voters pleased, he probably comes out ahead on this one.
- yamtaddle 4y agoThe overwhelming sentiment in my friend group, including some blue-collar types who might not work for a while if there's a rail shutdown, was "please, strike—we can take it". We were all shocked to find out how poorly rail workers are treated. Everyone was very unhappy with Congress and Biden screwing them over. But I may be in a bubble.
- miguelazo 4y agoSounds like substantial fines are in order.
- jimt1234 4y agoNot sure if there's any criminal case here, but there should be. Fines, even "substantial fines", never seem to work. When executives start getting perp-walked then things will change.
- jjk166 4y agoThe cost of a fall guy to sit in prison for a few years could be orders of magnitude less than the damages a civil case could cost.
- anonymousab 4y agoIdeally it would be both, and the fall guy would be senior leadership and include the CEO by default. Quite frankly, imprisoning the company is the next step - no access to, control or operation of funds, assets or company systems for the duration of imprisonment. It should be as much of a threat to a company's wellbeing as it is to the average man.
- nerpderp82 4y agoAndrew Jackson was basically Joe Arpaio crossed with Nixon. Below is a comprehensive description of how the US removed Indian's from their land. Andrew Jackson plays a prominent role. They Were Just in the Way | Indian Removal https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A5P6vJs1jmY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A5P6vJs1jmY
- djcannabiz 4y agogreat video. thanks for sharing.
- amazon_illegal 4y ago
- tony_cannistra 4y agoI'm clearly not a lawyer or expert in labor laws, but why a "cease and desist" vs actually initiating legal proceedings against the company? Is it a good-faith action to allow Amazon to change their behavior before an eventual suit is filed? I had thought that we had laws preventing exactly what Amazon is being asked to stop doing. Wouldn't breaking those laws be grounds for legal proceedings?
- bwestergard 4y agoThis is not just an "actual legal preceding", it is the conclusion of an actual legal preceding: an injunction.
- tony_cannistra 4y agoThe article says "The injunction was issued based on a petition for Section 10(j) injunctive relief filed by Kathy Drew King, former Regional Director of Region 29 of the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB)." I had missed this. I guess the NLRB asked for this injunction. I'm still not clear on what if anything changes here though. Again, to me this "injunction" is like a parent saying "don't do that again...or else!" What happens if they don't?
- ISL 4y agoContempt of court charges and a referral to DoJ?
- phpisthebest 4y ago>>What happens if they don't? We let companies get away with alot, but flagrant violations of court orders is one of the few things that will land an executive in a cell
- Spoom 4y agoDo you have examples of executives being jailed for NLRB notice / consent decree violations?
- kevin_thibedeau 4y agoNow do the same for the constructive dismissals of Starbucks union organizers.
- throwntoday 4y ago
- wmeredith 4y agoIt's probably quite large, as it would include those who support the rule of law.
- jrockway 4y agoFiring people for organizing a union is explicitly encoded in law as being illegal. Refusing to publish people's content on your website is covered by no such law; instead, there are laws to the contrary.
- throwntoday 4y agoIf it's illegal how do corporations get away with it? Genuine question.
- NikolaNovak 4y agoPeople and companies get away with illegal stuff until / unless caught, prosecuted and punished. You indicate its a genuine question, but I feel you'd have to have just landed on this planet for that to be the case. In kindergarten there are rules, and not everybody who doesn't follow them gets caught. Or if you have siblings, surely you've noticed they would sometimes get away with stuff - unfairly and agonizingly so. And onward it goes with life.
- DiggyJohnson 4y agoThis is poetic, well put.
- olliej 4y agoIf they’re already breaking the law by firing people, why would an order to obey the law impact anything? Obeying the law is already a requirement?
- jacobr1 4y agoWithout an injunction, the default remedy to civil matters are damages. With an injunction the action can be compelled or prohibited and failure is now subject to _criminal_ penalty. It is one thing to be a manager at a company getting caught with something and incurring a fine or pay-off a plaintiff. It is another to be held criminally liable. I expect the latter to have much more incentive for compliance.
- PhasmaFelis 4y ago"You broke the law. As punishment, we're going to tell you not to break the law anymore." That'll teach 'em.
- elil17 4y agoIt’s a temporary order to get them to stop while the lawsuit continues. They’ll probably be fined, but that could take a long time to work out.
- barbariangrunge 4y agoThe fine will be peanuts compared to the monetary value of avoiding a union
- elil17 4y agoYeah, most of these fines are nothing. It's shameful.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- talkingtab 4y agoI suspect the reason for this is that it postpones the need to resolve the action before providing relief to the workers. Without this notice, Amazon could continue to to illegally fire people and eventually might have to pay a price. With an injunction and a threat of contempt the stakes for Amazon to do that are much much higher. Contempt it not something you want to mess with either as a lawyer or as an entity. This basically says "if you continue to fire people and we find (now or later) that you have done so illegally you will be in contempt. Probably the issue for Amazon is whether they will be able to successfully argue that they had no idea what they were doing was illegal. I'm unclear on what will happen to a lawyer (if anything) for knowingly participating in contempt. Not a lawyer and not a legal expert so just guessing.
- yellow_lead 4y agoWhat happens when a company is found to be in contempt of court?
- simfree 4y agoIdeally the company's officers would be held in contempt and serve time, but realistically it will just be a monetary fine and no real justice will be had for the employees lives who have been disrupted.
- NegativeLatency 4y agoThe system is working as intended
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- s1artibartfast 4y agoIndividuals receive injunctions too for civil proceedings.
- barbariangrunge 4y agoWhat about everybody who isn't a corporation who get's told "ignorance of the law is no excuse"?
- msla 4y ago"Well, John Marshall has made his decision, but now let him enforce it." I'll believe this is more than words when I see something happen to Amazon.
- wolverine876 4y agoThat was said by a US President, who has that power (Constitutionally, if not by precedent). Amazon does not have that power.
- s1artibartfast 4y agoThere's a lot of misinformation in this thread. As far as I can tell, the injunction has nothing to do with unionization activities, but pertains to covid working condition protest. While us labor law does protect unionization efforts, it also protects other forms of worker protest outside of the scope of unionization. Additionally, it is an injunction. This is by definition a order to stop doing something prior to the completion of the complete court case. The final Court decision could come with penalties, or even be decided in Amazon's favor
- neltnerb 4y agoGives a slightly different vibe to them deciding it was a good time to lay off 10,000 employees. I wonder if there's a correlation between people doing protected activities and their manager perhaps thinking they are not doing as good of work. Of course Amazon knows it's better to just do it and spend ten years in court forcing the other side to prove it, rather than going out of their way to make sure managers aren't biasing their recommendations based on who is being a pain about labor rights rather than who is actually doing good work. Seems like a better world would make them very worried about even that perception, much less it being true.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- zephrx1111 4y agoDoes this mean if I do the protected activities now, Amazon will not be able to fire me?
- judge2020 4y agoIn all these situations the firing was illegal, so if you sue(d) then the court could force the employer to reinstate you and compensate you for lost wages.
- nirvgorilla 4y agoNow do the same for saying stuff on the internet.