4 ms·

I'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

I'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 ago
This is not just an "actual legal preceding", it is the conclusion of an actual legal preceding: an injunction.
- tony_cannistra 4y ago
  The 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 ago
    Contempt 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 ago
      Do you have examples of executives being jailed for NLRB notice / consent decree violations?
      - phpisthebest 4y ago
        This is not a NLRB notice / consent decree, this is a court order injunctions so the better question would be "Do you have examples of executives being jailed of violations of court orders" which is yes of course there are examples of that
        TylerE 4y ago
        Name some? Even the Enron guys didn't go to jail (mostly).
        lovich 4y ago
        Not the poster you asked but there’s been a few. https://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/16/business/16jail.html https://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/16/business/16jail.html
        ummonk 4y ago
        Wow did not expect the appearance by Sonia Sotomayor at the end.
        freejazz 4y ago
        I'm not sure they violated a court order...
        midoridensha 4y ago
        Being a corporation and doing illegal stuff that directly harms the lives of lots of regular citizens is OK. At worst, there'll be some trial and you might have to pay a big fine. Pissing off a judge, however, is something entirely different.
        Spoom 4y ago
    - ethbr0 4y ago
      To elaborate, a lot of a legal case is determining how an actual situation should be matched to a law. An injunction essentially says: the court has good reason to presume they match in this way, ergo don't do X, Y, and Z while the case proceeds. If you then do X, Y, or Z, you have directly defied a court order, which is itself illegal. So the difference is between being able to construct a defense around "We didn't think what we were doing was illegal" (the original case) vs "We did that thing you told us was illegal while the case proceeds" (violating an injunction). Obviously, it's a lot harder to win a case on the latter.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - adgjlsfhk1 4y ago
    this isn't don't do that again or else, it's "stop doing that because we are charging you with a crime, but it will take a year or two for that to go though all the courts"
paxys 4y ago
Legal proceedings take a while to initiate and even longer (months/years) to conclude. Injunctions are more "do this immediately or be held in contempt of court".
elil17 4y ago
I think the confusing here is between a “cease and desist letter,” which is a letter can anyone to anyone else warning them that you’ll sue them if they don’t stop doing something, and an “injunction to cease and desist”. An injunction is a temporary court ruling made on an urgent matter. The NLRB had to show the court that workers would be permanently harmed if they waited till the full lawsuit was over to force Amazon to stop. Cease and desist just means stop, so you can read this as an injunction to stop firing workers for protesting unsafe working conditions. Edit: I missed that this was about safety protests, not unionization.
Waterluvian 4y ago
An injunction is a legal command, not a demand. This might be semantically dubious. But the former is the judiciary saying, “thou shalt cease and desist.” While the latter is a party saying “stop that or I’ll make life very difficult for us both.”
a1369209993 4y ago
IIUC, the situation is roughly: Amazon: We claim that this thing we're (allegedly) doing is technically not illegal. Court: Fine, you can argue that as a defence, but until you actually win the case, you're ordered to stop doing it anyway, on pain of comtempt of court regardless of whether the thing itself is technically legal. If Amazon were a person, this would be somewhat unfair for SLAPP reasons, but it's not since it's a corporation, so this is fine and reasonable.

bwestergard 4y ago

This is not just an "actual legal preceding", it is the conclusion of an actual legal preceding: an injunction.

tony_cannistra 4y ago
The 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 ago
  Contempt 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 ago
    Do you have examples of executives being jailed for NLRB notice / consent decree violations?
    - phpisthebest 4y ago
      This is not a NLRB notice / consent decree, this is a court order injunctions so the better question would be "Do you have examples of executives being jailed of violations of court orders" which is yes of course there are examples of that
      - TylerE 4y ago
        Name some? Even the Enron guys didn't go to jail (mostly).
        lovich 4y ago
        Not the poster you asked but there’s been a few. https://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/16/business/16jail.html https://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/16/business/16jail.html
        ummonk 4y ago
        Wow did not expect the appearance by Sonia Sotomayor at the end.
        freejazz 4y ago
        I'm not sure they violated a court order...
        midoridensha 4y ago
        Being a corporation and doing illegal stuff that directly harms the lives of lots of regular citizens is OK. At worst, there'll be some trial and you might have to pay a big fine. Pissing off a judge, however, is something entirely different.
      - Spoom 4y ago
  - ethbr0 4y ago
    To elaborate, a lot of a legal case is determining how an actual situation should be matched to a law. An injunction essentially says: the court has good reason to presume they match in this way, ergo don't do X, Y, and Z while the case proceeds. If you then do X, Y, or Z, you have directly defied a court order, which is itself illegal. So the difference is between being able to construct a defense around "We didn't think what we were doing was illegal" (the original case) vs "We did that thing you told us was illegal while the case proceeds" (violating an injunction). Obviously, it's a lot harder to win a case on the latter.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- adgjlsfhk1 4y ago
  this isn't don't do that again or else, it's "stop doing that because we are charging you with a crime, but it will take a year or two for that to go though all the courts"

paxys 4y ago

Legal proceedings take a while to initiate and even longer (months/years) to conclude. Injunctions are more "do this immediately or be held in contempt of court".

elil17 4y ago

I think the confusing here is between a “cease and desist letter,” which is a letter can anyone to anyone else warning them that you’ll sue them if they don’t stop doing something, and an “injunction to cease and desist”. An injunction is a temporary court ruling made on an urgent matter. The NLRB had to show the court that workers would be permanently harmed if they waited till the full lawsuit was over to force Amazon to stop. Cease and desist just means stop, so you can read this as an injunction to stop firing workers for protesting unsafe working conditions. Edit: I missed that this was about safety protests, not unionization.

Waterluvian 4y ago

An injunction is a legal command, not a demand. This might be semantically dubious. But the former is the judiciary saying, “thou shalt cease and desist.” While the latter is a party saying “stop that or I’ll make life very difficult for us both.”

a1369209993 4y ago

IIUC, the situation is roughly: Amazon: We claim that this thing we're (allegedly) doing is technically not illegal. Court: Fine, you can argue that as a defence, but until you actually win the case, you're ordered to stop doing it anyway, on pain of comtempt of court regardless of whether the thing itself is technically legal. If Amazon were a person, this would be somewhat unfair for SLAPP reasons, but it's not since it's a corporation, so this is fine and reasonable.