3 ms·

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
        > ...The injunction also directs Amazon to post, distribute, and read the Court’s order to employees at the Employer’s Staten Island facility (“JFK8”). But sure, to the wording of the order, they just have to post / distribute / read the order, and: > ...cease and desist from discharging employees, and from engaging in any like or related conduct, in retaliation for employees engaging in protected activities... So what's to prevent Amazon from saying, "we haven't broken the law so far and will continue to not do so," while maintaining business as usual in terms of how they respond to unionization attempts? If anything, what concrete changes are the court requiring here?
        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"

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
      > ...The injunction also directs Amazon to post, distribute, and read the Court’s order to employees at the Employer’s Staten Island facility (“JFK8”). But sure, to the wording of the order, they just have to post / distribute / read the order, and: > ...cease and desist from discharging employees, and from engaging in any like or related conduct, in retaliation for employees engaging in protected activities... So what's to prevent Amazon from saying, "we haven't broken the law so far and will continue to not do so," while maintaining business as usual in terms of how they respond to unionization attempts? If anything, what concrete changes are the court requiring here?
      - 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"