3 ms·

The ever important thing here is what will constitute sabotage going forward. I imagine a follow up lawsuit will be that general striking is sabotage, in some

The ever important thing here is what will constitute sabotage going forward. I imagine a follow up lawsuit will be that general striking is sabotage, in some way. For instance because routine maintenance is not performed equipment becomes damaged by proxy, sort of stuff. It opens up a possible slippery slope going forward on this.

ok_dad 3y ago
Software engineers no longer able to quit jobs they hate or they get sued for destroying company value. Cher this all you want, first they came for the trade unionists…
- erik_seaberg 3y ago
  I get to say I’m not coming in tomorrow. I do not get to start a risky data migration and then abandon it; that’s unprofessional.
  - ok_dad 3y ago
    What if you strike and the company sues you because the system has a bug and there was no one there to fix it? When is it acceptable for a software engineer working on software running 24/7 to strike? Let me know, because a ruling like this could be interpreted in many ways.
    - erik_seaberg 3y ago
      I wouldn't deploy a risky change immediately before a strike, for the same reason I wouldn't do that and go on a road trip. If it's been in prod a day or two and we didn't see a need to roll it back, it's just part of the system now, and the replacement workers can deal with it.
draw_down 3y ago
[dead]
claytongulick 3y ago
While I definitely agree that slippery slope is a real thing and not a fallacy, I'm not sure about it in this case. From everything I've read, courts are mostly very practical minded and make the narrowest decision possible given the facts of the case. Legal precedent has given rise to nutsy stuff like massive federal power expansion and the entire DEA being based off of the ICC in Wikard v. Filburn [1], that stands out as an exception to me. Normally these things are pointed and decided based on narrow and concrete circumstances. It's generally bad headlines (like this one) that sensationalize them. [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wickard_v._Filburn https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wickard_v._Filburn

ok_dad 3y ago

Software engineers no longer able to quit jobs they hate or they get sued for destroying company value. Cher this all you want, first they came for the trade unionists…

erik_seaberg 3y ago
I get to say I’m not coming in tomorrow. I do not get to start a risky data migration and then abandon it; that’s unprofessional.
- ok_dad 3y ago
  What if you strike and the company sues you because the system has a bug and there was no one there to fix it? When is it acceptable for a software engineer working on software running 24/7 to strike? Let me know, because a ruling like this could be interpreted in many ways.
  - erik_seaberg 3y ago
    I wouldn't deploy a risky change immediately before a strike, for the same reason I wouldn't do that and go on a road trip. If it's been in prod a day or two and we didn't see a need to roll it back, it's just part of the system now, and the replacement workers can deal with it.

draw_down 3y ago

[dead]

claytongulick 3y ago

While I definitely agree that slippery slope is a real thing and not a fallacy, I'm not sure about it in this case. From everything I've read, courts are mostly very practical minded and make the narrowest decision possible given the facts of the case. Legal precedent has given rise to nutsy stuff like massive federal power expansion and the entire DEA being based off of the ICC in Wikard v. Filburn [1], that stands out as an exception to me. Normally these things are pointed and decided based on narrow and concrete circumstances. It's generally bad headlines (like this one) that sensationalize them. [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wickard_v._Filburn https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wickard_v._Filburn