3 ms·

If I have an agreement with my employer to work at location X, and they decide I have to start working at location Y, they have that right, but I also have the

If I have an agreement with my employer to work at location X, and they decide I have to start working at location Y, they have that right, but I also have the right not to quit and force them to fire me, so I can collect unemployment. Laternatively, my employer could offer a severance package so that we part ways on friendly terms. I am certainly under no obligation to resign.

dmix 3y ago
This complaint has nothing to do with whether someone was told to work at x or x location anyway. The complaint is typical organizing/unionizing type stuff. > The NLRB protects workers’ legal right to engage in “concerted activity,” which is when two or more coworkers band together to address workplace issues. The girl allegedly tried to "organize" other workers on Slack by telling employees who were already planning to resign to "not quit but to get fired".
- ensignavenger 3y ago
  I was responding to the parent comment. The parent comment was likely just making an observation in general, not necessarily about the NRLB complaint.
- kcplate 3y ago
  I think the challenge will be for the employee to try and show that workplace conditions vs, WFH are so much worse to warrant organizing mass subordination as a way to improve it.
  - dmix 3y ago
    Honestly if it's just the two messages they listed where she: > Tweeted: “Don’t resign, let him fire you. You gain literally nothing out of resignation.” > posted on Slack: “Don’t, be fired. Seriously.” This just reads like someone giving advice to workers so they can get more $$. Without some more context this sounds like some hard spin by NRLB as if she was "organizing" workers against a "workplace issue". But I guess forcing a company to fire people is a expression of labour rights or something.
    - kcplate 3y ago
      Yeah that’s unconvincing to me of any real organizational effort. I also keep thinking in my head how showing up to an office wearing something other than pajamas by a 6 figure earner somehow constitutes a work environment worthy of a collective bargaining agreement in the first place. My UAW belonging grandfather who worked standing up on an auto line for 5 decades would probably have been ecstatic to sit in a Herman Miller office chair and eat free snacks all day. He bargained for an extra dollar or two an hour, or a day off or two a month—that was what was important to him, not “the office buys a brand of oat milk that I don’t prefer” level of discomfort we see today.
    - clipsy 3y ago
      > But I guess forcing a company to fire people is a expression of labour rights or something. It is, yes; being fired vs resigning has impacts on unemployment insurance, for starters. Mass firings could involve EEO-related lawsuits while they would be much harder to prove if the affected employees "resigned." And mass firings of a sufficient number could trigger the WARN act for affected employees.
      - kcplate 3y ago
        Assuming the cause leading to the mass firing was just. Losing a WFH benefit for a highly paid but small segment of society really doesn’t arise to the level of an injustice being done.
  - dragonwriter 3y ago
    > I think the challenge will be for the employee to try and show that workplace conditions vs, WFH are so much worse to warrant organizing mass subordination as a way to improve it. No, it won't be/ First, because its the NLRB that needs to make its case, but more significantly because the legal protection against retaliation for workplace organizing doesn't depend at all on a determination as to whether the organizing was "warranted" by how bad the situation was: 29 USC Sec. 157: "Employees shall have the right to self-organization, to form, join, or assist labor organizations, to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing, and to engage in other concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection, and shall also have the right to refrain from any or all of such activities except to the extent that such right may be affected by an agreement requiring membership in a labor organization as a condition of employment as authorized in section 158(a)(3) of this title." 29 USC Sec. 158(a): "It shall be an unfair labor practice for an employer- (1) to interfere with, restrain, or coerce employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in section 157 of this title;"
- minerva23 3y ago
  And then the boy fired the girl for the legally protected activities of talking about work conditions and how they might improve them.
kcplate 3y ago
> and force them to fire me, so I can collect unemployment Good luck with that. If your employer directs you to show up at a location to work and you choose to not show up, you are intentionally subordinate and in all likelihood your employer will dispute your unemployment claim.

dmix 3y ago

This complaint has nothing to do with whether someone was told to work at x or x location anyway. The complaint is typical organizing/unionizing type stuff. > The NLRB protects workers’ legal right to engage in “concerted activity,” which is when two or more coworkers band together to address workplace issues. The girl allegedly tried to "organize" other workers on Slack by telling employees who were already planning to resign to "not quit but to get fired".

ensignavenger 3y ago
I was responding to the parent comment. The parent comment was likely just making an observation in general, not necessarily about the NRLB complaint.
kcplate 3y ago
I think the challenge will be for the employee to try and show that workplace conditions vs, WFH are so much worse to warrant organizing mass subordination as a way to improve it.
- dmix 3y ago
  Honestly if it's just the two messages they listed where she: > Tweeted: “Don’t resign, let him fire you. You gain literally nothing out of resignation.” > posted on Slack: “Don’t, be fired. Seriously.” This just reads like someone giving advice to workers so they can get more $$. Without some more context this sounds like some hard spin by NRLB as if she was "organizing" workers against a "workplace issue". But I guess forcing a company to fire people is a expression of labour rights or something.
  - kcplate 3y ago
    Yeah that’s unconvincing to me of any real organizational effort. I also keep thinking in my head how showing up to an office wearing something other than pajamas by a 6 figure earner somehow constitutes a work environment worthy of a collective bargaining agreement in the first place. My UAW belonging grandfather who worked standing up on an auto line for 5 decades would probably have been ecstatic to sit in a Herman Miller office chair and eat free snacks all day. He bargained for an extra dollar or two an hour, or a day off or two a month—that was what was important to him, not “the office buys a brand of oat milk that I don’t prefer” level of discomfort we see today.
  - clipsy 3y ago
    > But I guess forcing a company to fire people is a expression of labour rights or something. It is, yes; being fired vs resigning has impacts on unemployment insurance, for starters. Mass firings could involve EEO-related lawsuits while they would be much harder to prove if the affected employees "resigned." And mass firings of a sufficient number could trigger the WARN act for affected employees.
    - kcplate 3y ago
      Assuming the cause leading to the mass firing was just. Losing a WFH benefit for a highly paid but small segment of society really doesn’t arise to the level of an injustice being done.
- dragonwriter 3y ago
  > I think the challenge will be for the employee to try and show that workplace conditions vs, WFH are so much worse to warrant organizing mass subordination as a way to improve it. No, it won't be/ First, because its the NLRB that needs to make its case, but more significantly because the legal protection against retaliation for workplace organizing doesn't depend at all on a determination as to whether the organizing was "warranted" by how bad the situation was: 29 USC Sec. 157: "Employees shall have the right to self-organization, to form, join, or assist labor organizations, to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing, and to engage in other concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection, and shall also have the right to refrain from any or all of such activities except to the extent that such right may be affected by an agreement requiring membership in a labor organization as a condition of employment as authorized in section 158(a)(3) of this title." 29 USC Sec. 158(a): "It shall be an unfair labor practice for an employer- (1) to interfere with, restrain, or coerce employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in section 157 of this title;"
minerva23 3y ago
And then the boy fired the girl for the legally protected activities of talking about work conditions and how they might improve them.

kcplate 3y ago

> and force them to fire me, so I can collect unemployment Good luck with that. If your employer directs you to show up at a location to work and you choose to not show up, you are intentionally subordinate and in all likelihood your employer will dispute your unemployment claim.