3 ms·
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.” > po
by 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 agoYeah 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 agoAssuming 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.