4 ms·

This is a strange one.. I honestly don't see how Mozilla are at fault here, regardless of their practices of hiring people with Unions for example, I'm not sure

This is a strange one.. I honestly don't see how Mozilla are at fault here, regardless of their practices of hiring people with Unions for example, I'm not sure they can be forced to hire someone who on a qualification level is fine but who might not be a fit for the companies morals. I don't know how the labor board plans to prove this one.. I suppose it will be interesting to see what comes out of the subpoenas though, always amazes me how blatant people can be on electronic recorded communications.

DistractionRect 3y ago
Unless they out and out gave that as the reason they didn't hire her, it's unlikely they'll be able to prove it. They're basically hoping this doesn't get tossed out the door and they'll get lucky with discovery. I wouldn't be surprised if she has misrepresented the case to the NLRB in order to get them to run with it, as I don't see why they would pick this battle otherwise. On a broader note, it seems pretty plain that any outcome here won't be desirable. If the claim is provably true, and they are forced to hire her, they'll find a way to remove her like Apple did. Likely through bad performance reviews and a PIP. In any case, coming across as a sue happy crusader is a good way to get future applications elsewhere sorted right to the trash. Edit: clarity
- dragonwriter 3y ago
  > I wouldn't be surprised if she has misrepresented the case to the NLRB in order to get them to run with it, The NLRB complaint was filed in February, 2022. The NLRB completed its investigation and decided to file charges in November, 2023. Presumably, Mozilla had an opportunity to show this "misrepresentation" to the NLRB during the intervening 21 months. [0] While there is no complainant name, this seems to be the case: https://www.nlrb.gov/case/32-CA-290382 https://www.nlrb.gov/case/32-CA-290382
dragonwriter 3y ago
> I honestly don't see how Mozilla are at fault here Well, yeah, AFAICT no one has bothered to do an FOIA request and get even the publicly-disclosable part of the complaint and publish it, so no one really knows anything. > regardless of their practices of hiring people with Unions Since there are specific legal protections for that, if they do what is proven (to the civil preponderance of the evidence standard) to be discriminating against people with an organizing background, they absolutely are legally at fault. > I'm not sure they can be forced to hire someone who on a qualification level is fine but who might not be a fit for the companies morals. If the "morals" in question are about things which are activities legally protected from hiring discrimination, they absolutely can be. This isn't even a little bit unclear,

DistractionRect 3y ago

Unless they out and out gave that as the reason they didn't hire her, it's unlikely they'll be able to prove it. They're basically hoping this doesn't get tossed out the door and they'll get lucky with discovery. I wouldn't be surprised if she has misrepresented the case to the NLRB in order to get them to run with it, as I don't see why they would pick this battle otherwise. On a broader note, it seems pretty plain that any outcome here won't be desirable. If the claim is provably true, and they are forced to hire her, they'll find a way to remove her like Apple did. Likely through bad performance reviews and a PIP. In any case, coming across as a sue happy crusader is a good way to get future applications elsewhere sorted right to the trash. Edit: clarity

dragonwriter 3y ago
> I wouldn't be surprised if she has misrepresented the case to the NLRB in order to get them to run with it, The NLRB complaint was filed in February, 2022. The NLRB completed its investigation and decided to file charges in November, 2023. Presumably, Mozilla had an opportunity to show this "misrepresentation" to the NLRB during the intervening 21 months. [0] While there is no complainant name, this seems to be the case: https://www.nlrb.gov/case/32-CA-290382 https://www.nlrb.gov/case/32-CA-290382

dragonwriter 3y ago

> I honestly don't see how Mozilla are at fault here Well, yeah, AFAICT no one has bothered to do an FOIA request and get even the publicly-disclosable part of the complaint and publish it, so no one really knows anything. > regardless of their practices of hiring people with Unions Since there are specific legal protections for that, if they do what is proven (to the civil preponderance of the evidence standard) to be discriminating against people with an organizing background, they absolutely are legally at fault. > I'm not sure they can be forced to hire someone who on a qualification level is fine but who might not be a fit for the companies morals. If the "morals" in question are about things which are activities legally protected from hiring discrimination, they absolutely can be. This isn't even a little bit unclear,