3 ms·

Certainly not. In a similar vein, the employees don't own their position at the company. Employment arrangements are made through mutual agreements. If the co

Certainly not. In a similar vein, the employees don't own their position at the company. Employment arrangements are made through mutual agreements. If the company says something an employee doesn't like, the employee is free to leave. If the employee says something the company doesn't like, the company is free to dismiss the employee. It's astounding that the NRLB is defending an insubordination termination after accusations were made against the executive. This is pretty obviously a political prosecution and the end result won't be good for anyone.

richbell 3y ago
> In a similar vein, the employees don't own their position at the company. Employment arrangements are made through mutual agreements. > If the company says something an employee doesn't like, the employee is free to leave. > If the employee says something the company doesn't like, the company is free to dismiss the employee. If an employee loses their job they may not be able to pay rent or buy groceries. If SpaceX fires an employee they have 10,000+ that can pick up the slack. Similarly, companies often have large legal teams on retainer whereas getting legal repression can be difficult for individuals. It's not an equal playing field, hence why workers protections are important.
- throwaway09223 3y ago
  > It's not an equal playing field, hence why workers protections are important. That's why unemployment is important. None of these factors prevent someone from being let go without notice. Those points aren't germane to whether someone can be laid off. Criticizing the CEO isn't a protected activity in any event.
  - Sleaker 3y ago
    But criticizing the way the rules are being enforced and the selective nature of them IS a protected activity. This is clearly detailed in the article and suit.
    - throwaway09223 3y ago
      It's an accusation. It's incorrect. Let's wait and see what results from the litigation.
gambiting 3y ago
>>If the employee says something the company doesn't like, the company is free to dismiss the employee. Except they are not, even in the US with its meagre employee protections there are entire classes of protected activity that you cannot be fired for, and discussing your working conditions while at work(and being critical of them) is protected. >>This is pretty obviously a political prosecution Going after the people who break the law is political now? Fascinating. What's next, we let burglars walk free if they are of a specific political belief?
- throwaway09223 3y ago
  > discussing your working conditions while at work(and being critical of them) is protected. Discussing working conditions is unrelated to criticizing the CEO. > Going after the people who break the law is political now? They didn't break the law. Wait and see.
  - gambiting 3y ago
    Criticizing your boss is not related to talking about your working conditions? How can this possibly be true?
    - throwaway09223 3y ago
      Circulating a letter that levels accusations against the CEO for racism or other political wrongthink is not protected conduct. Come on, don't be ridiculous. The NLRB is operating a farce with this suit. They're used to companies negotiating and not fighting. Their position here is untenable.
      - gambiting 3y ago
        >>Circulating a letter that levels accusations against the CEO for racism or other political wrongthink is not protected conduct. Maybe - I guess the courts will have to decide. But courts also regularly rule that complaining about you boss isn't a valid reason for dismissal - the only difference here is whether doing it on such a wide scale and in this way is or isn't acceptable. I wouldn't call it a farce at all - I think neither one of us can predict what the court will rule here.

richbell 3y ago

> In a similar vein, the employees don't own their position at the company. Employment arrangements are made through mutual agreements. > If the company says something an employee doesn't like, the employee is free to leave. > If the employee says something the company doesn't like, the company is free to dismiss the employee. If an employee loses their job they may not be able to pay rent or buy groceries. If SpaceX fires an employee they have 10,000+ that can pick up the slack. Similarly, companies often have large legal teams on retainer whereas getting legal repression can be difficult for individuals. It's not an equal playing field, hence why workers protections are important.

throwaway09223 3y ago
> It's not an equal playing field, hence why workers protections are important. That's why unemployment is important. None of these factors prevent someone from being let go without notice. Those points aren't germane to whether someone can be laid off. Criticizing the CEO isn't a protected activity in any event.
- Sleaker 3y ago
  But criticizing the way the rules are being enforced and the selective nature of them IS a protected activity. This is clearly detailed in the article and suit.
  - throwaway09223 3y ago
    It's an accusation. It's incorrect. Let's wait and see what results from the litigation.

gambiting 3y ago

>>If the employee says something the company doesn't like, the company is free to dismiss the employee. Except they are not, even in the US with its meagre employee protections there are entire classes of protected activity that you cannot be fired for, and discussing your working conditions while at work(and being critical of them) is protected. >>This is pretty obviously a political prosecution Going after the people who break the law is political now? Fascinating. What's next, we let burglars walk free if they are of a specific political belief?

throwaway09223 3y ago
> discussing your working conditions while at work(and being critical of them) is protected. Discussing working conditions is unrelated to criticizing the CEO. > Going after the people who break the law is political now? They didn't break the law. Wait and see.
- gambiting 3y ago
  Criticizing your boss is not related to talking about your working conditions? How can this possibly be true?
  - throwaway09223 3y ago
    Circulating a letter that levels accusations against the CEO for racism or other political wrongthink is not protected conduct. Come on, don't be ridiculous. The NLRB is operating a farce with this suit. They're used to companies negotiating and not fighting. Their position here is untenable.
    - gambiting 3y ago
      >>Circulating a letter that levels accusations against the CEO for racism or other political wrongthink is not protected conduct. Maybe - I guess the courts will have to decide. But courts also regularly rule that complaining about you boss isn't a valid reason for dismissal - the only difference here is whether doing it on such a wide scale and in this way is or isn't acceptable. I wouldn't call it a farce at all - I think neither one of us can predict what the court will rule here.