6 ms·
They're free to leave and should state their reasons. What they're not free to do is disrupt the mission of the company and feel entitled to do so without any c
by bko 3y ago
They're free to leave and should state their reasons. What they're not free to do is disrupt the mission of the company and feel entitled to do so without any consequences. These people weren't fired because they answered some question incorrectly on a mandatory survey. They laid on the floor, prevented people from doing their work and harassed people making many feel uncomfortable. When you see someone like that behaving at your business, do you stop and think "let me hear them out"
It's not complicated.
- lupire 3y agoPlease reread the article, if only the first sentence, which is helpfully formatted in bold type. You missed some crucial details about who was doing what among the fired people.
- crmd 3y agoGoogle disputes this, if you read past the first sentence: >[A]ll of the workers who were fired were “personally and definitively involved in disruptive activity inside our buildings."
- giraffe_lady 3y agoGetting publicly fired and then using your labor rights and bureaucratic processes to draw out the issue seems like a much more effective form of protest than just quitting. Their tactics are good here.
- neverokay 3y agoI doubt that was their plan, since if it was going to go down like this, then you might as well have the cops drag you out the building. Protests don’t work if they can disperse of you that easily or cordon you off to a small block. If only a few of you get arrested and the rest of you disperse, it won’t work. If one of you get arrested, all of you should try to get arrested since they can’t fill up the jails with everyone. If you are not going to go all the way then don’t bother with this shit. I don’t agree with the Jan 6 riots, but they mostly followed through lol. That’s pretty much how you have to do it, and if you have a really good cause (e.g something not retarded like defending trump), you’d have a lot of support. College protesters need to straight up super glue themselves to the campus honestly if they really want to do this. Yes, actually glue on bare skin to surface. Then America can watch as the fire departments remove students one by one off the walls of the campus live lol. Be sticky, protesters.
- giraffe_lady 3y agoYeah fair, I also figure they mostly weren't expecting to get fired. But once you have been you might as well use the system as fully as you can, eke something out of it.
- nickff 3y agoUsing the process seems like ‘abuse of process’ in cases like this where the protesters clearly violated the law and their obligations to their counterparty (in this case their employer).
- giraffe_lady 3y agoWell, whether they did that is not completely clear? That's what the process is there to decide right. But in any case and far more importantly protests have goals they want to achieve and being a pain in the ass is absolutely a valid tactic. Protest movements have rarely accomplished their aims by acting fully within the social preferences of their opponents.
- nickff 3y agoThe problem with this logic is that I’m not sure you’d want it applied when the tables are turned. How would you feel if Israel-supporting lawyers started filing frivolous nuisance suits against these protesters? Still fair game? Keep in mind that these junk suits (in both directions), have negative impacts on other people trying to access the justice system for legitimate reasons.
- giraffe_lady 3y agoThey already do that. And some or maybe all of these people will never be hired again because of zionist activism. Principled restraint from an effective technique has never deterred an opponent from using it themselves. Like look at the last decade of the democrats and their deference to decorum and what that has accomplished.