6 ms·
Amazon CEO Andy Jassy violated labor law with union comments, NLRB rules
- ncr100 2y agohttps://archive.is/dFV2Q https://archive.is/dFV2Q
- ncr100 2y agoConsequences: Amazon must post national-scale notices, authored by the NLRB, that "joining a Union is Okay, and Amazon violated labor laws", effectively.
- metadat 2y agoDiscussed previously: Amazon CEO Andy jassy broke federal labor law with anti-union remarks https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40241774 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40241774 (3 days ago, 30 comments)
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- lnxg33k1 2y agoWho knows if these people realise how idiotic they appear when they pull the free speech thing as it should be something that allows them to live without any law
- anon291 2y agoWell they should be allowed to live without any law that restricts their freedom to speak. Not any law in general, but just those that the constitution, our social contract, protects. In particular, the comments made are in no way a criminal threat, so people have an absolute right to say them, whether the feds agree or not.
- amanaplanacanal 2y agoI’m really not sure what the word “right” means in this case. Normally I would think it means you can do something without punishment, but that doesn’t seem to be the case here.
- anon291 2y agoThe American constitution acknowledges that your rights exist independent of the law, and still exist, even if the government refuses to acknowledge them by punishing you for them. The American constitution is based on the assumption that rights derive from a higher authority that it cannot regulate. This is the sense I'm using it in.
- mrgoldenbrown 2y agoThe Constitution itself doesn't grant corporations any rights. Amazon the corporation is the one being "punished" here, not an individual.
- anon291 2y agoCorporations are free associations of people, which are protected by the first amendment. Your rights don't end the moment you slap a new name on something. Do you actually contend that the first amendment only allows individuals to speak and not groups of individuals? That the right to speak disappears the moment one finds a friend with whom you collaborate? Also, the entire verbiage is incorrect. The Constitution grants no human right. It prevents the American government from interfering with natural rights. Assembly and speech are natural rights. Corporations have rights because they are free groups of people, who all have natural rights. THose don't disappear the moment they band together. Quite the opposite, as I'm sure you know from our shared support for unions.
- SuperNinKenDo 2y agoCan somebody give me the context or argument for why this isn't a straight up violation of free-speech? I came in all ready to side against Amazon, but the article is pretty barren on what led to the decision.
- CogitoCogito 2y agoI can't give you a clear answer, but this seems to have all the case history: https://www.nlrb.gov/case/19-CA-297441 https://www.nlrb.gov/case/19-CA-297441 And the document "Administrative Law Judges Decision" in that case history seems to be the actual decision: https://apps.nlrb.gov/link/document.aspx/09031d4583d193b2 https://apps.nlrb.gov/link/document.aspx/09031d4583d193b2 I guess the section "III. DECISION AND ANALYSIS" is what you're interested in.
- cwillu 2y agoSpeech by company officers is _highly_ regulated.
- cool_dude85 2y agoSame reason it's not a "free speech" issue to punish your boss when she tells you to clock out but keep working, or get fired.
- zoky 2y agoIt’s not at all the same thing. It’s one thing for an employer to make a direct (or even implied) threat to violate the law directed towards an individual or group of employees. It’s quite another for an employer to express an opinion about the merits of a labor union. It’s difficult to see how any reasonable employee could feel threatened, or even influenced (gee, Amazon CEO says “unions bad”, what a shocker) by these remarks. Going after Jassy for this just feels like a “gotcha” tactic, and seems to me like a pretty clear violation of free speech. I think everyone who is saying this shouldn’t be protected probably knows that, but it’s an easy fact to bury when it comes to speech you don’t like. Unfortunately, that is when we most need to defend the First Amendment.
- blackeyeblitzar 2y agoThese ruling feels absurd and is an indication the NLRB is going too far. Speech should not be limited in this way.
- sneak 2y agoWe limit corporate-related speech all of the time. You're not allowed to threaten employees with termination for not enduring illegal activity, for example. You're also not allowed to advertise in certain ways in certain industries: a great example would be the ban on cigarette ads on TV, or the strict regulation around pharmaceutical ads. Whether or not you agree with these decisions, restricting corporate speech is a very common and accepted practice. His speech isn't limited, FWIW - he's allowed to say it, but the company he works for may suffer operational or economic consequences for it. He won't personally go to jail for it.
- sneak 2y agoOh, and if you perhaps think that maybe corporate speech shouldn’t be limited: for an extreme example, while personally lying is protected speech, do you think that businesses should be able to lie in advertising or in-store displays about the price, quality, or terms of the items they sell? I’m pretty much a “free speech absolutist” but if businesses are allowed the same freedom of expression as individuals, our modern system of commerce would break down because it would become game-theory-optimal to lie constantly, much in the way that has already happened in politics.
- pjc50 2y agoYeah, people seem to think that being an employer carries no responsibility at all for the well being of your employees, along with an entitlement to defraud them by lying to them about the law.
- bagful 2y agoWell of course, they might be the boss someday!
- 2y ago
- Admiral_AWS 2y agoWitness me: Jeff Bezos is coming back this/next year to Amazon.
- ChrisArchitect 2y ago[dupe] More discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40241774 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40241774
- zug_zug 2y agoFeels like the right call to me. Consider how big the power asymmetry is at a place like Amazon. You could be on H1B (and therefore will be forced to leave the country if you lose your job), they have the means and capability to record and evaluate everything you communicate. If they could they'd probably try to purchase data on you before hiring you to know whether you are pro-union. If they were secretly monitoring people's email for the word "union" and happening to lay them off there wouldn't be much to stop them. In such a system I think the only way to make sure people feel safe unionizing is for the CEO to say "Unions are allowed, and nobody here will ever be punished for joining one. If anybody at this company holds somebody back from their choice to unionize then that person will be fired."