5 ms·

Can 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 arti

Can 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 ago
I 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 ago
Speech by company officers is _highly_ regulated.
cool_dude85 2y ago
Same 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 ago
  It’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.
  - aaomidi 2y ago
    Labor unions being regulated has taken freedom away from both the worker and the employer. This is considered a “reasonable compromise” since the US has seen how effective labor force can be if not regulated. If we are to reverse on this, then we should also note that there is no more “legal” or “illegal” strikes either. The limitations are imposed on both sides, as a way of making sure labor forces don’t literally throw out the entire state with it. Also, note that this punishes the company. Not the CEO. Companies are already regulated and can’t do anything they want.
  - cool_dude85 2y ago
    But you can say "unions are bad." What you can't do is make baseless claims about the concrete outcomes of negotiations, precisely because they are negotiations between two parties. So, for instance, if he says employees will be "less empowered with a union", that's something concrete that depends strongly on what the negotiated contracts with the union look like. How can he possibly know? The only possibility is to interpret it as a threat, e.g. I will not allow for a contract that empowers employees more.
    - SuperNinKenDo 2y ago
      Yeah. I was thinking it might be something like this, which, I mean, it's a somewhat plausible argument if there's some additional context. On its own though, it seems like a bit of a stretch, and I am inclined to think that if you have to stretch that far for something, constitutionally protected rights should prevail. They shouldn't be curtailed on the grounds that somebody's words merely could be interpreted a certain way without at least some evidence that they are either meant to be, and/or will be. I'm sure part of the argument is that he was expressing his opinion while being interviewed as "The CEO of Amazon", not merely being the CEO at the same time as he made the remarks, but still... Having done a bit of reading it seems the judge might not be totally impartial, so that might explain it. So it might just get overturned at a higher court anyway.
  - mrgoldenbrown 2y ago
    Judges don't limit rulings to the literal words used. If a Mafia stooge came into your store and said "nice place ya got here, it'd be a shame if something happened to it" he isn't literally threatening you, but you would feel threatened, and depending on the time and place quite reasonably so . Jassy's remarks were in that vein.
constantcrying 2y ago
All speech laws have exceptions. E.g. it obviously wouldn't be "free speech" if a CEO was lying about company performance to investors. I think what makes this case so weird is where the line is. There are legitimate reasons to not join a union and a company should be allowed to vocalize those reasons, of course the line is being crossed when the company threatens it's employees. But how far did the Amazon CEO go? Unions will add bureaucracy, that is certainly a fact and companies should be allowed to say as much...

CogitoCogito 2y ago

I 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 ago

Speech by company officers is _highly_ regulated.

cool_dude85 2y ago

Same 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 ago
It’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.
- aaomidi 2y ago
  Labor unions being regulated has taken freedom away from both the worker and the employer. This is considered a “reasonable compromise” since the US has seen how effective labor force can be if not regulated. If we are to reverse on this, then we should also note that there is no more “legal” or “illegal” strikes either. The limitations are imposed on both sides, as a way of making sure labor forces don’t literally throw out the entire state with it. Also, note that this punishes the company. Not the CEO. Companies are already regulated and can’t do anything they want.
- cool_dude85 2y ago
  But you can say "unions are bad." What you can't do is make baseless claims about the concrete outcomes of negotiations, precisely because they are negotiations between two parties. So, for instance, if he says employees will be "less empowered with a union", that's something concrete that depends strongly on what the negotiated contracts with the union look like. How can he possibly know? The only possibility is to interpret it as a threat, e.g. I will not allow for a contract that empowers employees more.
  - SuperNinKenDo 2y ago
    Yeah. I was thinking it might be something like this, which, I mean, it's a somewhat plausible argument if there's some additional context. On its own though, it seems like a bit of a stretch, and I am inclined to think that if you have to stretch that far for something, constitutionally protected rights should prevail. They shouldn't be curtailed on the grounds that somebody's words merely could be interpreted a certain way without at least some evidence that they are either meant to be, and/or will be. I'm sure part of the argument is that he was expressing his opinion while being interviewed as "The CEO of Amazon", not merely being the CEO at the same time as he made the remarks, but still... Having done a bit of reading it seems the judge might not be totally impartial, so that might explain it. So it might just get overturned at a higher court anyway.
- mrgoldenbrown 2y ago
  Judges don't limit rulings to the literal words used. If a Mafia stooge came into your store and said "nice place ya got here, it'd be a shame if something happened to it" he isn't literally threatening you, but you would feel threatened, and depending on the time and place quite reasonably so . Jassy's remarks were in that vein.

constantcrying 2y ago

All speech laws have exceptions. E.g. it obviously wouldn't be "free speech" if a CEO was lying about company performance to investors. I think what makes this case so weird is where the line is. There are legitimate reasons to not join a union and a company should be allowed to vocalize those reasons, of course the line is being crossed when the company threatens it's employees. But how far did the Amazon CEO go? Unions will add bureaucracy, that is certainly a fact and companies should be allowed to say as much...