6 ms·
Amazon Says It Has a First Amendment Right to Union Bust
- meta_x_ai 2y ago[flagged]
- exceptione 2y agoI am not sure if Bezos really planned to overtake the union, but is an excellent suggestion, mr Burns. Excellent!
- 38 2y agowhy is exactly why corporations should not be "people", to prevent this idiocy.
- samatman 2y agoCorporate personhood, a legal fiction, is not relevant here. The First Amendment in plain words protects the free speech rights of corporations, by referring to "the press". I have no opinion on what Amazon is doing, but they have a right to object to things on First Amendment grounds. Edit: having read the blurb, there's a solid case to be made that captive-audience meetings are an illegal speech act, the same way that you aren't allowed to corner someone in an alley and say "give me your wallet". Having First Amendment rights, which corporations do, does not give them license to violate the law through acts of free speech. It isn't the speaking which is proscribed in those cases, but the illegal act conveyed through speech.
- danaris 2y ago> The First Amendment in plain words protects the free speech rights of corporations, by referring to "the press". Amazon is not "the press". That is very clearly referring to news/journalism, not "anything any company happens to communicate". The First Amendment protects the free speech rights of people, not companies acting outside of a journalistic context.
- samatman 2y agoNo. That puts the government in control of deciding who is, and is not, the press. Which is contrary to the letter and spirit of the First Amendment, which was, in fact, explicitly, written to preclude that possibility. Your statement is also dead wrong on the face of it. https://amazonpublishing.amazon.com https://amazonpublishing.amazon.com
- marcosdumay 2y agoThat's not it. A person can't send threats to other people either. It's not something specific to corporations.
- jncfhnb 2y agoYou can send threats of particular kinds
- marcosdumay 2y agoYes, but "if you form an union I'll fire you" is a kind that is explicitly forbidden. It doesn't matter if the speech is named after a real person or not.
- nine_zeros 2y agoCorporations should only be considered as "people" if the executives and shareholders can be put to jail for criminal offenses - such as supplying poison to individuals.
- geodel 2y agoIndeed, can't wait to see teachers, firefighters, and other state and federal employees going to prison as their pension funds get invested in corporations committing crimes.
- Supermancho 2y agoYes, this would be the consequence. People would stop investing in these companies, knowing the consequence. The flip a switch send people to jail fantasy, is silly handwaving.
- nine_zeros 2y ago> Yes, this would be the consequence. People would stop investing in these companies, knowing the consequence. The flip a switch send people to jail fantasy, is silly handwaving. Or. just take away corporate personhood and the investors will no longer by liable for jail time.
- snickerbockers 2y agoContrapositively if we can't punish corporations for breaking the law the way we punish people, then the corporations must not be people and we shouldn't endow them with all the freedoms and rights that actual people have.
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- ilyagr 2y agoBy this logic, mugging somebody at gunpoint is protected by the first and second amendment. I exercised my right to free speech and to bear arms, and then they voluntarily gave me all they had. If a citizen claims this -- ridiculous. But if a corporation or the president did it, and with the current supreme court -- who knows. *Update:* But see also https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41947360 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41947360, which is a more murky issue that would need some actual legal expertise to talk about. Maybe it's just an article with a misleading headline, depending on what's actually being claimed.
- jjtheblunt 2y ago[flagged]
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- jjtheblunt 2y agowhy on earth did a legit question get flagged? that's counterproductive.
- rootusrootus 2y agoI feel like we should make civil rights for individuals as expansive as possible, but it would be perfectly okay to put much tighter limits on what kind of free speech protection a corporation gets. I also do not see this as a first amendment issue anyway. Amazon can say anything they want, but when they force employees to listen to it, that is very different.
- dhd415 2y agoThere are certainly legitimate concerns about the influence of Amazon and other large corporations, but the solution is not so simple as what you suggest. Corporations are associations of people, so you are advocating for civil rights for individuals up until they associate with others and act or speak collectively. That would be radically detrimental to the meaning of civil rights.
- andrewmcwatters 2y agoThis concept muddies the waters, and as a society we should be keen to identify concepts that do just that. It’s simple enough to draw the line at registered organizations. These entities after all are afforded distinct legal privileges.
- twoodfin 2y agoRegistered organizations like the New York Times Company?
- dhd415 2y agoOrganizations such as the ACLU and the American Red Cross are registered organizations and I doubt you'd advocate for restricting or redefining their civil rights. Perhaps you'd draw the line at for-profit organizations, but that doesn't make it better. Should Ben & Jerry's or Patagonia or other corporations with notable positions on social issues not enjoy the protection of civil rights from those who oppose them? The bottom line is that any restriction or redefinition of civil rights is fraught with negative unintended consequences. It should be an option chosen with extreme care.
- danielktdoranie 2y ago[flagged]
- fny 2y agoHeadline is misleading. Amazon is claiming it has a First Amendment Right not to disseminate NLRB materials. "The NLRB complaint also seeks an order requiring that Amazon publicly post the NLRB explanation of employee rights for one year; provide laid-off workers with a “neutral letter of reference” that says their performance was “satisfactory” and does not mention “the circumstances surrounding their termination of employment”; permit the NLRB to train management on unfair labor practices; and provide the regional board director with written proof of compliance." I'm sympathetic to unions, but its pretty obvious why a First Amendment argument tracks.
- throwup238 2y agoHow is this any different to all the OSHA safety and employee rights posters that state and federal governments require employers to put up? How about those health code signs telling employees to wash their hands or the restaurant letter grades? If their argument tracks what’s the point of even having regulatory agencies. Anything they order their industry to do will be against either freedom of speech or of association.
- fny 2y agoI grant that "explanation of employee rights for one year" will likely fail as an argument since (I assume) that signage meets the standard of content-neutrality.[0] However, forcing an employer to provide a neutral letter of reference which does not mention the circumstances of termination seems like a blatant violation of the First Amendment. [0]: """ Content-neutral “time, place and manner” regulations of a public forum are valid if they are narrowly tailored to serve a substantial government interest, and they leave open ample alternative means for communicating the same information """ https://www.meyersnave.com/wp-content/uploads/attorneys/Sign%20Regulations%20and%20the%20First%20Amendment.pdf https://www.meyersnave.com/wp-content/uploads/attorneys/Sign...
- Terr_ 2y ago> Headline is misleading. Amazon is claiming it has a First Amendment Right not to disseminate NLRB materials. Amazon has made multiple claims--not just that one--and the headline is referring to the group. In any case, that claim is weak because there's no confusion of authorship or endorsement, employees can tell that the company is delivering something on the behalf of someone else. (Ironically, It's also what the company is known for generally.) I wonder what would happen if Amazon refused to print out W-2 tax forms and made the same argument.
- andrewmg 2y agoWhat a tendentious headline. Of course an employer has the right to hold an information session for its employees and convey its views. The Supreme Court held in 1941 that nothing in the National Labor Relations Act prohibits an employer "from expressing its view on labor policies or problems" unless the employer's speech "in connection with other circumstances [amounts] to coercion within the meaning of the Act." NLRB v. Virginia Elec. & Power Co., 314 U.S. 469, 477. Subsequently, in 1947 Congress enacted an express speech protection in NLRA § 8(c): "The expressing of any views, argument, or opinion, or the dissemination thereof, whether in written, printed, graphic, or visual form, shall not constitute or be evidence of an unfair labor practice under any of the provisions of this subchapter, if such expression contains no threat of reprisal or force or promise of benefit." That provision "implements the First Amendment," NLRB v. Gissel Packing Co., 395 U.S. 575, 617 (1969). It also manifested a "congressional intent to encourage free debate on issues dividing labor and management." Linn v. Plant Guard Workers, 383 U.S. 53, 62 (1966). So, yes, it has been well established for nearly as long as we've had federal labor law that employers can tell their employees why they think unionization is a bad idea. The First Amendment guarantees them that right, and Congress also guaranteed it by statute. And those rights obviously apply to statements like (from the article) "Unions make money by collecting dues from their members." One can certainly disagree with such a message, but the notion (asserted by a union attorney quoted in the article) that speech protections don't apply to employer speech is bonkers.
- stevenAthompson 2y agoIs there any similar guarantee that an employee can respond by sharing their contrary opinion without consequences? If not this seems less like freedom of speech and more like an implied threat.
- ilyagr 2y agoIt's one thing to say these things. I'm sure Amazon has a website somewhere saying such things, for anybody who wants to read them, that's fine. It's another to obligate people to listen or to threaten them, explicitly or implicitly, about things you might do if they vote a certain way. Illustrating this difference is why I posted https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41947141 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41947141.
- hintymad 2y agoA related question: a union in a private business is balanced the company's financial health and the risk of bankruptcy. What about union in a government? The government won't go under, at least very unlikely. So, the union can just keep increasing its influence and demand. How would we balance their power?
- naikrovek 2y agoIf there is anything I know deeply in my bones, it’s that if there is something that is good for a huge company, it is likely bad for everyone else. The inverse is also usually true: anything that is bad for a huge company is likely good for everyone else. The motivations of a huge company like Amazon are reliably very different than the needs of anything else. So much so that you can count on what a large company wants to be always bad for individuals or groups of individuals, including the group comprised solely of the employees of the company.