2 ms·

How is it different? The first amendment right, im guessing, extends to the employees making the union-busting speech. Can you mandate that an employee listen t

How is it different? The first amendment right, im guessing, extends to the employees making the union-busting speech. Can you mandate that an employee listen to safety training, where non-compliance means having your contractural employment terminated? To the other absurd arguments about "give me your wallet" as comparable free speech, come on. These are people demanding pay from an employer but wanting to play by different rules not mandated by the US Govt, not somebody out there tilling their own field seeking racketeering protection from an ogre.

rootusrootus 2y ago
Defining it legally would require careful consideration, but there is an obvious intuitive difference between telling employees unions are bad and mandating that they watch safety training. The latter at least has legitimate business value as well as value for the employee themselves. The former benefits only the corporation, at the expense of the employees. Safety training is collectively good, union busting is adversarial. It should not be impossible to make this a legal distinction.
- ethagknight 2y ago
  It is very interesting to watch this play out, because of course the DSPs are effectively extensions of Amazon. The complaint advocates that Unions cannot even be discussed by Amazon with its employees? But the unions, conversely, do have the right to discuss with Amazon employees? This section is wild. NLRB complaint mandates a false testimony of laid-off workers. Whether or not that constitutes some form of fraud, it is extremely unethical. >>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”;

rootusrootus 2y ago

Defining it legally would require careful consideration, but there is an obvious intuitive difference between telling employees unions are bad and mandating that they watch safety training. The latter at least has legitimate business value as well as value for the employee themselves. The former benefits only the corporation, at the expense of the employees. Safety training is collectively good, union busting is adversarial. It should not be impossible to make this a legal distinction.

ethagknight 2y ago
It is very interesting to watch this play out, because of course the DSPs are effectively extensions of Amazon. The complaint advocates that Unions cannot even be discussed by Amazon with its employees? But the unions, conversely, do have the right to discuss with Amazon employees? This section is wild. NLRB complaint mandates a false testimony of laid-off workers. Whether or not that constitutes some form of fraud, it is extremely unethical. >>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”;