3 ms·

Headline is misleading. Amazon is claiming it has a First Amendment Right not to disseminate NLRB materials. "The NLRB complaint also seeks an order requiring

by fny 2y ago

Headline 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 ago
How 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 ago
  I 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.

by fny 2y ago

throwup238 2y ago

How 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 ago
I 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.