2 ms·
Defining it legally would require careful consideration, but there is an obvious intuitive difference between telling employees unions are bad and mandating tha
by 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 agoIt 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”;