6 ms·

Employees are free to speak to each other about pay and work issues. Apple isn't obligated to help facilitate that over company-owned channels that are for wo

Employees are free to speak to each other about pay and work issues. Apple isn't obligated to help facilitate that over company-owned channels that are for work communications. edit: I'm not going to delete this idea just because people who want a thing to go their way disagree with it. And it's not right that this opinion has been flagged.

mdhb 2y ago
In the same way you aren’t obligated to spend your free time running around defending the world’s richest company’s quest to limit workers rights but yet here you are.
- tfwnopmt 2y ago
  but nvidia is the richest
  - ttyprintk 2y ago
    Earnings, Apple is quite higher
eru 2y ago
Is that a statement about morality or about legality?
- Schiendelman 2y ago
  [flagged]
  - kalleboo 2y ago
    It's a non-sequitur though, since the complaints include Apple telling employees to take down social media posts and not to participate on online surveys.
firecall 2y ago
No, it's not right! And I agree with you! I truly don't understand why this is contentious.
littlestymaar 2y ago
“Not facilitating” isn't exactly the same as threatening with retaliation though.
- 0xEF 2y ago
  This is the correct take. In the US, workers discussing issues like wages is a protected right (NLRB stuff). Nowhere does that imply a company has to act on that talk. That's up to the company. However, it is quite clearly stated by the NLRB that the company cannot threaten or retaliate. In my former position, I had this come up twice, much to my surprise. In both cases, I advised the company of the employee's rights, then recommended a discussion to determine why the employee was dissatisfied. In both cases (though one was much more stubborn than the other), we ended up with favorable outcomes for both company and employee. It can be done, but orgs the size of Apple are more likely to just buy the ability to do whatever they want, anyway. No fine will stop that behavior.
saagarjha 2y ago
Yes they are. This is a legal right workers have.
- supernova87a 2y ago
  Nope. https://www.shrm.org/topics-tools/employment-law-compliance/nlrb-upholds-ban-using-company-e-mail-union-organizing https://www.shrm.org/topics-tools/employment-law-compliance/...
  - saagarjha 2y ago
    Did you read the decision? The company must provide some means of doing this. They’re allowed to say “ok email is for work only” but if they have a platform that is used for non-work communication then it must be able to host union and pay-related communication. Apple has one: Slack.
    - supernova87a 2y ago
      It might be good to follow your own advice and read legal judgements more carefully. The company doesn't have to do anything. And certainly not actively provide employees with tools to engage in union organizing communications amongst themselves. That's laughable, I'm surprised you believe it. The ruling is that companies can restrict employees from using the company's assets to communicate about union activities, if they have other means to do so. Employees generally have other means to do so. That is light years different from "the company must provide some means of doing this".
      - saagarjha 2y ago
        I don't know why you are so surprised given this decision actually overturns a previous one that basically ruled that not only must there be some means of this communication, but that the employer can't choose what it is (Purple Communications as mentioned in the post). So at one point the rules were actually stronger than they are now. The decision requires that there must be some way for employees to communicate and organize among themselves. Generally courts take a dim view of things like "yes you could technically do it if you broke our policies to grab people's numbers and then started a Signal group". So I don't actually agree with your interpretation of what the ruling says that employers don't have to do anything. I will also note that, while unrelated, employers must provide employees with tools to organize in the physical space (e.g. by putting up posters in common areas). Your shock at the existence of these rules is unwarranted. I would definitely not use company resources to organize if I could avoid it just because it seems like a lot of trouble that is probably not worth it, but there definitely are protections around this kind of thing.
guax 2y ago
Discussions about pay and work issues ARE WORK RELATED COMMUNICATIONS. You had to say its work issues on the same sentence. Thats the law as well because it makes sense.
- supernova87a 2y ago
  Just because you feel it is and you want it to be true, doesn't make it so. It's important to learn to separate advocacy of a position from your analysis of facts. Work-related communications are generally at the decision of the employer, not the employee. https://www.shrm.org/topics-tools/employment-law-compliance/nlrb-upholds-ban-using-company-e-mail-union-organizing https://www.shrm.org/topics-tools/employment-law-compliance/...
  - guax 2y ago
    Salary discussion is protected, is not a feeling. https://www.nlrb.gov/about-nlrb/rights-we-protect/your-rights/your-rights-to-discuss-wages https://www.nlrb.gov/about-nlrb/rights-we-protect/your-right... Union organisation should also be part of those protections but the US is still in the 1800 of labour rights for the time being.
    - supernova87a 2y ago
      You need to gain a more educated understanding of the law and what your rights are, and are not. A right to do something does not extend to taking over someone else's means to do it. You are free to talk to someone in person about your wages. You are not free to use my equipment to do it. Or to bill me for your time spent discussing it. By your logic, a union organizer should be entitled to photocopy union organizing fliers on a company copy machine. But you are not.
      - guax 2y ago
        I am well educated on the subject. You just want me to side with the company not only against data that shows unions are beneficial to society in general but against my own self interest that would benefit me as an employee. Notice that I would say that printing union fliers on company printers is fine to not allow, we can have different areas where we draw lines. I think sending an email to employees that a discussion is happening about union is fine. You seem to be on the camp of since the line can be drawn anywhere it should be drawn on the extreme that benefits the employer. As if me asking Jenna over slack what her bonus was is incredibly taxing on the company for some reason. The only reason that you don't want this to happen over email or company slack/messaging is to prevent this communications to happen at all.
valbaca 2y ago
Read the law

mdhb 2y ago

In the same way you aren’t obligated to spend your free time running around defending the world’s richest company’s quest to limit workers rights but yet here you are.

tfwnopmt 2y ago
but nvidia is the richest
- ttyprintk 2y ago
  Earnings, Apple is quite higher

eru 2y ago

Is that a statement about morality or about legality?

Schiendelman 2y ago
[flagged]
- kalleboo 2y ago
  It's a non-sequitur though, since the complaints include Apple telling employees to take down social media posts and not to participate on online surveys.

firecall 2y ago

No, it's not right! And I agree with you! I truly don't understand why this is contentious.

littlestymaar 2y ago

“Not facilitating” isn't exactly the same as threatening with retaliation though.

0xEF 2y ago
This is the correct take. In the US, workers discussing issues like wages is a protected right (NLRB stuff). Nowhere does that imply a company has to act on that talk. That's up to the company. However, it is quite clearly stated by the NLRB that the company cannot threaten or retaliate. In my former position, I had this come up twice, much to my surprise. In both cases, I advised the company of the employee's rights, then recommended a discussion to determine why the employee was dissatisfied. In both cases (though one was much more stubborn than the other), we ended up with favorable outcomes for both company and employee. It can be done, but orgs the size of Apple are more likely to just buy the ability to do whatever they want, anyway. No fine will stop that behavior.

saagarjha 2y ago

Yes they are. This is a legal right workers have.

supernova87a 2y ago
Nope. https://www.shrm.org/topics-tools/employment-law-compliance/nlrb-upholds-ban-using-company-e-mail-union-organizing https://www.shrm.org/topics-tools/employment-law-compliance/...
- saagarjha 2y ago
  Did you read the decision? The company must provide some means of doing this. They’re allowed to say “ok email is for work only” but if they have a platform that is used for non-work communication then it must be able to host union and pay-related communication. Apple has one: Slack.
  - supernova87a 2y ago
    It might be good to follow your own advice and read legal judgements more carefully. The company doesn't have to do anything. And certainly not actively provide employees with tools to engage in union organizing communications amongst themselves. That's laughable, I'm surprised you believe it. The ruling is that companies can restrict employees from using the company's assets to communicate about union activities, if they have other means to do so. Employees generally have other means to do so. That is light years different from "the company must provide some means of doing this".
    - saagarjha 2y ago
      I don't know why you are so surprised given this decision actually overturns a previous one that basically ruled that not only must there be some means of this communication, but that the employer can't choose what it is (Purple Communications as mentioned in the post). So at one point the rules were actually stronger than they are now. The decision requires that there must be some way for employees to communicate and organize among themselves. Generally courts take a dim view of things like "yes you could technically do it if you broke our policies to grab people's numbers and then started a Signal group". So I don't actually agree with your interpretation of what the ruling says that employers don't have to do anything. I will also note that, while unrelated, employers must provide employees with tools to organize in the physical space (e.g. by putting up posters in common areas). Your shock at the existence of these rules is unwarranted. I would definitely not use company resources to organize if I could avoid it just because it seems like a lot of trouble that is probably not worth it, but there definitely are protections around this kind of thing.

guax 2y ago

Discussions about pay and work issues ARE WORK RELATED COMMUNICATIONS. You had to say its work issues on the same sentence. Thats the law as well because it makes sense.

supernova87a 2y ago
Just because you feel it is and you want it to be true, doesn't make it so. It's important to learn to separate advocacy of a position from your analysis of facts. Work-related communications are generally at the decision of the employer, not the employee. https://www.shrm.org/topics-tools/employment-law-compliance/nlrb-upholds-ban-using-company-e-mail-union-organizing https://www.shrm.org/topics-tools/employment-law-compliance/...
- guax 2y ago
  Salary discussion is protected, is not a feeling. https://www.nlrb.gov/about-nlrb/rights-we-protect/your-rights/your-rights-to-discuss-wages https://www.nlrb.gov/about-nlrb/rights-we-protect/your-right... Union organisation should also be part of those protections but the US is still in the 1800 of labour rights for the time being.
  - supernova87a 2y ago
    You need to gain a more educated understanding of the law and what your rights are, and are not. A right to do something does not extend to taking over someone else's means to do it. You are free to talk to someone in person about your wages. You are not free to use my equipment to do it. Or to bill me for your time spent discussing it. By your logic, a union organizer should be entitled to photocopy union organizing fliers on a company copy machine. But you are not.
    - guax 2y ago
      I am well educated on the subject. You just want me to side with the company not only against data that shows unions are beneficial to society in general but against my own self interest that would benefit me as an employee. Notice that I would say that printing union fliers on company printers is fine to not allow, we can have different areas where we draw lines. I think sending an email to employees that a discussion is happening about union is fine. You seem to be on the camp of since the line can be drawn anywhere it should be drawn on the extreme that benefits the employer. As if me asking Jenna over slack what her bonus was is incredibly taxing on the company for some reason. The only reason that you don't want this to happen over email or company slack/messaging is to prevent this communications to happen at all.

valbaca 2y ago

Read the law