Once again I'm not positing a right to "science-based discussion".
I'm saying the right to discuss workplace issues, granted by the NLRA, should include science-based discussion of these issues.
I'm saying the right to discuss workplace issues, granted by the NLRA, should include science-based discussion of these issues.
Edit because rate limited:
The problem is not what was said, necessarily, but the way in which it was said. Hence citing the Honda ruling.
This is at least my, not-a-lawyer interpretation. That is, just because you are saying something to discuss workplace issues does not give you the right to say literally anything. Sufficiently disruptive discussion of workplace issues is still disruptive enough to merit a response, not because of the content, but because it is disruptive.
Apparently the NLRB draws the line for sufficiently disruptive somewhere before "results in the demonstrated loss of multiple perspective candidates".
> the statements regarding biological differences between the sexes were so harmful, discriminatory, and disruptive as to be unprotected.
Notice the reason the NLRB gave in this statement for why they are unprotected: not because they are unrelated to the discussion of workplace issues, but because they are offensive.
It matters little what you see in the memo. Google and the NLRB saw enough to terminate his employment, and to uphold that termination. This is generally how at-will employment works.
You don't care what the memo actually says? Then what's the basis of your opinions on this matter?
He said it doesn't matter how you interpret the memo.
Throughout this discussion I mostly see people stating their own opinions with nary a quote from the actual memo.