https://www.theverge.com/2020/11/4/21549760/uber-lyft-prop-2...
if the owners of the company feels the desire to, they can instruct their employees to perform work to broadcast/promote their (owner's) political beliefs. This is just a case of a company using its resources for a purpose designated by the owner.
An employee co-opting company resources without owner approval to broadcast their (employee's) political message is not allowed, unless explicitly given permission by the owners.
Why people cannot tell the difference between the two situations above is beyond me - it's not like they are similar or confusing.
no that's not what the article says.
The article claims: > NLRB has found Google’s policy against employees looking at certain coworkers’ calendars is unlawful.
Google claimed that she abused security notification system for websites to show a non-security related message (see https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/dec/17/fifth-google...). She could, within her rights, send emails to organize a company wide meeting, or write up a public document to talk about unionization. If google had banned this, then they would fall afoul of the law.
May be google is really using the excuse that she abused security notification systems to fire her. That's something I'm not privy to, and only litigation will reveal this (if it even does).
The NLRB ruled both firings were illegitimate and their actions protected under labor law. So no, she was within her rights and the NLRB said she’s to be reinstated.
The NLRB has no direct enforcement power, so how it resolves itself will be dependent on if the NLRB pursues Google in the U.S. Court of Appeals, they settle out of court, or otherwise. My guess is that they settle because an NLRB ruling against you isn’t likely to work in your favor in the event of an employment lawsuit. But regardless, what Spiers did stands as a favorable precedent for workers in the event of other disputes with similar circumstances.
So yes, there is a big difference.