- Soccer Literature
- LGBT+ Literature
- Harry Potter Literature
Do you agree with all this to also be confiscated would it be freely distributed at work?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Labor_Relations_Act_o...
Only after careful readings do you get to "wow this rich smart kid was incredibly lucky"
Instead, all these things work together to promote an illusion of unbiased meritocracy where if you got a clever idea and work hard you'll make it. The rich, smart, and luck get scrubbed out and replaced with a "Flowering of New England" Protestant Work Ethic.
For the more cynical people they go to the likes of Christensen, Geoffrey Moore, Drucker, Steve Blank, Ries & Trout, Blanchard, etc who are certainly not critical of free markets, labor or capitalism in any way.
You walk away from them with a less trusting and more cut throat version of essentially the same story.
So it's constantly reinforced which is why it's really not that surprising that programming has a lot of people who frankly believe in essentially free market magic, unfounded hogwash and other nonsense, it's the only thing on offer.
The myth of fantastic riches that avail themself to those who struggle is essentially one of the most common narrative archetypes there is. It's thousands of years old, even the cornerstone of many religions.
Labor laws are stupidly complicated and a single one liner from an HN comment is almost guaranteed to be wrong in some way. You shouldn't believe anything you read in an HN comments thread about them, on either side of the issue (including this one, because I'm probably wrong in some fashion too!)
see: https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/shop-talk-rules-unio...
edit: the above is actually for union discussions in break rooms. It's not clear if the same rules apply for literature in break rooms, but given that other parts of the article specifically call out that all literature must be treated equal in other areas (ie not break rooms), I'm not convinced that it doesn't apply.
The stance of the NLRB regarding union materials is that it is explicitly not given any special treatment, neither in regards to protecting its spread, nor in regards to preventing its spread. It must always be treated equally to materials on other topics: either everything is banned, including union materials, or nothing is banned, also including union materials.
All this can take place off site.
If I'm the owner of company and employee talks to be about Harry Potter in the break room. Later that day, or on the spot, I can terminate that employee, without cause or reason.
Sure they the employee can sue me for wrongful termination, but the laws are stacked against the employee. (I have been on both side of the argument.)
Please reference a law to support your claim.
You might want to study up on your law, history and economics.
We're not here to educate you, just look up the current US labor laws and see for yourself whether or not your argument has any standing.
?
However there never can be can be a resolution to your proposal, so with that I will have to pass on your entertaining offer.
I will just leave this here for anybody who cares about employment law.
> The National Labor Relations Act provides protection to employees who wish to join or form a union and those who engage in union activity. The act also protects employees who engage in a concerted activity.
That's the law you should be looking for. Check it out. It has some provisions about distributing union literature in break rooms and stuff. Pretty interesting.
"In Spence’s case, the NLRB has made a finding of merit to the charges, and has indicated that it plans to issue a formal complaint. A finding of merit is not an official decision, but a crucial step in an ongoing proceeding. Amazon will now have the opportunity to settle. If Amazon does not agree to do so, then the NLRB will schedule a hearing before an administrative law judge."
From the article the NLRB appears following the letter of the law. I'm not a big fan of labor laws, but they are the law so it's good know that everybody is getting a fair chance. Violations happen and there are penalties.
"An NLRB investigation found that Amazon illegally prohibited Connor Spence, a Staten Island employee involved in union organizing, from distributing pro-union literature in a break room on May 16—and then confiscated the literature—also in violation of U.S. labor law, according to evidence provided by the NLRB to the union’s attorney. "
As far as I can see, Connor Spence wasn't terminated. He filed a complaint via the NLRB. Good for him, we should always have a healthy distrust of corporation and governments.
Were there could be confusion, was my explanation of AT-WILL employment regarding some other comment about Harry Potter be discussed at the work place. Had Spence been fired for spreading union material then yes it probably would have been a violation of labor laws.
Although I have been restless down voted and trolled and trashed. The real crux of the issue and the article might be here, with who told the security officer to do what and when. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28055091
Nope, still wrong. It's a violation to prohibit, it doesn't need to lead to any retaliation to be a violation [1]. Hence the complaint.
If the security officer, even if a contractor acts as an agent of Amazon, it's on Amazon. Even because they didn't train the officer about the NLRA (or they did? who knows? it's on the agency to investigate). That's why when you do some corporate mandated training, you need to acknowledge and sign that you completely understood whatever was in there. To cover the company's ass.
> Although I have been restless down voted
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:If_ten_people_say_yo...
[1] https://www.dol.gov/sites/dolgov/files/olms/regs/compliance/...
Anyways, I wish you well. Anger (even silly internet rage) on my part is not a burden I want bear.
I have no need to crack a book and cite labor law to you. Use Google or something. Or don’t. Pray you avoid future lawsuits.
You’re ridiculous, but also morally reprehensible.
Coward.
Not sure how that makes one a coward, though I can definitely see how disrespecting your employees’ labor rights does.