Why is this relevant? Does being labeled as a "striker" give you additional legal rights that you wouldn't otherwise have?
>It's no different than mailing in a bunch of applications, it's just digital instead. They aren't burning down the offices
"not burning down offices" seems like a pretty low bar for acceptable conduct. that doesn't mean their behavior is legal. The obvious analogy would be: would it be legal to spam a pizza restaurant with fake orders? Or spamming a doctor/hospital with fake appointments? Or spamming police departments with fake tips?
Actually, yes.
For instance, if you are an employee who is striking, you have the right to use racial slurs to abuse and harass employees who are not striking, without being fired for use of those remarks. See Cooper Tire & Rubber Co. v. NLRB. (Remarks included: "Go back to Africa, you bunch of f--- losers!", statements regarding fried chicken, watermelon, etc.)
There are a variety of other rights conferred by law.
Spamming a police department with fake tips is specifically illegal (making a false police report and/or obstruction of justice and/or USC 1001). I'm not sure about fake appointments for a hospital, that seems the most unclear of the cases you've listed.
A bunch of trump supports went to Washington to "protest" - not turning out very well for them. Similarly with many other protests (BLM etc etc), folks getting picked up breaking windows, stealing, burning down buildings etc - they don't get off free because it's a protest or there is not something in the law that makes calling something illegal a protest legal.
No one made that claim.
For anyone who has paid attention to CFAA if you have a computer used in interstate commerce and someone knowingly causes the transmission of a program, information, code, or command, and as a result of such conduct, intentionally causes damage without authorization, to a protected computer, then whamo, down you go.
This code that has been written to disrupt the operations of this business (Kellog) if it does disrupt their operations and they complain, the person knowingly transmitting it is at risk.
Again, calling something a protest is not a free pass.
"Rutgers University professor Todd Vachon, who teaches classes about labor relations, said he's not sure the company will be able to hire enough workers to replace the ones who are out on strike in the current economy, and Kellogg's may have a hard time finding people willing to cross a picket line."
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/kelloggs-will-replace-striking-...
So yes. They have been fired. Kellogg has announced that.
They cannot fire the employees in question, they can only replace them 1:1 and w/ the amount of publicity, and the striking it's bound to deter a lot of potential applicants, and with people using automated and manual methods to spoof applications --some presumably locally even going through the entire application process, going through training, and quitting day one on the floor... seems to me like it'll bleed Kellogg's dry long before they ever find the employees they need to continue.
They're more likely to fully automate 100% of the plant before they find the staff they need for permanent replacements.
I'm seriously betting Kellogg's does a full reversal, esp when profits start to fall, and revenue expectations get dwarfed by the boycotts that are ongoing.
Personally, I can do without ever buying poptarts, eggo waffles, or any of their cereal. There's plenty of alternative junk food out there to fill the gap.
Your metaphor to police corruption is also why "context" is an important thing. In that case people would actually get hurt, in this case a company loses money. They are different scenarios completely.
Logic is not part of the CFAA.