Submitted by nacorom t3_z8ef1p in technology
FriendlyDespot t1_iybwdx5 wrote
Reply to comment by LazzzyButtons in US judge orders Amazon to ‘cease and desist’ anti-union retaliation by nacorom
> Truth of the matter is that they can fire you for any reason at all, and not just because you formed a union.
They actually can't fire you because you joined a union.
DneSokas t1_iyc478y wrote
Thats the point though, they didn't fire everyone who was forming a union, they just happened to fire that exact same group of people for definetaly unrelated reasons.
FriendlyDespot t1_iydbvy0 wrote
That's still illegal, and very few companies are willing to do that, because no company wants to go through discovery in the inevitable lawsuit.
Bralzor t1_iydgx2x wrote
Just pay a settlement and you don't have to bother with the lawsuit.
FriendlyDespot t1_iydh6gc wrote
You can't "just" pay a settlement. There's the NLRB and other potential civil suits to deal with, and both parties have to accept it. And even if they do settle, that sort of proves the point that it's unlawful to terminate employees ostensibly for "at-will" reasons when it's actually retaliation for organising.
Deranged40 t1_iydib3f wrote
> You can't "just" pay a settlement.
Sure you can. Amazon has fired countless people for attempting to unionize. Sure it's unlawful, but to Amazon, that means "there's a cost associated". It's not like someone's gonna go to jail for it. Show me those discovery documents!
Oh, what's that? Amazon settled out of court? On literally all of the previous cases? very weird.
>There's the NLRB and other potential civil suits to deal with
Amazon has an entire legal team on payroll. They get paid to do nothing at all if not for ongoing litigation. And that litigation will almost certainly bankrupt the ex employees.
It's a fucked system we have, and until that barrier is broken and a union gets successfully formed, Amazon has the upper hand at all turns.
FriendlyDespot t1_iydixhx wrote
This is tiresome. You keep talking about how you think the consequences are insignificant, but all you're doing is confirming that it is illegal because there are consequences.
Bralzor t1_iydm2c2 wrote
No one said its not illegal. Its just irrelevant whether it's illegal or not when the only consequence is an inconsequential fine.
FriendlyDespot t1_iydmteu wrote
The guy that I replied to above did say that when he said that employers can just pretend to fire for at-will reasons to get around anti-retaliation laws. That's the whole point of this conversation.
Deranged40 t1_iyem47u wrote
>The guy that I replied to above did say that
No I didn't. I refuted your suggestion that you can't just pay a fine and call it a day. Which is what happens all the time.
In that comment, I outright acknowledged that it was illegal. But it doesn't really matter what you call it, they're going to continue doing the thing you said they can't do either way.
You said there would be discovery documents if they did something that's illegal. So where are they? Where's the NLRB action? What Amazon did is illegal, so where's these lawsuits?
Deranged40 t1_iydjbsz wrote
It may be illegal, but there's no mechanism to prevent them from doing it. Because the consequences for doing the illegal thing is less impactful than not doing the illegal thing.
It's a financially responsible move to break the law when the consequences are so minor.
It's illegal like speeding is illegal. Yeah, there's consequences, but most people still do it every day regardless, because the consequences (and likelihood of even having to face said consequences) is so small.
Deranged40 t1_iydi3ym wrote
Nope. This is why you get fired for just suggesting you might--well before you actually join a union.
And then amazon is just gonna pay the fine. Because it's literally more profitable to do the "illegal" thing. I have to quote "illegal" because that word means something very different when talking about normal people who normally can't afford to habitually break the law
FriendlyDespot t1_iydiphy wrote
It's still illegal. You can be as nihilistic and as dismissive about the consequences as you want, that doesn't change the fact that it's unlawful to do.
Deranged40 t1_iydj2n3 wrote
> It's still illegal.
That only means it costs money! "Illegal" means "cost more". And that cost is still considerably less than allowing a union.
It doesn't mean that there's a threat of someone going to jail, or that an exec will lose their job. It doesn't even mean that their profits are going to suffer. They've calculated this legal threat in terms of the money that it costs. And that's all it is - just another line on the budget.
FriendlyDespot t1_iydjagc wrote
I don't know why you're trying to argue with me. I said that it's illegal, you agreed that it's illegal. That's pretty much it.
Deranged40 t1_iydjjwn wrote
You said they "Can't" fire you because it's illegal.
They can, they have, and they will. And they'll pay the fine.
FriendlyDespot t1_iydjx5u wrote
Please stop. I said "they can't", as in it's illegal. Obviously anyone can physically do whatever they want. That's pointless pedantry.
You said that employers can just pretend that they're firing for other reasons, but they can't. You're talking about settling a lawsuit where the employer is accused of terminating employees as retaliation under false pretense, so you're implicitly acknowledging that employers cannot simply offer an at-will argument to get around anti-retaliation laws.
Deranged40 t1_iydka5q wrote
> Please stop. I said "they can't", as in it's illegal
I'm just pointing out that they "can"--in all forms and interpretations of the word. In spite of the fact that there's a fee associated with it. Both technically, as well as financially, they "can" do this. It's indistinguishable from legal approval process up front such as getting FAA clearance to take off at an airport. When we talk about doing something illegal, often times that comes with the weight of "well, we probably can't afford the fines or the jail time to do that". But that's not what "illegal" means here.
It being illegal doesn't even mildly discourage them from doing it.
FriendlyDespot t1_iydw0pk wrote
> I'm just pointing out that they "can"--in all forms and interpretations of the word.
And I'm pointing out you're wrong about that. They can't in a legal context, as in it's unlawful, and that's the only context that we're talking about here. Christ, this is like talking to an edgy teenager who thinks that their nihilism about the consequences of legal action somehow makes illegal things legal.
StabbyPants t1_iyexi04 wrote
who cares if it's illegal if you can just write a check?
GetsHighDoesMath t1_iyel64y wrote
Technically correct, but we live in the real world
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments