Deranged40 t1_iydi3ym wrote on November 30, 2022 at 4:25 PM

Reply to comment by FriendlyDespot in US judge orders Amazon to ‘cease and desist’ anti-union retaliation by nacorom

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 on November 30, 2022 at 4:29 PM

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 on November 30, 2022 at 4:31 PM

> 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 on November 30, 2022 at 4:32 PM

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 on November 30, 2022 at 4:34 PM

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 on November 30, 2022 at 4:37 PM

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 on November 30, 2022 at 4:39 PM

> 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 on November 30, 2022 at 5:54 PM

> 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 on November 30, 2022 at 9:55 PM

who cares if it's illegal if you can just write a check?