zlacker

>>claude+(OP)
> Previously, Costa said Amazon attempted to intervene in the group’s efforts to organize the panel by deleting invitations sent to other workers internally, which the group claims were accepted by more than 1,500 employees.

It’s Amazon’s internal network, and Amazon’s email system, so they have the full right to control what happens on their resources.

At the same time, I find that deleting the an email after it has been sent by the sender unknown to the sender to be a kind of gaslighting, and dystopian. Having a policy to not organize using work resources might be harsh, but at least it is more transparent as in the proverbial line is drawn in the proverbial sand.

>>tareqa+i8
No, actually, none of that is true under US labor law. People can organize at their workplaces. It’s a protected action.

>>claude+69
You can organize at your workplace, but you don't have a right to use work resources to do it. (Workers used to have the right to use their work email, but the NLRB has recently overturned that precedent.)

>>SpicyL+G9
Calling work email a "resource" seems a little dubious to me. I.e. if I use office stationary to write my union manifesto, they have to buy more stationary. If I send an email they don't have to buy more of anything.

Especially in the world we live in right now - email and other work-hosted communications platforms are not a resource provided by work, they are the WORKPLACE.

>>kennyw+vc
It does seem dubious, but I can see the argument that the government shouldn't be adjudicating which work resources are or aren't costly to allow. (Internal phone calls don't cost anything either, but I think it's fair to say union organizers shouldn't be allowed to ring up all the desk phones in an office asking them to support some labor action.)

>>SpicyL+de
That scenario is covered by the fact that organizing on company TIME is not allowed.

I think I disagree. This is exactly the role of the government to adjudicate. I would suggest a standard something like "everything is allowed, unless the company can prove significant harm". So instead of the gov saying "email is ok!" you just get to use email, and then the company has to go to the gov and prove that you using email is a drain on their resources in order to fire you.