zlacker

Such policies are facially illegal under the National Labor Relations Act, which guarantees workers the right to engaged in protected concerted activity, such as discussing their working conditions with eachother, the press, and the public. The tweets that got these two fired were explicitly about working conditions.

Google had a similar policy and, after losing NLRA cases, had to issue a notice to all employees saying that its previous policies no longer included discussing working conditions with the public.

Amazon will likely get sued over this, and very likely lose in a similar matter, as their conduct here is even more egregious.

>>YokoZa+(OP)
Except they weren't discussing their working conditions. They were discussing other people's working conditions.

>>YokoZa+(OP)
They weren't discussing their working conditions.

>>YokoZa+(OP)
IANAL, but all I know of the National Labor Relations Act pertains to unions and collective bargaining. These were UX designers, far detached from warehouses, speaking on warehouse conditions.

While warehouse workers could file suit under the National Labor Relations Act if fired for speaking publicly of their own working conditions, I'm not sure that Amazon's UX team would qualify (but again, IANAL).

To draw an analogy: Would a DoorDash engineer be safe speaking out against the working conditions of DoorDash drivers?

>>cperci+a2
Other people who work at the same company. You are attempting to split hairs that the law doesn't have.

Firing designers for complaining about their unsanitary working conditions is illegal. Firing warehouse workers for complaining about their unsanitary working conditions is illegal. Firing designers and warehouse workers for attempting to organize together is illegal.

Firing designers for talking about someone else's working conditions isn't "one weird trick" for avoiding the law here.

>>alehul+J3
> Would a DoorDash engineer be safe speaking out against the working conditions of DoorDash drivers?

They should be, but you might be right that the National Labor Relations Act (or other applicable law) isn't doing its job.

>>YokoZa+X3
> You are attempting to split hairs that the law doesn't have.

You are a lawyer and are making this claim as someone who is educated in labor law? Or you have a citation to share with us, or something of that nature? Perhaps the chapter and verse of the law that makes this move illegal? Or a case where it was found that workers have the right to publicly comment on other workers' working conditions as long as they work at the same company?

>>asdfas+Tj
This large, friendly notice from the government spells it out explicitly: https://www.dol.gov/olms/regs/compliance/EO_Posters/Employee...

> Under the NLRA, it is illegal for your employer to:

> Fire, demote, or transfer you, or reduce your hours or change your shift, or otherwise take adverse action against you, or threaten to take any of these actions, because you join or support a union, or because you engage in concerted activity for mutual aid and protection, or because you choose not to engage in any such activity.

You can get a basic overview of this topic by googling things like NLRA, NLRB, and protected concerted activity, including very recent examples of how these concepts have applied. They're much broader protections than you think, and Amazon has very clearly broken them. That's why their spokesman is giving out contradictory statements like saying that they allow employees to discuss eachother's working conditions, then firing them for exactly that.

Do not fall into the trap of thinking that "the company has a policy" or "at-will employment" means "you have no legal rights".

>>YokoZa+561
Right, and that poster specifically talks about your working conditions. It says nothing about a protected right to talk about other people's working conditions.

>>cperci+Kc1
The phrase "mutual aid" is right there. As is "organizing". These things imply an ability to cooperate with coworkers. These laws were made to explicitly protect collective bargaining, which absolutely implies other people.

>>YokoZa+7A1
They imply other people, yes; but mutual implies both sides. If you're only talking about other people's working conditions and never talking about your own, there's nothing mutual going on.