this post was submitted on 06 Aug 2023
264 points (98.2% liked)
Technology
37712 readers
427 users here now
A nice place to discuss rumors, happenings, innovations, and challenges in the technology sphere. We also welcome discussions on the intersections of technology and society. If it’s technological news or discussion of technology, it probably belongs here.
Remember the overriding ethos on Beehaw: Be(e) Nice. Each user you encounter here is a person, and should be treated with kindness (even if they’re wrong, or use a Linux distro you don’t like). Personal attacks will not be tolerated.
Subcommunities on Beehaw:
This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
The NLRB ruled that non-disparagement clauses are not enforceable
https://www.axios.com/2023/03/27/labor-board-says-non-disparagement-clauses-are-unlawful
It's a clear violation of the first amendment... Also, referring to the company you work for as "we" while talking about firing another employee is cringe as fuck.
It has literally nothing to do with the first amendment.
The first amendment gives you zero protections from anyone but the government. All other entities are entitled to respond to your speech however the fuck they want.
@conciselyverbose
No, they need to do so within existing law and ideally also social norms. It's not ok for Bob to go after you with a rifle just because you said you don't like his hairstyle. That he can fire you for the same is atrocious.
@Moonrise2473 @Karlos_Cantana @prole
Going after you with a rifle is illegal in its own right. The first amendment is not a factor in any way.
Firing you for it is unambiguously and unconditionally legal, unless you're in a state that has other limitations on your ability to terminate employees.
There is no scenario you can contrive where a non-government employer firing an employee for speech can be connected to the first amendment in any way. The first amendment can only possibly be relevant to the government.
It's not ok for Bob to go after you with a rifle because threatening someone with a weapon is illegal by itself. Firing someone is not
Oh ok... So I guess that means the National Labor Relations Act is unconstitutional (it's not, it was upheld by SCOTUS in the 30s), because it explicitly prevents employers from firing or otherwise retaliating against employees for discussing salary.
https://www.nlrb.gov/about-nlrb/rights-we-protect/your-rights/your-rights-to-discuss-wages
Or do you think an employer should be allowed to fire someone for that?
Maybe don't give this current Supreme Court any ideas given their blatant disregard for stare decisis/precedence, and Chevron deference..
This is a bad faith argument through and through. You should be ashamed of yourself for posting this.
You should work on your reading comprehension. None of this has any relationship to the first amendment.
The First Amendment protects the right to organize in addition to free speech. The NLRB (and the Wagner Act, the law that gives us the right to discuss wages, as well as unionize, without retaliation) have a storied history of being challenged on first amendment grounds.
People have tried arguing that an employer's first amendment rights are violated by a law that prevents them from firing someone for any reason they want. The government codifying what an employer can and can't fire an employee for is directly related to the first amendment.
Any time you're talking about protected speech, or the right to organizing, its directly related to the first amendment. If you can't see that, then I don't know what to tell you.
Since it's abundantly clear that you've never actually read the 1st amendment, let me help you out:
As you can see, employment disputes are not part of the 1st amendment. As you can also see, it restricts establishing a state religion, exercising your religion, protects you from prosecution when peacefully assembling and when you are giving the government the finger.
I suggest reading through the Constitution and it's amendments. It's not a long read.
When the government tells an employer that they can't fire a person for x reason, the first amendment gets involved. Because that's the government limiting the speech of a private citizen (or in the case of a company/corporation, a group of private citizens that apparently gets all the rights of a person).
Which is when employment law does swerve into first amendment territory
The first amendment only applies to the government. Any person telling you that it can under any circumstance be applied to the relationship between an employer and employee is a piece of shit lying to you. It's not in any way ambiguous.
The government regulating employment law is not connected to the first amendment in any way.
I'm wondering if you even read my comment...
Yeah idk man, I would not call it "a clear violation" based on your link. This is basically the NLRB's opinion and they expect to be challenged on it.
Also I think we need to delineate those folks who are genuinely facing retaliation for discuss working conditions, and those who want Elon to help them sue because they got fired for saying the N slur on Twitter or other troll bullshit
The first amendment only protects you from being prosecuted by the government for things you say (and it's even limited... You can't yell fire in a crowded theatre for instance).
The first amendment doesn't apply here, at all.
Most people work in at-will states so really they don’t even need to say they’re firing you for any particular reason.
Non-disparagement clauses (are intended to) effect people after they've already left the place of employment, usually. That's why they're bullshit and largely unenforceable.
Why they fired you isn't really relevant when they're suing you years later for saying something bad about them on Twitter.