Recent comments in /f/technology

psychothumbs OP t1_j8tjfwm wrote

Totally illegal, but unfortunately the NLRB who are charged with enforcing those laws have been deliberately crippled in terms of the penalties they can impose. Or more accurately, they are not allowed to impose any penalties, the most they can do is restore a worker to their prior position with back pay (minus any money that worker made in the meantime).

In conclusion, repeal Taft -Hartley

603

DerekTheSkiNerd t1_j8tivl5 wrote

> So what you're saying is those being critical of me are doing so because they assume they know how I've voted and what policies I've supported in my lifetime, based on a sentence I wrote?!?

Yes, because comments like that are extremely strongly correlated with certain voting patterns

the fact that you're trying to act like you're being persecuted instead of addressing it tells me they weren't wrong.

7

jambrown13977931 t1_j8tibt0 wrote

Unless they were fired because their job requirements aren’t needed any more. The article said “several of the employees” who were terminated were participating in unionizing discussions, this would imply others who were fired weren’t. This implies it’s not retaliation or intimidation, but downsizing of a department that is no longer necessary for Tesla’s business model.

0

Blast_Furnace_Life t1_j8tdor9 wrote

That's the interesting nature of this. The employees knew that their job had an end date. That's what prompted the whole push to be union. That's well documented in their rationale. So now they have to prove that it was retaliation for their efforts to unionize, and not just the end of necessity of their job. It'll be interesting to see how this will shake out at the NLRB because I think we're gonna see this a lot more in other industries soon.

1

PennName47 t1_j8tctn1 wrote

Isn’t protecting your human jobs against robotic replacements kind of a known reason for unionization by now though? As much as I like the growth of robotics and AI, I can acknowledge the issue it presents in a world that still requires a job to live. Unless these people are given UBI or helped into new positions by the company, it doesn’t seem abusive at all that they would try to unionize to save their livelihoods.

1

DBDude t1_j8tbqdx wrote

Tesla always planned for the human labeling to exist only until it wasn't needed anymore, because at some point you will have done enough labeling and the supercomputers can take it from there. They already announced cuts in labeling last year. These people already knew their jobs had an end date not too far out. It sounds like they may have started unionizing just to put a legal wrench into the plans. I'm okay with unions, but this sounds like an abuse of union laws.

2