Comments on: NLRB: law protects employee’s right to curse out boss

By: John Thacker

John Thacker — Fri, 27 Jun 2014 13:59:31 +0000

Valguard:

I can’t speak for the car dealer case, but the Starbucks case is less employees can do whatever they want, and more an employer can’t fire you on a pretext because they don’t like the fact that you’re trying to organize a union.

More you can do whatever you want so long as you’re also trying to organize a union, which is the practical effect of the ruling.

By: When The Environment Has To Be Hostile To Someone | Simple Justice

When The Environment Has To Be Hostile To Someone | Simple Justice — Fri, 27 Jun 2014 12:49:16 +0000

[…] where the law would become the bludgeon of choice for all favored rights and entitlements. At Overlawyered, Walter Olson points out the […]

By: Valguard

Valguard — Wed, 25 Jun 2014 22:29:35 +0000

Jazzizhep, you might want to check out:

The National Industrial Recovery Act (1933)
The National Labor Relations Act (1935)
The Taft-Heartly Act(1947)
The Civil Rights Act(1964)
The Occupational Health and Safety Act(1971)
And many others…

People aren’t necessarily guaranteed a particular job, but there are reasons it can be illegal to fire someone, like becuase they’re trying to organize a union, or because they’re black, or because they reported unsafe working conditions.

I guess you should look harder next time.

By: Jazzizhep

Jazzizhep — Wed, 25 Jun 2014 07:20:31 +0000

I might have a better understanding of NLRB’s ruling if I could find the statutes guaranteeing a particular job to a specific person, or the statutes requiring an employee’s termination to be “NLRB approved”.

As it is, I can take solace in the belief that the ideological composition of the NLRB will change and there is little chance that it will show as much fidelity to stare decisis as Chief Justice Roberts.

By: Valguard

Valguard — Wed, 25 Jun 2014 04:16:26 +0000

Your missing the key facts on which the decision turns in the Starbucks case. Namely, that the major reason Starbucks listed for his firing was the fact that he was engaged in union organizing, and that the NRLB found that other employees had engaged in far more obscene and rude behavior and not been fired.

Basically, Starbucks had to prove that they would have fired him if he hadn’t been attempting to organize a union, and they couldn’t. It probably didn’t help their case that Starbucks couldn’t even figure out who had actually decided to fire him. Which is a hilarious level of incompetence, I mean seriously, he was fired, but no one at Starbucks would admit to being the one to actually do the deed.

I can’t speak for the car dealer case, but the Starbucks case is less employees can do whatever they want, and more an employer can’t fire you on a pretext because they don’t like the fact that you’re trying to organize a union.

By: MattS

MattS — Wed, 25 Jun 2014 01:00:17 +0000

@marco73,

Not if you use a 20 pt font.

By: marco73

marco73 — Tue, 24 Jun 2014 23:39:30 +0000

DEM – a 3×5 index card might be too large.

By: Ron Miller

Ron Miller — Tue, 24 Jun 2014 19:51:35 +0000

I went back and read the car dealership opinion hoping that you misconstrued the opinion. I imagined myself on my high, white horse explaining what the is case really stood for, proving knowledge and edification to you and the masses.

Nope. You got it. So did the dissent.

By: DEM

DEM — Tue, 24 Jun 2014 19:07:10 +0000

It would be a lot easier if the federal government would go ahead and write down on a 3×5 index card the two or three remaining circumstances under which an employee can be legally fired.

By: Walter Olson

Walter Olson — Tue, 24 Jun 2014 17:47:16 +0000

Everyone has been well behaved so far, but I’d like to ask future commenters to remember to avoid belligerence and profanity. After all, this isn’t a workplace.