Posted on 05/10/2024 7:36:03 AM PDT by Twotone
Better not read this post out loud to anyone—federal labor regulators might not like it.
The National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) stretched its speech-policing powers to new highs last week when an in-house administrative judge ruled that Amazon CEO Andy Jassy had violated federal labor law by expressing anti-unionization views during several televised interviews in recent years. Specifically, Judge Brian Gee dinged Jassy for suggesting that Amazon employees might be "better off" without a union and the layers of bureaucracy that come with it.
Jassy made those comments during an appearance on CNBC in 2022—during a segment in which he was discussing Amazon's response to ongoing unionization efforts at some warehouses. In the ruling, Gee highlighted similar comments that Jassy made during public forums hosted by The New York Times and Bloomberg.
The First Amendment protects Jassy's right to talk about those things and federal labor law allows employers to discuss unionization as long as they are not harassing or intimidating employees by doing so.
None of that seems to matter to the NLRB. In the ruling, Gee said Jassy had engaged in unlawful "coercive predictions about the effects of unionization" and ordered Amazon to post notices at its facilities reminding workers of their rights.
The punishment isn't really the point, however. Going after Jassy for remarks made in obviously public forums—comments that certainly were not meant to harass or intimidate current or would-be union members—is a signal that the NLRB sees virtually no limit to its powers to police executives' speech.
"Reasonable people may disagree about the line between permissible and impermissible speech" within the bounds of federal labor laws, said Edwin Egee, a vice president at the National Retail Federation, in a statement. "However, if Judge Gee's decision is left to stand, the effect would be to erase this line entirely. Employers would rightly wonder whether they can speak about unionization at all, despite their legally protected right to do so."
Gee's ruling in the Amazon case sits awkwardly alongside other recent rulings by the NLRB that gave wide leeway to employees' speech about similar topics. As the Washington Examiner noted, the NLRB in January forced Amazon to rehire an employee who had been sacked after directing an expletive-laden tirade at a fellow worker.
Meanwhile, some Google employees who were fired after protesting the company's contractual relationship with the state of Israel have filed a complaint with the NLRB asking to be reinstated. The former workers say they were unfairly terminated for engaging in speech that was "directly and explicitly connected to their terms and conditions of work," The Washington Post reported.
It's too soon to know how the NLRB will handle that case, but something has to give. It simply cannot be true that federal labor law permits employees to engage in any and all conduct without consequence, while simultaneously preventing CEOs and employers from speaking freely during media appearances and other public forums.
Federal bureaucrats don't have the authority to decide that all speech is either mandatory or forbidden—and whether they like it or not, the First Amendment applies even to the CEOs of successful businesses.
Amazon CEO: “I have an opinion about unions ...”
National Labor Relations Board (NLRB): “You say one more word, and we will put you in jail for a long, long time.”
America — different now than what it was when I was growing up.
I hope they appeal this.
Never belonged to a union; had divided feelings about them. I felt if you had a good employer, a union was largely unnecessary. Of course, that was not always the case.
He’s so right!
MIGHT be?
“ Never belonged to a union; had divided feelings about them. I felt if you had a good employer, a union was largely unnecessary. Of course, that was not always the case.”
It’s my understanding that UAW membership was forced on Ford Motor Company in the late 40’s by court order. Henry Ford hated unions and made sure that his employees were well paid to keep them from joining the union.
The Unions are the biggest source of money for the rats. That is what is behind this.
WTF? Employers are allowed to comment on unions as long as it doesn’t threaten the workers. From what I’ve read on his statements, it appears that the NLRB has overstepped its authority and that they are taking the same tack as the DOJ. This is wrong.
....”...This is wrong.”.... absolutely it is.....but as we usta say back in Noo Yawk, “Sure, it’s wrong. but whatcha gonna do ‘bout it, hunh...?...”.......the NLRB can get away with anything....it is an agency a part of this totally corrupt Biden administration....
My experience is that less productive workers favor unions because it bolsters and protects their pay while better-than-average workers don't favor them because union work rules impedes their advancement in position and pay.
I think for certain skilled labor (welders, electricians, construction) where the union provides training and can evaluate safety measures and basic standards of a quality process/product there is value in the union.
For a lot of other jobs, no. At some point a high performing employee is penalized and management gets hamstrung. There isn’t flexibility to change work duties to help a good employee get ahead. Certain “promotions” are based on seniority and not skill. Raises are across the board and there is little wiggle room for merit or extra raises. I have gotten “other duties as assigned” that I could leverage for promotions and have outperformed the general salary increase multiple times. No way I’d have that in a union shop.
Gag orders for everyone!
US unions are popular ... in Communist China where they’ve created thousands of jobs.
Yeah, I’d consider this an attack on free speech.
Unions are needed if the company is run by bad people.
Bezos treats people like dirt, just a data point in the computer and that computer will fire you.
I overheard a Walmart employee telling another he walked 4 miles in 2 hours helping people according to the computer.
I guess some app they have that tracks them.
Join a union if you want to guarantee you can never make more than their Maximum Wage.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.