Local workers fired after not going to work on ‘A Day Without Immigrants’
139 replies, posted
[QUOTE=evilweazel;51847935]It was pretty shitty to just dip out on a day they were supposed to come in, yeah.[/QUOTE]
What kind of protest would [I]actually[/I] be okay to you? Trump supporters seem to be offended by every action against their glorious leader unless it is as passive as possible and all protesters cave at the slightest show of resistance.
[QUOTE=eirexe;51848162]You are not going to work because the government has shown to be anti immigration, which affects everybody, this is not a strike against the employer, it's against the government.[/QUOTE]
The government isn't employing them, their employers can not change the legislation they're protesting, leaving work to protest the government shouldn't be protected.
[QUOTE=CanUBe;51848164]What kind of protest would [I]actually[/I] be okay to you? Trump supporters seem to be offended by every action against their glorious leader unless it is as passive as possible and all protesters cave at the slightest show of resistance.[/QUOTE]
They have the right to protest, that hasn't been infringed. Their employer also has the right to cease their employment for refusing to work for reasons unrelated to their employment.
[QUOTE=Lambeth;51847959]Fuck the rights of the worker I guess.[/QUOTE]
Mate employers have rights too (although workers are a lot more protected as is), like not having to put up with insubordination
And they are well within their right to fire these people, who don't have any rights infringed on
I wonder if the people they sacked were on the chopping block already. Having been involved in the hiring process myself I can't imagine firing 18 people because they skipped work one day in protest of something unless they were total shitbags.
[QUOTE=SirJon;51848199]Mate employers have rights too (although workers are a lot more protected as is), like not having to put up with insubordination
And they are well within their right to fire these people, who don't have any rights infringed on[/QUOTE]
Wrong actually, rights may have well been infringed on, as I've previously stated in this thread. If these workers were legal workers they're protected under the NLRA and have both grounds for a legal case and past precedent to file a lawsuit against their employers.
[editline]20th February 2017[/editline]
[QUOTE=soulharvester;51848178]The government isn't employing them, their employers can not change the legislation they're protesting, leaving work to protest the government shouldn't be protected.
They have the right to protest, that hasn't been infringed. Their employer also has the right to cease their employment for refusing to work for reasons unrelated to their employment.[/QUOTE]
Sure is a good thing you don't make the laws then because it is protected since in this instance it's a government policy that effects workers rights and working conditions.
[editline]20th February 2017[/editline]
[QUOTE=Raidyr;51848209]I wonder if the people they sacked were on the chopping block already. Having been involved in the hiring process myself I can't imagine firing 18 people because they skipped work one day in protest of something unless they were total shitbags.[/QUOTE]
It appears, according to the article anyway, that some were illegal immigrants. Whether or not this holds true for what percentage is unknown to me. Those who were fired and illegal have zero workplace rights and are effectively as disposable if not more so than a fast food employee so their termination isn't surprising. Those who were legal employees, well it doesn't matter if they were on thin ice because they can't be fired over organising for strike/protest.
[QUOTE=F.X Clampazzo;51848214]Wrong actually, rights may have well been infringed on, as I've previously stated in this thread. If these workers were legal workers they're protected under the NLRA and have both grounds for a legal case and past precedent to file a lawsuit against their employer[/QUOTE]
Doubt it, feel free to prove it though, I might be mistaken
They can protest government policy without refusing to uphold their work obligations. Intentionally hurting your employer for something they have no control over should be grounds for termination.
[QUOTE=SirJon;51848235]Doubt it, feel free to prove it though, I might be mistaken[/QUOTE]
[quote=me on the previous page]Actually, losing your job for strikes or protests is illegal as per the National Labor Relations Act.
The National Labor Relations Act applies to non-unionised workers too. Section 7 specifically speaks of "the right to self-organization, to form, join, or assist labor organizations, to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing, and to engage in other concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection." These rights are not dependent on being in an official union or a union at all. These employees could be technically seen as self-organising to join/assist other labour organisations/workers in a protest/strike against the recent actions and xenophobic sentiment against immigrant workers.
In fact there is more precedent for this type of thing as in 2013 Geoffrey Carter, Administrative Law Judge for the National Labor Relations Board ruled in favour of Walmart employees who were disciplined or fired for missing work in order to join protests against Walmart working conditions.
because this protest was held over collective worker's rights and not an intermittent work stoppage (which is what just not showing up to work would be) it's covered by the NLRA. If this goes to a court, which tbh I'd be taking my employer to court if I were these people, it has precedent to back it up. [/quote]
Already covered it last page. If you want to read it more in depth on the act, you can probably find it online somewhere.
[QUOTE=soulharvester;51848236]They can protest government policy without refusing to uphold their work obligations. Intentionally hurting your employer for something they have no control over should be grounds for termination.[/QUOTE]
Protests aren't convenient and don't effect literally anyone at all in any negative way. We've been over this. Legally it's not, so too bad?
Except that the walmart employees were specifically protesting walmart working conditions, something walmart has control over, unlike government policy.
[QUOTE=soulharvester;51848250]Except that the walmart employees were specifically protesting walmart working conditions, something walmart has control over, unlike government policy.[/QUOTE]
It literally doesn't matter. We've been over this too. Group A can go on strike/protest against company A. And in solidarity group B can support group A's protest/strike by also going on strike for Company B, regardless of their affiliation with the industry that company A and B may or may not share.
This applies to national policy so long as it is policy that effects the treatment of workers, their rights or workplace conditions. Which this indeed does.
You guys are splitting already split hairs here, pretty sure we can't really get any more pedantic at this rate, feel free to prove me wrong though.
What is it with the people here who don't understand the point of a strike?
They were warned and got exactly what they deserved, a strike implies at least the majority of a companies employees and its unions support your action in order to better your circumstances and not just because you feel like your entitled to a day off because "bad things have been said about immigrants".
[QUOTE=F.X Clampazzo;51848239]Already covered it last page. If you want to read it more in depth on the act, you can probably find it online somewhere.
Protests aren't convenient and don't effect literally anyone at all in any negative way. We've been over this. Legally it's not, so too bad?[/QUOTE]
I find it hard to believe that straight up insubordination can be excused under the guise of protesting. I suppose the act might state something on that matter however
[QUOTE=SirJon;51848324]I find it hard to believe that straight up insubordination can be excused under the guise of protesting. I suppose the act might state something on that matter however[/QUOTE]
How can protesting even work if employees have to follow their employer's orders no matter what?
Why would the employer give a shit if they have no leverage to make him change his mind?
[QUOTE=_Axel;51848343]How can protesting even work if employees have to follow their employer's orders no matter what?
Why would the employer give a shit if they have no leverage to make him change his mind?[/QUOTE]
There obviously has to be a line in the sand
You can't just let some shit stand, it'd be bad for everybody in the long run
[QUOTE=evilweazel;51847929]That doesn't really change anything. That's honestly worse, calling out and fucking over the people who they work for, and their clients to, well, raise awareness, I guess. If they're willing to do that, it was probably a good idea to give them the boot.
If you want a job, you need to show up for the job. Don't expect to have one if you just skip a day for dumb reasons.[/QUOTE]
The Boston fucking Tea Party, the DEFINING MOMENT of your nation. Was that convenient? Did they schedule a day off for that? No.
[QUOTE=DOCTOR LIGHT;51848404]The Boston fucking Tea Party, the DEFINING MOMENT of your nation. Was that convenient? Did they schedule a day off for that? No.[/QUOTE]
Most men and women back in those days were either self-employed, farmers, or those who'd do their own thing. The difference being now that people are mostly employed by a multinational or regional company, which can easily replace you if you continue to slack-off on your work.
[QUOTE=SirJon;51848359]There obviously has to be a line in the sand
You can't just let some shit stand, it'd be bad for everybody in the long run[/QUOTE]
Sure but I don't see why that line has to be something as basic as insubordination.
Usually unions are aware they have to compromise for the company to function.
We can all sit here and cry about the injustice but who knows if these employees were on a final warning for absence.
[QUOTE=Valdor;51847977]Since when is it a worker's right to decide to just not go to work without repercussions[/QUOTE]
Not in (most of?) the US, but here in Europe most countries have had that for a fairly long time (in a regulated form that makes sure strikes don't go [I]too[/I] crazy).
It's working out reasonably well for us.
[QUOTE=F.X Clampazzo;51848262]It literally doesn't matter. We've been over this too. Group A can go on strike/protest against company A. And in solidarity group B can support group A's protest/strike by also going on strike for Company B, regardless of their affiliation with the industry that company A and B may or may not share.
This applies to national policy so long as it is policy that effects the treatment of workers, their rights or workplace conditions. Which this indeed does.
You guys are splitting already split hairs here, pretty sure we can't really get any more pedantic at this rate, feel free to prove me wrong though.[/QUOTE]
[URL="https://www.law360.com/articles/64361/nlrb-clarifies-political-advocacy-rules"]Wrong[/URL]. You are [B]not [/B]allowed to walk out for a non-direct protest, and since the employers have no say over policy it was indirect. Yeah, the actual protest is protected but that way of engaging in it is not.
[QUOTE=eirexe;51847986]You have a right to protest and go on a strike specially if it's been called by a union, what kind of country wouldn't allow that?, you shouldn't be fired for going on a strike.[/QUOTE]
Most of these places are in at-will states where your boss can pink slip you because they don't like the splatter patterns of the mud on your car's fender that morning, or how you've got your hair done up, or what brand of soda you're sipping in the breakroom to get the grogginess out of your system before clocking in. I know this is the case in TN, as I live in TN(And within a reasonable commute of Nolensville so I may very well be applying for one of those 18 jobs that suddenly opened up), though I haven't had it happen personally. And I'd bet money the majority of these places aren't unionized, another common thing in at-will states.
If you live in an at-will state and you're not unionized? You're pretty much a slave to your boss. You want to protest like this? You're doing so knowing damn well it's the end of that job for you, because they're well within their rights to pink slip you and go on with their day. There's no such thing as a strike if you're not unionized, it's just 'so-and-so didn't show up for work today so they're fired'.
[QUOTE=eirexe;51847986]You have a[B] right[/B] to protest and go on a strike specially if it's been called by a union, what kind of country wouldn't allow that?, you shouldn't be fired for going on a strike.[/QUOTE]
Which document is this right located in?
I can't find it in any of them.
[QUOTE=SirJon;51848324]I find it hard to believe that straight up insubordination can be excused under the guise of protesting. I suppose the act might state something on that matter however[/QUOTE]
what kind of language you're using ? insubordination?
this isn't the military and workers have rights. what the hell
[QUOTE=Jame's;51848444]We can all sit here and cry about the injustice but who knows if these employees were on a final warning for absence.[/QUOTE]
And that still wouldn't make it right to fire them.
This should've been expected
Does the NLRB even apply to political protest that do not technically involve actual organization of workers?
If it was about working conditions, wages, etc then it would be obvious but this seems very vague to apply to it
[QUOTE=Mechanical43;51848751]what kind of language you're using ? insubordination?
this isn't the military and workers have rights. what the hell[/QUOTE]
Yeah, they do, and insubordination - the willful disobidience of ones superior - isn't one of them.
"Insubordination" is not a millitary term exclusively.
[QUOTE=Guriosity;51848045][b]Ive stated I have as much empathy for others as the world has had for me. Which is zero.[/b]
I have had heard rumors that illegals are hired due to how much less taxes and red tape there is for them vs those who are legal.[/QUOTE]
What happened to make you think like this? Were you raised in a [URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pit_of_despair"]pit of despair[/URL]?
[QUOTE=eirexe;51848786]And that still wouldn't make it right to fire them.[/QUOTE]
So how much money would a company have to lose because of the actions of a handful of employees before it's okay to fire them?
$1,000?
$10,000?
$1,000,000?
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.