> Over the last 10 years or so, I have filed a number of high-profile unfair labor practice charges against coercive statements, with many of those statements being made on Twitter. I file those charges even though I am merely a bystander, not an employee or an aggrieved party.
> Every time I do this, some individuals ask how I am able to file charges when I don’t have “standing” because I am not the one who is being injured by the coercive statements.
> The short answer is that the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) has no standing requirement.
> Employees reasonably fear retaliation from their boss if they file charges. So we want to make it possible for people who cannot be retaliated against to do it instead. [1]
I believe the Vox piece shared in this thread [2] is enough for anyone to hit submit on an NLRB web form and get the ball rolling. Snapshot in the Wayback Machine (all the in scope tweets archived in archive.today|is|ph), just in case.
I don't see why this comment needed a flag or so many uncharitable replies (though you could have expressed yourself more charitably too).
I understand your sentiment, but I think a lot of idealistic people will disagree - it's nice to think that a person should stand up for justice, no matter what.
In reality, I wonder how many people attempt to do this and end up regretting, because of what you mentioned.
I imagine the kinds of engineers under such gag orders do in fact either have "big money" or aren't worried about making big money in thr future.And this isn't their fight, it'll be the government. At the worst you may stand as a witness some months/years later to testify.
I'd only be worried about reporting if you fear for your life for refusing, a sadly poignant consideration given Boeing as of late.
I think never is inaccurate here. First, there are a lot of simply bad lawyers who will give you bad advice. Secondly, a lot of lawyers who either don't actually specialize in the legal field your case demands, or who have never actually tried any cases and have no idea how something might go down in a court with a jury. Third (the most predatory), a lot of lawyers actually see the client (not the opposing party) as the money fountain. Charging huge fees for their "consultation," "legal research," "team of experts," etc, and now the client is quickly tens-of-thousands in the hole without even an actual case being filed.
Talking to good, honest lawyers is a good idea. Unfortunately most people don't have access to good honest lawyers, or don't know how to distinguish them from crooks with law degrees.
I’d be more afraid of their less-than-above-board power than their litigation power. People with $10-100 billion dollars who are highly connected to every major tech company and many shadowy companies we’ve never heard of can figure out a lot of my secrets and make life miserable enough for me that I don’t have the ability/energy to follow through with legal proceedings, even if I don’t attribute the walls collapsing around me to my legal opponent.
