91–100 of 161 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's sneaky because it suggests that people were targeted because they were pro-union, without going so far as to make a claim of fact (which would open them to libel claims).
If the shoe fits.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Company's don't get to decide. It is written in law. Check the WARN act, but the key threshold seems to be 500 workers at a single facility. As an employer, getting rid of your worst 1% of workers once a year is just housekeeping.
"Housekeeping" is a funny euphemism for sending hundreds of people into unemployment.
[A] US labor law which protects employees, their families, and communities by requiring most employers with 100 or more employees to provide 60 calendar-day advance notification of plant closings and mass layoffs of employees, as defined in the Act. In 2001, there were about 2,000 mass layoffs and plant closures which were subject to WARN advance notice requirements and which affected about 660,000 employees.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Worker_Adjustment_and_Retrai...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How's it sneaky? Business management and shareholders routinely try to shut down unionizing all the time throughout the last two centuries. My buddy is a manager at a national retail chain and often comments on how proactively anti-union they are, just like their competitors. Other demographic groups like the ones you pointed out really don't have that same collective effect on the bottom line for shareholders across…
It's sneaky because it suggests that people were targeted because they were pro-union, without going so far as to make a claim of fact (which would open them to libel claims).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The typical headline making layoff % at a Fortune500 type company is ~10%, fwiw.
Some of them just routinely fire the bottom 10% every year.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> pro-union workers were among those fired this week. Some believe they were targeted I hate sneakily-worded sentences like this. Also among them, were women, hetrosexuals, and probably one or two Vietnam veterans. Some believe they were targetted.
Tesla is notoriously fond of libel lawsuits; a local paper probably can't afford to fight one.
"Tesla has a hearing before the National Labor Relations Board in November for charges that company supervisors and security guards harassed workers distributing union literature. Tesla denied the accusations. Openly pro-union workers were among those fired this week. Some believe they were targeted." - Local paper http://www.mercurynews.com/2017/10/13/4819750/ Edit: Added more lines from the preceding paragraph
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How's it sneaky? Business management and shareholders routinely try to shut down unionizing all the time throughout the last two centuries. My buddy is a manager at a national retail chain and often comments on how proactively anti-union they are, just like their competitors. Other demographic groups like the ones you pointed out really don't have that same collective effect on the bottom line for shareholders across…
It's sneaky because it's taken out of context. Yes, pro-union people were targeted. This may or may not be statistically significant. And what is "pro-union?" If they have 30k employees, and 3% of them are pro-union, and they laid off 1% - what are the odds that some of the folks laid off are pro-union but weren't targeted? What what are the odds that someone that wasn't targeted assumes they were? I have no idea wha…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Some of them just routinely fire the bottom 10% every year.
Popularized by Jack Welch, called Rank-and-Yank. He has a couple of books but I'll not be making the effort to link them.