Yes, and no; one can be criticized for membership of a social group, but when people take action against the social group, I believe that can start to step into the territory of hate crimes, but I don't know if I'd consider that implying a right.
> The key point is spofity has a right to offer Joe money to use their platforms. Employees who disagree based on politics and threaten to quit working is new. If the company decides to replace them I don't believe they are in a legal position to strike.
This, I agree with. My original post was about the morals of the move, both on Spotify's part, and the Employees' part, but I have very little doubt about the legal aspect of it.
Spotify can offer Joe Rogan money. The employees can protest this. Spotify can perform editorial control. The question is, should they?
Maybe the question should be why shouldn't they?
If the employees are protesting in good faith and not employing violence to coerce their employer, why shouldn't they?
If Spotify feels editorial control is in their business interests, and it doesn't violate their contract with Joe Rogan, why shouldn't they exercise it?
It's odd that so many people are complaining so vehemently about a situation in which the rights that Hacker News usually considers sacrosanct - voluntary contracts, capitalism and free speech, are not actually being undermined.
Let's say that happens. But another group of employees may feel the opposite and start protesting for Joe. Now what do you?
There's no obligation that Spotify management consider or concede to all future employee demands if they choose to consider or concede to any group's demands in the present. They'll do whatever makes the best business sense to them at the time, which today might mean breaking this agreement, and tomorrow might mean defending another one.
labour strikes have existed for decades. Primarily for better working conditions of course, but also environmental issues or equal civil rights and so on.
What's new isn't that employees use their bargaining power for political or social causes, it's that they have more success with it in tech or other knowledge sectors. That's a function of there being relatively few workers. The managerial and professional class has become aware of the fact that they're hard to replace, and employers actually can't fire them all, in other words the top 15% have figured out that they don't actually share any goals with the top 0.1% percent, but that they're in quite a unique position to demand what they think is right.
Not so sure they're that hard to replace. There's always the following:
* The unemployed, especially those displaced/affected by offshoring
* Slightly less qualified but trainable
* Those with criminal background issues, but are otherwise well qualified.
All categories would be served well through a staffing firm specializing in handling these kind of issues.
No one has granted a right to live without fear. Fear is an emotional response.
I don't think a general non-persecution right exists.
A right to free speech exists from government persecution. A right to be treated equally based on gender exists at the government level.
The key point is spofity has a right to offer Joe money to use their platforms. Employees who disagree based on politics and threaten to quit working is new. If the company decides to replace them I don't believe they are in a legal position to strike.