Re:Uber Drivers Sue Company over Pressure to Support Prop 22
by Simulacra on Friday October 23, 2020 @12:40AM
(#24866096)
I don't think it is. If an employer sends a memo to all staff that says "If this law stands, we cannot continue as a business in California, and this could mean disruption to employment." It's not directing anyone to vote for anything, just informing them that hey, this will be very bad if it becomes law. It's up to the employees if they want to vote for or against the measure.
[ Parent
| on HN ]
Re:Uber Drivers Sue Company over Pressure to Support Prop 22
by sidr on Friday October 23, 2020 @01:19AM
(#24866242)
"Nice job you've got there. It'd be a shame if something were to happen to it."
By your logic that's not a threat, just a statement of fact that it would be a shame if the thing you care about were to be damaged/destroyed somehow.
Re:Uber Drivers Sue Company over Pressure to Support Prop 22
by Dylan16807 on Friday October 23, 2020 @02:32AM
(#24866573)
Obviously the implications matters. And when the implications is "we go out of business", that's not retaliatory, and shouldn't be a problem.
If they were saying it would be a shame if something would happen to your precious belongings, and they were talking about regulations designed to stop electrical companies from starting fires, it would be completely kosher.