News for hackers. Stuff that matters.

A comment on Cheerleader’s Snapchat rant leads to ‘momentous’ Supreme Court case on speech. Parent comment

Re:Cheerleader’s Snapchat rant leads to ‘momentous’ Supreme ... by thissorthatt on Monday April 26, 2021 @01:09PM (#26945033)
The employer is not bound by the 1st Amendment. Whereas the school (functioning as a part of the government) is.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Cheerleader’s Snapchat rant leads to ‘momentous’ Supreme ... by nitrogen on Monday April 26, 2021 @03:31PM (#26946925)
Communicating with coworkers about workplace conditions could be a protected labor activity.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Cheerleader’s Snapchat rant leads to ‘momentous’ Supreme ... by shadowgovt on Monday April 26, 2021 @04:20PM (#26947548)
Protected labor activities are protected in the US by Section 7 of the National Labor Relations Act, not by the Constitution.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Cheerleader’s Snapchat rant leads to ‘momentous’ Supreme ... by teawrecks on Monday April 26, 2021 @03:56PM (#26947230)
What would/should actually happen in this case is HR/the manager would meet with the employee and ask them to vent any apparent frustrations. If the statement was made publicly, they would probably be fired outright for making public statements about the employer without permission. If it's only internal, they wouldn't be fired outright, but they will likely be passed over for promotion. Makes sense, why should a company invest in someone who apparently isn't invested in the company? If they are ever fired, the reason given would be for some other unrelated infraction that they are legally allowed to terminate for.
[ Parent | on HN ]