Except for the most part, Reddit mods aren't employees; they're not even volunteers. They're users and customers of the site. They just happen to be users with access to more features than most.

they're not users nor customers, they're the product that reddit is selling

It's as though the cows reject to being slaughtered!

reddit mods are notoriously terrible and have giant egos so honestly im a fan for many of them getting banned

Techicallyvyhry haven't been fired, just sort-of muzzled.

The law has evolved to help balance the relationship between employer and employee. It dictates limits on employer behaviour and also limits on employee behaviour. Usually there is a formal structure (union) to act as the employee representative.

None of which is in play here. There are no employees, just volunteers. There is no union. Yhe action appears to be somewhat arbitrary. Why private groups? Why 48 hours? Has there been any formal discussions to the root dispute? Is there a union for API users? What link us there between API users and moderators?

So yes, the response seems heavy-handed, but the proposed action seems premature. The mods are testing their power and Reddit is responding. And there's no law governing any of this, on either side.

For now, the modcoord subreddit functionally takes on the role of a union. I know that there have been times in the past when moderators were unhappy about the state of tools that Reddit provides for them to moderate. If I remember correctly there was also some kind of spontaneous organisation of moderators that adressed Reddit admins with their collective voice, although I am not sure if any "strike" kind of action was threatened back then.

Unfortunately, until congress passes legislation requiring companies that operate as a place of public discourse to follow certain conventions this will keep happening because technically they own you (or rather they own the words that you say as data).

They have basically reached the monetization phase, where most smart users bail either just before or shortly after. You get the same dynamics with tyrants, only you have more risks and more options available to you in the real.

Straight termination is illegal in most places, but more subtle yet unmistakenable steps can be taken. For instance freezing bonuses and other compensation over performance claims, or "promoting" an active movement leader physically away from the group, cutting budget on projects that directly affect prominent members, or moving them away from the critical projects thus killing their evaluation etc.

Sadly, fighting strikes and unions has probably become an art at this point.

Well sure it's a bit of a game between the employers and the union. Countries with more extensive labour laws will restrict a wider range of unethical behaviour from employers, giving the workforce more clout in negotiations.