[mc32]

The old, it’s a private company so they can set their own rules (see all the responses to Twitter censorship accusations).

[TheCoelacanth]

They can set their own rules, within the bounds allowed by law. It appears to me that they would only be allowed to make this restriction if they prohibit all non-work conversation: https://www.nlrb.gov/about-nlrb/rights-we-protect/the-law/em...

[Barrin92]

It's fair enough for companies to set their own rules for internal communication, after all not every internal board is a public forum. The issue here is obviously the particular form of moderation, i.e. bosses trying to shut down labour organizing.

[tenebrisalietum]

Over a chat app they provide for work use, I'm not seeing the ethical issue. Pay and overwork is one thing but why can't these employees use their phone for things they don't want the company to observe? Phones are cheap.

[rubiquity]

Would you be ok with them taking away the break room if such discussions were happening in the break room?

[awb]

I don’t think companies are required to provide a break room, are they?

If a company goes above and beyond the requirements of the law and then removes that perk, I don’t see any legal issue with that.

As long as they’re not a monopoly, the option of working for another employer is a good way of combating legal, but immoral company policies.

[wewtyflakes]

People are living social creatures, they are not robots, and the pursuit to treat humans as APIs for units of productivity will lead to a predictable outcome of causing human misery.

[Dylan16807]

They're on the verge of banning phones, fyi.

Either way, talking about pay and unions is just as valid as talking about any other work activity.