[andrewmg]

What a tendentious headline. Of course an employer has the right to hold an information session for its employees and convey its views. The Supreme Court held in 1941 that nothing in the National Labor Relations Act prohibits an employer "from expressing its view on labor policies or problems" unless the employer's speech "in connection with other circumstances [amounts] to coercion within the meaning of the Act." NLRB v. Virginia Elec. & Power Co., 314 U.S. 469, 477.

Subsequently, in 1947 Congress enacted an express speech protection in NLRA § 8(c): "The expressing of any views, argument, or opinion, or the dissemination thereof, whether in written, printed, graphic, or visual form, shall not constitute or be evidence of an unfair labor practice under any of the provisions of this subchapter, if such expression contains no threat of reprisal or force or promise of benefit."

That provision "implements the First Amendment," NLRB v. Gissel Packing Co., 395 U.S. 575, 617 (1969). It also manifested a "congressional intent to encourage free debate on issues dividing labor and management." Linn v. Plant Guard Workers, 383 U.S. 53, 62 (1966).

So, yes, it has been well established for nearly as long as we've had federal labor law that employers can tell their employees why they think unionization is a bad idea. The First Amendment guarantees them that right, and Congress also guaranteed it by statute. And those rights obviously apply to statements like (from the article) "Unions make money by collecting dues from their members." One can certainly disagree with such a message, but the notion (asserted by a union attorney quoted in the article) that speech protections don't apply to employer speech is bonkers.

[ilyagr]

It's one thing to say these things. I'm sure Amazon has a website somewhere saying such things, for anybody who wants to read them, that's fine. It's another to obligate people to listen or to threaten them, explicitly or implicitly, about things you might do if they vote a certain way.

Illustrating this difference is why I posted https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41947141.

[andrewmg]

They're employees. The employer pays them for their time and can demand that they attend whatever activities the employer chooses, from work training sessions to anti-harassment training sessions to sessions talking about corporate culture to sessions expressing the employer's views on topics like unionization.

If you want, you can hire someone to listen to you talk 8 hours a day on whatever topic you choose--there's no law against it.

[stevenAthompson]

You have a fair point, but also consider the large imbalance of power here.

On one side you have a mega-corporation that can take away the employees ability to eat, live indoors, or receive required healthcare. On the other you have Joe Six-pack who could possibly mildly inconvenience his employer, at worst.

Granting the mega-corp the ability to speak it's mind, without also guaranteeing Joe a few rights in return is just moving that threat from explicit to implicit.

[pksebben]

> whatever activities the employer chooses

This is wrong. Your employer cannot ask you to engage in things that compromise your safety or otherwise illegally put you in harms way.

The thing at question here, is whether the implicit threat of job loss constitutes such a case. I would argue it absolutely does - especially for those at the bottom of the income ladder (like amazon workers). This is an existential threat to coerce a behavior.

[stevenAthompson]

Is there any similar guarantee that an employee can respond by sharing their contrary opinion without consequences? If not this seems less like freedom of speech and more like an implied threat.