2012 conventions 2012 election 2013 session arts arts and culture author ballot measures basketball bomb books boy scouts budget bullying business charlie hales children clackamas climate change coal college courts crime culture culture club democrats drugs economy education environment family film fluoride food gay rights guns handguns health health care health insurance high school history housing immigration internet kitzhaber law legislature lgbt literary arts living marijuana marriage media medicine mental health military minor parties mohamed mohamud movies music native americans news newspaper obama olympics oregon our town parenting pers photography police politcs politics port portland portland business journal president prevention public safety religion republicans rnc romney rural salem sam adams sandy hook schools science shooting sports suicide supreme court taxes technology television terrorism theater third parties transportation union university of oregon washington wildfire women

I think because OPB prides itself on being the best news source available that they should be accurate in the terminology that they use.  First of all, AMR, Inc. of Connecticut is a private company.  Thus, there is no 1st Amendment issue implicated here, but rather the NLRB alleged a violation of a section of the National Labor Relations Act.  Second, that would be aspects of Labor Law NOT employment law.  The "speech" issue here has to do with a union member's ability to organize and criticize the employer via Facebook, but it is not necessarily clear that it applies to those employers who are not subject to the NLRA.  Further, only government action is subject to 1st Amendment scrutiny and not private employers.  Again, here, there was no 1st Amendment violation.

posted 2 years, 3 months ago
view in context

I think because OPB prides itself on being the best news source available that they should be accurate in the terminology that they use.  First of all, AMR, Inc. of Connecticut is a private company.  Thus, there is no 1st Amendment issue implicated here, but rather the NLRB alleged a violation of a section of the National Labor Relations Act.  Second, that would be aspects of Labor Law NOT employment law.  The "speech" issue here has to do with a union member's ability to organize and criticize the employer via Facebook, but it is not necessarily clear that it applies to those employers who are not subject to the NLRA.  Further, only government action is subject to 1st Amendment scrutiny and not private employers.  Again, here, there was no 1st Amendment violation.

posted 2 years, 3 months ago
view in context