I wonder if the effect on working conditions could be something like emotional/psychological damage from knowingly aiding in a genocide? Or is working conditions always narrowly defined to things such as workplace safety / hours worked / harassment etc? Though I could see some overlap in the emotional damage due to harassment and due to aiding in genocide.
I have to imagine that argument would be hard to make, given the lack of a particularly good limiting principle. Presumably cloud computing is fairly similar work regardless of who the client is, but I can imagine plenty of jobs where working on a specific client or project is much more annoying for employees than others, and yet it's hard to imagine that would be grounds for protest.
Makes sense. Seems like if the complaint is that the work you're doing is evil, then just quit? There's a difference between working conditions and moral qualms about the work. Could an analogy be made with religious objections? Someone could request to not work on certain projects for religious reasons, right? But that wouldn't give them the right to demand the employer cuts ties with a client.
Yeah, we've gotten to this weird point in protest culture where people have forgotten that the point of civil disobedience is to actually get punished/arrested for breaking the law. If you conscientiously object to what your company does, they have no obligation to accommodate you, while you have the freedom to just quit.
Religious accommodation is a little different because we seek to be a pluralist society, so we see it as bad if a job makes it impossible to be an observant Jew, Muslim, etc. But yes, I would be surprised if anyone had even made the argument that an employee's religious accommodation was supposed to alter business/management decisions.
Seems right. I've advocated for legislation which would completely prohibit employer retaliation against employees for off-the-job speech, political views, or lawful activities (note that California already has most of this as a matter of state law, but federal law does not, meaning that the vast majority of employers can simply, e.g., order their employees to vote for Trump or they're fired), and even give unrepresented employees an individual right to bargain in good faith over their own working conditions. But even that fantasy law would not reach on-the-job protests like this.
I wonder if the effect on working conditions could be something like emotional/psychological damage from knowingly aiding in a genocide? Or is working conditions always narrowly defined to things such as workplace safety / hours worked / harassment etc? Though I could see some overlap in the emotional damage due to harassment and due to aiding in genocide.
I have to imagine that argument would be hard to make, given the lack of a particularly good limiting principle. Presumably cloud computing is fairly similar work regardless of who the client is, but I can imagine plenty of jobs where working on a specific client or project is much more annoying for employees than others, and yet it's hard to imagine that would be grounds for protest.
Makes sense. Seems like if the complaint is that the work you're doing is evil, then just quit? There's a difference between working conditions and moral qualms about the work. Could an analogy be made with religious objections? Someone could request to not work on certain projects for religious reasons, right? But that wouldn't give them the right to demand the employer cuts ties with a client.
Yeah, we've gotten to this weird point in protest culture where people have forgotten that the point of civil disobedience is to actually get punished/arrested for breaking the law. If you conscientiously object to what your company does, they have no obligation to accommodate you, while you have the freedom to just quit.
Religious accommodation is a little different because we seek to be a pluralist society, so we see it as bad if a job makes it impossible to be an observant Jew, Muslim, etc. But yes, I would be surprised if anyone had even made the argument that an employee's religious accommodation was supposed to alter business/management decisions.
What's the logic for why more than around four hours is too long but less is not? Strange
Seems right. I've advocated for legislation which would completely prohibit employer retaliation against employees for off-the-job speech, political views, or lawful activities (note that California already has most of this as a matter of state law, but federal law does not, meaning that the vast majority of employers can simply, e.g., order their employees to vote for Trump or they're fired), and even give unrepresented employees an individual right to bargain in good faith over their own working conditions. But even that fantasy law would not reach on-the-job protests like this.