666
Judge rules that Twitter violated contract when it withheld millions of dollars in bonuses
(www.courthousenews.com)
this post was submitted on 23 Dec 2023
666 points (97.6% liked)
World News
32075 readers
1169 users here now
News from around the world!
Rules:
-
Please only post links to actual news sources, no tabloid sites, etc
-
No NSFW content
-
No hate speech, bigotry, propaganda, etc
founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I like unions and I don't think this is an example otherwise. But, why does this highlight unions? This is a dude that didn't write a check. I don't think he would have paid bonuses to a union either. It seems to me, a judge would be needed in either case.
Union contracts leave things less open to interpretation, union advice helps employees understand that this is a legal issue, and coordinated legal action and representation help you win the fight in court.
Leaving it to individual employees to individually see the problem, recognise they have legal standing, then fight Phoney Stark's infestation of lawyers isn't super-realistic, and turns the employment contracts into nothing more than a weapon to fuck with the employees, because Musk can just ignore anything in the contract favourable to employees.
This was an oral agreement that a judge found binding. This shit happens to unions. Again, I like unions and think these employees would be well-served by one, but it's hard to see this example as "this is why we need unions".
Unions aren't silver bullets - but they're bullets nonetheless, and that's good enough most of the time.
With that, I agree. It doesn't answer my question, but I'll gladly agree with you.
The court, famous for siding with the workers over the bosses in all but the most egregious cases.