Zero. Protected speech is protected from government intervention. You can run your own forum that bans people from discussing <thing you hate> without repercussions.
You'd want to be very sure that at no point an email/text along the lines of "let's do this, because people are discussing salaries" was sent that might show up in discovery.
So what if it does? You are not prohibiting discussing of salaries - you are prohibiting discussing of salaries while using company property and company time. There is no problem here.
NLRB has ruled many times on companies "prohibiting discussing of salaries while using company property and company time", virtually always striking down the prohibitions and in many cases sanctioning companies for trying to impose them. Labor organizing activity is absolutely allowed to happen on company property and company time. It would be impossible otherwise at many workplaces. Think about auto factories, coal mines, offshore oil platforms, etc., especially before email.
If work allows non-work conversations, discussing salaries can't be an exception to that. (Automattic definitely permits non-work conversations during the workday.)
> You may have discussions about wages when not at work, when you are on break, and even during work if employees are permitted to have other non-work conversations. You have these rights whether or not you are represented by a union.
If you consistently have - and consistently enforce! - a "no non-work conversations" policy, that can include salary discussions. Suddenly adding a new "no talking!" policy in response to people organizing wouldn't fly, either.
> Does the employee handbook/contract/whatever say it's ok? Or is it just done?
It would have to say that there are to be no off-topic conversations during work of any kind, and it would have to have been demonstrably enforced. If it's a new policy that somehow is only ever invoked when someone talks about salaries, you're in for a world of hurt.
> There is no reality where any employer willfully enabled employees to literally not do work while being paid to work.
If it's like any other significantly sized tech company, there's probably a pool and ping-pong table somewhere. It's also possible to talk while working.
> are to be no off-topic conversations during work of any kind, and it would have to have been demonstrably enforced
This is silly.
Go read your contract. It most likely has something exactly like this in it, in addition to spelling out what you are allowed to use company property and time for. This is employer 101 level stuff folks.
> demonstrably enforced
Telling someone to get back to work once in a while is enforcement.
You can continue contorting this into some sort of pro-union/organization thing - but it is not.
These people literally:
1) Started their work day
2) Used their company-provided computer to browse the internet instead of working
3) Used their company-provided email address to sign up for a non-work-related website
4) If successful in creating the account, would proceed to spend company time gossiping about company policies.
On it's own that's a terminatable offense and a gross misuse of company time, money and property.
> You can continue contorting this into some sort of pro-union/organization thing - but it is not.
You previously posted "Unskilled labor probably shouldn't be livable", so you'll have to excuse my doubts about your pro-worker stance.
> These people literally:
There's actually no evidence that occurred. I have my work email on my personal phone, and I can receive a 2FA code outside of work hours; I could sign up for Blind without ever once using company hardware or time.
Again, if Automattic has a history of permitting occasional non-work browsing/emailing - which they almost certainly do - sudden specific targeting of payment discussions would be a violation of the NLRA.
> You previously posted "Unskilled labor probably shouldn't be livable", so you'll have to excuse my doubts about your pro-worker stance.
I'm glad you enjoy my work. No, unskilled labor should not be livable. It's literally, unskilled.
> Again, if Automattic has a history of permitting occasional non-work browsing/emailing - which they almost certainly do - sudden specific targeting of payment discussions would be a violation of the NLRA.
That's a HUGE leap and assumption you are making here, isn't it? Sudden targeting of payment discussions? Do you have any evidence to suggest that is the only non-work-related topic being targeted here?
> That's a HUGE leap and assumption you are making here, isn't it?
No. Scroll up. I started with this, for context:
"You'd want to be very sure that at no point an email/text along the lines of 'let's do this, because people are discussing salaries' was sent that might show up in discovery."
> Do you have any evidence to suggest that is the only non-work-related topic being targeted here?
https://www.teamblind.com/sign-up has the tagline "Real salary data from verified employees"; it's a pretty single-purpose site. Matt had Blind signup emails intercepted and sent to him instead.
What other possible purpose of targeting this specific site could there be, if not to impact disclosure/awareness of salaries within Automattic?
> You may have discussions about wages when not at work, when you are on break, and even during work if employees are permitted to have other non-work conversations. You have these rights whether or not you are represented by a union.
> > You may have discussions about wages when not at work, when you are on break, and even during work if employees are permitted to have other non-work conversations. You have these rights whether or not you are represented by a union.
So which employer expressly allows you to use company time and property to do non-company things? Oh, right... none.
So you clocking into work (figuratively or literally), logging into you company computer, browsing to a non-work-related website and gabbing all day is not protected.
> So which employer expressly allows you to use company time and property to do non-company things? Oh, right... none.
Virtually all companies permit non-disruptive non-work discussions during the work day. "How was your weekend?", for example. Unless you're something like a voice actor, they can even usually occur while you work.
"How was your weekend" is not the same as spending a couple hours on a non-work related website.
This is not a union/organization issue. This is a very simple case of employees goofing off on the clock and being surprised the company found out about it.
There wouldn't even be an article about this had any of this occurred after hours or on breaks. The fact that breaks aren't even part of the discussion tells you without ambiguity these people were stealing company time, money and resources instead of doing the thing they were hired to do.
> There wouldn't even be an article about this had any of this occurred after hours or on breaks.
You can't just make shit up to win an argument; there's absolutely no way of telling whether or not these emails were generated during breaks. All we know is Matt intercepted them. They could've signed up outside of work hours, during breaks, on vacation, etc. and Matt would still have been receiving them.
If it's anything like most other tech companies, breaks aren't even formal, let alone tracked/timestamped.
It may not be so clear cut if the employer allows other non-work use of the email and computers, like sending and receiving personal emails, or visiting websites for personal reasons.
