Slashdot Mirror

What you describe is expressly illegal under American labor law. If a union has evidence that this has happened, they can go to court and collect damages.

Even if a company prevents unionization activities during working hours (which companies can restrict) there is nothing preventing the union from mailing, calling, or emailing the employees outside of work. Most unionizations efforts fail, not because of illegal company actions, but because the employees don't see the union as a benefit, often with good reason. They get a union deduction from every paycheck, and end up with a more confrontational working environment, less opportunity for individual advancement, and get to see their job outsourced to Mexico (or at least to South Carolina).

Maybe instead of reading his court filing, in which he attempts to depict himself in the best possible light, you should read the National Labor Relations Board evaluation of his case. They point out that not only did he, himself, share the memo on two separate company forums, but in their opinion he "reasonably should have known that the memorandum would likely be disseminated further, even beyond the workplace."

They also make much ado about the fact that he wasn't fired for offering suggestions about how the workplace could be improved, only for his "use of stereotypes based on purported biological differences" "notwithstanding effort to cloak comments with 'scientific' references and analysis, and notwithstanding 'not all women' disclaimers."

"The court" didn't rule on anything. A single person, Jayme Sophir, associate general counsel of the NLRB’s division of advice, decided in an analysis that “the statements regarding biological differences between the sexes were so harmful, discriminatory, and disruptive as to be unprotected.”

Basically, without actually providing any counter-evidence to dispute any claims made by Davore, she dismisses his claims as discriminatory and of a sexually harassing nature.

The letter proper is the following link.

http://apps.nlrb.gov/link/docu...

This act from 1935, specifically: https://www.nlrb.gov/rights-we...

What anti-union company is not going to use general terminations to rid itself of organizers?

Ones that don't want to be sued out of existence. Selectively firing pro-union workers is a major illegal act, something akin to stock fraud. This is why companies try to do their best to keep records on everything so they can show they're not just targeting like this

He was trying to open a dialogue about problems with the way things were being run at work. What he did and where he did it was entirely appropriate.

Also, this kind of thing is a legally PROTECTED act, and an Employer interfering with or retaliating against employees for engaging in this type of dialog violates federal law. Section 7 rights for Protected Concerted Activity under the NLRB prohibit employer retaliation over
such speech, even if the employees are not uninized.

And Employee Rights

Activity Outside a Union

A few examples of protected concerted activities are:

Two or more employees discussing work-related issues beyond pay, such as safety concerns, with each other.

An employee speaking to an employer on behalf of one or more co-workers about improving workplace conditions.

Section 8(a)(1) of the Act makes it an unfair labor practice for an employer "to interfere with, restrain, or coerce employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7" of the Act.

He was trying to open a dialogue about problems with the way things were being run at work. What he did and where he did it was entirely appropriate.

Also, this kind of thing is a legally PROTECTED act, and an Employer interfering with or retaliating against employees for engaging in this type of dialog violates federal law. Section 7 rights for Protected Concerted Activity under the NLRB prohibit employer retaliation over
such speech, even if the employees are not uninized.

And Employee Rights

Activity Outside a Union

A few examples of protected concerted activities are:

Two or more employees discussing work-related issues beyond pay, such as safety concerns, with each other.

An employee speaking to an employer on behalf of one or more co-workers about improving workplace conditions.

Section 8(a)(1) of the Act makes it an unfair labor practice for an employer "to interfere with, restrain, or coerce employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7" of the Act.

Right to work is often misinterpreted. It should be that you can fire a person for any reason, except for any of the reasons that are prohibited by law. You can't fire someone for their race for one big example.

Since he filed a complaint with the NLRB, and the (surprisingly short) National Labor Relations Act Section 7 protects the rights of all employees (not just union employees) to discuss the "terms and conditions of employment" with other employees, if Google fires him as a result of that, the NLRB could order the guy to be reinstated with back pay. Google is going to argue that he was just making a personal complaint, and wasn't really intending to try to improve working conditions, so it wasn't what the NLRB considers a "protected concerted activity". I think Google has the slightly stronger argument here, but at the same time they're relying on a code of conduct that prohibits bias as justification for firing the guy, and I doubt the NLRB is going to look favorably on that one. They've ordered companies to change similar things in their employee handbooks in the past couple of years.

I've said it before, and I'll say it again. I don't agree with virtually anything the guy said in his "manifesto" but I hope Google gets smacked down hard for their retaliating against the guy for saying it.

You can't enforce an illegal contract giving away federally protected rights. State laws are also lower priority.

And if you can't follow legal documents here is the law protecting those worker rights, from 1935.

You really need to read that article again, starting with the summary at the top. You are either illiterate or biased and missed the point that Boeing was violating federal labor laws by actively choosing to re-locate an existing plant to another state. Regulation of such actions is the squarely the NLRB's job. Details of the actual complaint are here.

You really need to read that article again, starting with the summary at the top. You are either illiterate or biased and missed the point that Boeing was violating federal labor laws by actively choosing to re-locate an existing plant to another state. Regulation of such actions is the squarely the NLRB's job. Details of the actual complaint are here.

Most of the comments here are about whether the woman in question is a whiner. That isn't the important point. The National Labor act makes it illegal to fire employees for "discussing terms and conditions of employment with fellow employees". The NLRB has ruled that social media is a way to discuss conditions with other employees. Unless she was discussing company secrets not related to things like salary she can't be fired for that. More detail can be found here: https://www.nlrb.gov/news-outr... If Yelp fired her because of this post, then they are going to owe her back wages and maybe a lot more.

In order to place performance over the appearance of labor, management will have to develoop some metrics for measuring actual work done. In its own right, this is a difficult problem in engineering, CS and other disciplines that involve creative, self directed and non-repetitive work*.

Problem: There are employees hiding among the ranks of professional who would never survive such a metric. They would push back against any adoption of actual performance criteria in favor of the status quo. Long hours is something that the untalented can achieve and keep their standing in the workplace.

* A 'professional', as defined in the NLRA.

No I am not saying it. Lafe Solomon an attorney working for the National Labor Relations Board is saying it. Read the PDF embedded in the original article:
http://mynlrb.nlrb.gov/link/document.aspx/09031d4580a375cd

ACtually I did read it; and an important point is the *reason* he's saying it's unlawful. He is not saying employers may not restrict the kinds of information that employees publish; only that they must be specific.

"Rules that are ambiguous as to their application to Section 7 activity, and contain no limiting language or context that would clarify to employees that the rule does not restrict Section 7 rights, are unlawful"

And in this case, it all hung on the rather loosely defined term "confidential information". He found that because of the lack of definition, that term could be considered to include conditions of employment.

Had they been more specific in excluding trade secrets, that would have been permissible.

No I am not saying it. Lafe Solomon an attorney working for the National Labor Relations Board is saying it. Read the PDF embedded in the original article:
http://mynlrb.nlrb.gov/link/document.aspx/09031d4580a375cd

These contracts couldn't ever really work if people were allowed talk salary

Of course you can talk salary. It's a legal right in the US. (29 U.S.C.157). Here's the NRLB workplace poster. Report employer violations to 1-866-667-NLRB (6572) .

Under the NLRA, you have the right to:

• Organize a union to negotiate with your employer concerning your wages, hours, and other terms and conditions of employment.
• Form, join or assist a union.
• Bargain collectively through representatives of employeesâ(TM) own choosing for a contract with your employer setting your wages, benefits, hours, and other working conditions.
• Discuss your wages and benefits and other terms and conditions of employment or union organizing with your co-workers or a union.
• Take action with one or more co-workers to improve your working conditions by, among other means, raising work-related complaints directly with your employer or with a government agency, and seeking help from a union.
• Strike and picket, depending on the purpose or means of the strike or the picketing.
• Choose not to do any of these activities, including joining or remaining a member of a union.

Illegal conduct will not be permitted. If you believe your rights or the rights of others have been violated, you should contact the NLRB promptly to protect your rights, generally within six months of the unlawful activity. You may inquire about possible violations without your employer or anyone else being informed of the inquiry. Charges may be filed by any person and need not be filed by the employee directly affected by the violation. The NLRB may order an employer to rehire a worker fired in violation of the law and to pay lost wages and benefits, and may order an employer or union to cease violating the law. Employees should seek assistance from the nearest regional NLRB office, which can be found on the Agencyâ(TM)s Web site: http://www.nlrb.gov/ You can also contact the NLRB by calling toll-free: 1-866-667-NLRB (6572) or (TTY) 1-866-315-NLRB (1-866-315-6572) for hearing impaired.

NRLB enforcement was weak under the Bush Administration. Now they're back. Here's a case where an employer fired someone for posting about working conditions on Facebook. The NLRB forced the employer to rehire them with back pay.

These contracts couldn't ever really work if people were allowed talk salary

Of course you can talk salary. It's a legal right in the US. (29 U.S.C.157). Here's the NRLB workplace poster. Report employer violations to 1-866-667-NLRB (6572) .

Under the NLRA, you have the right to:

• Organize a union to negotiate with your employer concerning your wages, hours, and other terms and conditions of employment.
• Form, join or assist a union.
• Bargain collectively through representatives of employeesâ(TM) own choosing for a contract with your employer setting your wages, benefits, hours, and other working conditions.
• Discuss your wages and benefits and other terms and conditions of employment or union organizing with your co-workers or a union.
• Take action with one or more co-workers to improve your working conditions by, among other means, raising work-related complaints directly with your employer or with a government agency, and seeking help from a union.
• Strike and picket, depending on the purpose or means of the strike or the picketing.
• Choose not to do any of these activities, including joining or remaining a member of a union.

Illegal conduct will not be permitted. If you believe your rights or the rights of others have been violated, you should contact the NLRB promptly to protect your rights, generally within six months of the unlawful activity. You may inquire about possible violations without your employer or anyone else being informed of the inquiry. Charges may be filed by any person and need not be filed by the employee directly affected by the violation. The NLRB may order an employer to rehire a worker fired in violation of the law and to pay lost wages and benefits, and may order an employer or union to cease violating the law. Employees should seek assistance from the nearest regional NLRB office, which can be found on the Agencyâ(TM)s Web site: http://www.nlrb.gov/ You can also contact the NLRB by calling toll-free: 1-866-667-NLRB (6572) or (TTY) 1-866-315-NLRB (1-866-315-6572) for hearing impaired.

NRLB enforcement was weak under the Bush Administration. Now they're back. Here's a case where an employer fired someone for posting about working conditions on Facebook. The NLRB forced the employer to rehire them with back pay.

These contracts couldn't ever really work if people were allowed talk salary

Of course you can talk salary. It's a legal right in the US. (29 U.S.C.157). Here's the NRLB workplace poster. Report employer violations to 1-866-667-NLRB (6572) .

Under the NLRA, you have the right to:

• Organize a union to negotiate with your employer concerning your wages, hours, and other terms and conditions of employment.
• Form, join or assist a union.
• Bargain collectively through representatives of employeesâ(TM) own choosing for a contract with your employer setting your wages, benefits, hours, and other working conditions.
• Discuss your wages and benefits and other terms and conditions of employment or union organizing with your co-workers or a union.
• Take action with one or more co-workers to improve your working conditions by, among other means, raising work-related complaints directly with your employer or with a government agency, and seeking help from a union.
• Strike and picket, depending on the purpose or means of the strike or the picketing.
• Choose not to do any of these activities, including joining or remaining a member of a union.

Illegal conduct will not be permitted. If you believe your rights or the rights of others have been violated, you should contact the NLRB promptly to protect your rights, generally within six months of the unlawful activity. You may inquire about possible violations without your employer or anyone else being informed of the inquiry. Charges may be filed by any person and need not be filed by the employee directly affected by the violation. The NLRB may order an employer to rehire a worker fired in violation of the law and to pay lost wages and benefits, and may order an employer or union to cease violating the law. Employees should seek assistance from the nearest regional NLRB office, which can be found on the Agencyâ(TM)s Web site: http://www.nlrb.gov/ You can also contact the NLRB by calling toll-free: 1-866-667-NLRB (6572) or (TTY) 1-866-315-NLRB (1-866-315-6572) for hearing impaired.

NRLB enforcement was weak under the Bush Administration. Now they're back. Here's a case where an employer fired someone for posting about working conditions on Facebook. The NLRB forced the employer to rehire them with back pay.

Seriously? Ask the National Labor Relations Board

Maybe someone should have that option, but where I worked and likely most everywhere else, it was forbidden to tell others how much you made. This conditioning is stupid.

It is illegal in the US, under the National Labor Relations Act, for the employer to forbid employees to discuss pay with each other. Because organizing a union involves discussing pay, and workers have the right to organize, workers have the right to discuss pay with each other.

interestingly enough....

Discussing pay is a protected activity under the NRLA.

even threatening to shutdown operations because the employees unionize is illegal. actually doing so, when the purpose it only thwart unionization, is definitely illegal.

as I said before, some unions have unreasonable expectations. and i can imagine a scenario where a union forms and demands wages and benefits that would make it impossible for the business to operate. and that business would be within its rights to shut down.

but that's not what wal-mart is doing. they pull every trick in the book to prevent unionization, legal or otherwise. and shutting down a location to break a union is illegal. NRLA is pretty clear on this.

-esme

It really has nothing to do with who took over Congress as to why this was settled. This is common practice by companies large and small that they classify non-exempt workers as exempt and screw the employee out of overtime. The typical employee moans about it but never bothers to do anything about it. It is a simple as placing a phonecall (well, not quite that simple) to the Labor Relations Board http://www.nlrb.gov/ . Most employees I suspect are non-exempt. I have done this several times with positive outcomes for myself and co-workers. Typically, If you mention the thought of calling the NLRB to someone in HR/accounting the problem will mysteriously go away.

I'm not sure how you construed my post as a half memory because I didn't say anything that cameras are always legal so long as a notice is posted but I appreciate the clarification for others who may view. I wasn't considering private areas such as bathrooms. My statement was that in the US, if an employer utilizes a CCTV system in the workplace, they must post notices and inform the employees.

I found that NLRB case here. Look at the AnheuserBusch case.

After a little more research, I discover this and this. Not the definitive sources on the matter but an interesting read. Going back to my previous post to the author, consult your union if you're allowed one.

In the US, it is illegal to have CCTV in the workplace without a posted notice. If you have a union you should bring it up with them. I recently went through a Labor Relations course where we when through various cases and I distinctly remembering a company being in trouble for having a CCTV system without notice.

The Act is called the National Labor Relations Act, you should see if you have something similar. More info on different cases can be found here.

You're wrong. The "no fraternizing" clause mentions nothing about "while in uniform." That has to do with the "solicitation" clause.

Why don't you READ the actual decision?

Parent does not know what he is talking about.

The NLRB rules on a wide variety of workplace rights issues. Section 7 of the NLRA specifies you have the right to "concerted activity" which includes ANYTHING you do as a group (or on behalf of a group) and not necessarily just in a union context. Workers in unions use these rules more than anyone else because they have a structure that knows how to use them.

The actual decision (pdf) doesn't say a damn thing about this being just about unions. It says that company had the right to make this rule to limit employee behavior after work. This wording is specifically upheld:
you must NOT . . . fraternize on duty or off duty, date or become overly friendly with the client's employees or with co-employees.

Now, fraternize is broader than just dating, as dating is specifically spelled out.

So the title of the article is not catastrophizing. The company was putting down rules that really do say what you can do after work hours and the NLRB has upheld them.

For chrissakes, could you just read the damned ruling?

http://www.nlrb.gov/nlrb/shared_files/decisions/34 4/344-97.pdf

The NLRB in fact ruled that Guardsmark had to RESCIND the order, so you COULD engage in solicitation while wearing your uniform!

There were several sections to the ruling. One of them did in fact regard the regulation forbidding employees to "fraternize on duty or off duty, date or become overly friendly with the client's employees or with co-employees."

http://www.nlrb.gov/nlrb/shared_files/decisions/34 4/344-97.htm

If you read the ruling, you will see that the fraternization clause is in this section:

REGULATIONS, Paragraph 4: While on duty you must NOT . . . fraternize on duty or off duty, date or become overly friendly with the client's employees or with co-employees.

This says nothing about being in uniform. The restrictions about being in uniform are from GENERAL ORDERS, Paragraph 18, and talk about solicitation and distribution of literature.

In the section explaining the ruling, they say: the Respondent's rule is designed "to provide safeguards so that security will not be compromised by interpersonal relationships either between Respondent's fellow security guards or between Respon-dent's security guards and clients' employees."

Again, there is nothing about being in uniform.

try reading the actual ruling from the NLRB PDF warning The Ruling

GENERAL ORDERS, Paragraph 18: Solicitation and distribution of literature not pertaining to officially as signed duties is prohibited at all times while on duty or in uniform, and any known or suspected violation of this order is to be reported to your immediate supervi sor immediately.


The issue before us, then, is a narrow one: whether er's employees could reasonably construe the Respondent's rule against soliciting while ``in uniform'' as prohibiting ' solicitation with the company's insignia covered, which lawful all agree (or at least concede) is conduct protected by s Section 7.

I believe that the title is referring to the NLRB not the NRLB, which apparently does not exist.

...since the submission is extremely misleading and melodramatic, as usual.

NLRB ruling

The ruling does not universally allow employers to ban any and all off-duty interaction. It made a specific ruling, in its capacity of administering the National Labor Relations Act, that Guardsmark's ban on in-uniform, but off duty, fraternization ("dating or becoming overly friendly with") with clients and coworkers. The critical and key aspect of the ruling was that it allowed for the prevention of such inappropriate fraternization while in Guardsmark uniform. The NLRB ruling further stated that care must be taken such that this ruling is not misapplied as to have a "chilling" effect on employee's rights under Section 7 of the the Act.

The actual order is:

ORDER
The Respondent, Guardsmark, LLC, its officers, agents, suc-cessors, and assigns, shall
1. Cease and desist from
(a) Maintaining or enforcing a handbook provision prohibit-ing employees from registering complaints regarding their wages, hours, or conditions of employment with Guardsmarks' clients.
(b) In any like or related manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed them by Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action which is necessary to effectuate the purposes of the Act.
(a) Within 21 days after receipt of this decision advise its employees, nationwide, that the handbook provision regarding registering complaints with clients is not to be understood as limiting the right of employees to engage in activities protected by the National Labor Relations Act.
(b) At a time when the employee handbook is to be revised or reissued, either delete the handbook provision prohibiting employees from registering complaints with clients, or modify the said language so that it does not prohibit activities protected by the National Labor Relations Act.
(c) Within 14 days after service by the Region, post at its San Francisco, California office copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix."6 Copies of the notice, on forms provided by the Regional Director for Region 20, after being duly signed by Respondent's representative, shall be posted immediately upon receipt thereof, and shall remain posted by Respondent for 60 consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous places, in-cluding all places where notices to employees are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by the Respondent to ensure that the notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
(d) Within 21 days after service by the Regional Office, file with the Regional Director for Region 20 a sworn certification of a responsible official on a form provided by the Region at-testing to the steps that the Respondent has taken to comply.

...since the submission is extremely misleading and melodramatic, as usual.

NLRB ruling

The ruling does not universally allow employers to ban any and all off-duty interaction. It made a specific ruling, in its capacity of administering the National Labor Relations Act, that Guardsmark's ban on in-uniform, but off duty, fraternization ("dating or becoming overly friendly with") with clients and coworkers. The critical and key aspect of the ruling was that it allowed for the prevention of such inappropriate fraternization while in Guardsmark uniform. The NLRB ruling further stated that care must be taken such that this ruling is not misapplied as to have a "chilling" effect on employee's rights under Section 7 of the the Act.

The actual order is:

ORDER
The Respondent, Guardsmark, LLC, its officers, agents, suc-cessors, and assigns, shall
1. Cease and desist from
(a) Maintaining or enforcing a handbook provision prohibit-ing employees from registering complaints regarding their wages, hours, or conditions of employment with Guardsmarks' clients.
(b) In any like or related manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed them by Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action which is necessary to effectuate the purposes of the Act.
(a) Within 21 days after receipt of this decision advise its employees, nationwide, that the handbook provision regarding registering complaints with clients is not to be understood as limiting the right of employees to engage in activities protected by the National Labor Relations Act.
(b) At a time when the employee handbook is to be revised or reissued, either delete the handbook provision prohibiting employees from registering complaints with clients, or modify the said language so that it does not prohibit activities protected by the National Labor Relations Act.
(c) Within 14 days after service by the Region, post at its San Francisco, California office copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix."6 Copies of the notice, on forms provided by the Regional Director for Region 20, after being duly signed by Respondent's representative, shall be posted immediately upon receipt thereof, and shall remain posted by Respondent for 60 consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous places, in-cluding all places where notices to employees are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by the Respondent to ensure that the notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
(d) Within 21 days after service by the Regional Office, file with the Regional Director for Region 20 a sworn certification of a responsible official on a form provided by the Region at-testing to the steps that the Respondent has taken to comply.

Not that I have any opinions ; ) but the workers that 'go along with it' are behaving every bit as unethically as the employers. When I'm elected king of the universe employees who enable this evil will be just as guilty of crime as the employers asking for their servitude.

Really, if someone asks you to be a slave and you say "okily dokily" because being a slave for that person is better then finding a new job then you are spitting on the graves of people everywhere who fought and gave their lives to end servitude and oppression.

Ethical people, when confronted with behaviour like this will document it and contact:
http://www.nlrb.gov/nlrb/home/default.asp

Boydk425, capitalist and ethical person.

In one case, the NLRB held that email communication may qualify as "protected concerted activity" under the NLRA. In Timekeeping Systems, Inc., 323 NLRB 244 (1997), the NLRB reversed the discharge of an Ohio computer programmer who criticized a new company vacation policy via e-mail. The NLRB concluded that because the employee's email message primarily sought the assistance of other employees in getting the old vacation policy reinstated, it qualified as a form of concerted activity.

The NLRB agreed that the tenor of the employee's message was derisive, but it did not feel the message was offensive enough to lose the protection of the NLRA.

Well, if she's a union member, that's likely true - an association you join voluntarily would probably have the presumed permission of its members to spend their dues however its leadership sees fit.

However - if your wife resigns from the union and becomes an agency shop member, she would be able to not only demand the "political" percentage of her money back, but also the proportion of her dues spent on organizing other employees into new union shops.

It is illegal (even in a "closed shop" bargaining unit) to force people to join the union or coerce those who choose not to do so. A "happy medium" is what many refer to as the "fair share" employee, who pays for the cost of collective bargaining and grievance representation but not union organization and political campaigns. A quick google search revealed this FAQ that looks pretty succinct but correct.

For more on your rights NOT to join or support a union any more than necessary, check out the National Right to Work Foundation. The National Labor Relations Board also has lots of great material available online.

Also, remember that you don't have to be a unionized employee to gain protection under the Section 7 of the National Labor Relations Act. Any employee acting in concert with another (or others - called "concerted activity") for the mutual aid and protection of employees is protected from unlawful interference in their choices to act collectively.

Good point. That was my fault, I should have chosen that word more carefully. But the article from the Daily Star does make that point in an interview with an IT employer.

But then again, many workers who were supposedly guaranteed overtime under the old law, were denied proper compensation. And trust me, appealing that to the National Labor Relations Board is not fun.

Here's a case file from the National Labor Relations Board that mentions it. Or here's a search from Google that turns up 2,100 results for the exact term.

Maybe there's "no such thing" in your world. But in the real world, there is such a thing.

Greg

Price fixing is also illegal.

So are cartels.

No, cartels are not illegal.

The National Labor Relations Act saw to it that politically acceptable cartels get special protection under the law.

The National Labor Board has a page where you can contact your local office.

Ask them what you can do.

The National Labor Board has a page where you can contact your local office.

Ask them what you can do.

From what I understand about this stuff in the US, you can be fired with no notice and no severance pay so be careful. No matter what, be prepared to look for another job. I'd think you should do that anyways if management isn't willing to let you bank the time or even hint that they recognize that you are making a special contribution.

Commercial speech deservces less protection than non-commercial speech. In addition, complaints about employment practices may come under protection by the ADA, FMLA, Title VII, and the NLRA.

But, this intersect with the rights of Intel to have control over their mail servers. Maybe the lawmakers should look at this case when drafting anti-spam statutes.