Slashdot Mirror
NRLB Redefines 'Your Own Time'
Doc Ruby writes "The U.S. National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) has ruled to ban off-duty worker 'fraternization,' at the employer's discretion. So getting together for a beer after work can now be prohibited by the boss. With IT workers so commonly producing some of our best work 'after hours,' even at home or in restaurants/bars, will this ruling come back to bite employers in the IT industry? Can they really stop you from talking with your cubicle neighbor on the bus home, if they can't even stop you from reading Slashdot while on the clock?"
While I completely agree that this could be made out to imply that workers are not permitted to assemble outside of work hours to collectively unite against their employer, I'm far more disturbed by the quote at the end of the article that reads, "America's workers need more opportunities to come together to discuss vexing workplace issues, or just to make personal connections with those we spend most of our waking hours with."
What American workers need to do is not allow their personal lives to intermingle with their daily work grind. Yes, plenty of people are required to do that and some employees even thrive on it, yet it is negatively impacting our mental, physical, and family health. Why are we allowing our employers to control more and more of our lives by requiring more than 40 hours a week w/o proper compensation and *requiring* us not to have outside of work relationships with any co-workers? While *I* refuse to have any out of work relationships with any of my co-workers I don't believe that employers should have the right to mandate and legally enforce that behavior.
I do everything I can to not even mention work to friends and family. When I am outside the office walls my brain is on everything but. It's healthy to have time to yourself, your family, and your hobbies.
Please, if you believe that you can successfully collectively bargain against your employer, do so to the best of your ability, but remember that work is just something you should do for 40 hours a week - anything over that should be properly compensated and documented hourly. Try and separate your family/personal life from it as best you can. For most of you the results will be more rewarding than your paycheck.
Your mind and your personal life outside of work are your own. Don't let your paycheck fool you into thinking otherwise.
My wife and I are employed at the same company... Does that mean I don't have to talk to her anymore afterwork? Thank you NLRB!!! I'm soooo shot-gunning two beers tonight and watching ESPN.
"Simplify, simplify, simplify!" Thoreau
Why do you call the U.S.A the "land of the free"?
Can they really stop you from talking with your cubicle neighbor on the bus home, if they can't even stop you from reading Slashdot while on the clock?
Not a chance.
So wait, they are going to ban my drinking! What next, no more vodka shots during breaks? Then what, they are going to replace the coke and rum dispenser with WATER!? THEY CAN'T TAKE THAT AWAY FROM ME!
Oh wait, what was TFA about again?
Interesting that the dissenting board member was the one appointed by Clinton. The others were appointed by the current president.
Best defense against this one is to be indespensible enough so that they are not about to fire/reprimand you over something so mundane for fear of you leaving. ;)
I really don't think too many employers will take the time and trouble to regulate friendships outside the office, or even inside in most cases. Most managers want to get stuff done and call it a day, not snoop around area restaurants and bars to keep tabs on employee social lives.
...that nobody cares.
Form a union, then go on strike.
You have the right to be treated like a human being.
With the exception of substance abuse or crime..
If a company wants to tell me what I can and can't do with my free time, then I will be billing them for my free time. Since my free time is worth a lot to me, I will be expecting a raise. $20 an hour 24/7 will be just fine.
Otherwise, I reserve the right to date, have sex with, go out with, hang out with, etc, with any of my co-workers when we are off the clock.
This falls under 'human rights'. Which you cannot sign away.
Job? I don't have time to get a job! Who will sit around and bitch about being broke and unemployed then?
I thought you were gone 10 years ago but it seems like you want to come back to haunt us. What's that you say? Big Brother knows best? Yeah, I should probably just learn to love the Party. I mean, who needs social interaction when you can become a mindless cubicle drone, isolated all the time?
1) I'd like to see this enforced.
2) I have a lawyer too. Like me, he lives in the USA.
3) Where is the ACLU to challenge this?
- Just my $0.02, take with a grain of salt, your mileage may vary.
Slashdot Redefines Moderation
This obviously goes against freedom of assembly, so good luck to any company trying to enforce it -- just the PR backlash would sink them.
Actually, my first thought was that such a bill would be aimed against unions. It's pretty hard to form a union if you're not allowed to meet/gather with your co-workers after work...
...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.
Off-duty fraternization? I never thought of doing that! I thought everyone went home and read Slashdot and emerged ebuilds like I do. No wonder I don't have a wife. :(
Powered by caffeine and sugar; BSD
With one ruling, the NLRB has made labor unions illegal. This puts an incredible weapon in the hands of management. It will only be enforced when fraternization becomes a problem for the employer, as in the case of union orginizing. I don't expect it to have much of an impact in IT, though, as this industry is one of the least unionized, at least in the US. However, in companies where employement is not at-will, meaning they have to have cause to fire you, a policy like this could certainly be instituted and then selectively enforced to fire just about anyone.
The whole system just looks like it's returning to feudalism. Your lord and master can dictate all aspects of your life.
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
the recent lawsuits that were stemming from some woman in the office being passed over for a promotion because some middle manager was boning someone else, and even though the bone-ee was qualified and deserved the promotion, the other employee, henceforth referred to as 'The Prude', felt that she would have to take a boning for a promotion, even though the boss showed no interest in her, had never implied that The Prude would have to be the recipient of a boning to get anywhere in the company, or had even acted in an unprofessional manner towards The Prude. She won money, and the companies cried foul. Now, instead of logic, they apply this knee-jerk reaction.
I'll do whatever the fuck I want out of work hours.
Don't work for companies that implement such a policy, then, no companies will want to implement that policy.
Meh.
Praise bossman morning workbells chime
Praise him for bits of overtime
Praise him whose wars we love to fight
Praise him fat leach and parasite
A-men
What changed under Obama? Nothing Good
This can work both ways. If your employer controls your time outside of work, injuries outside of work may become work related. I made this argument, that since my computer work at home was subject to their possession (standard inventions/non-disclosure agreement said it is their unless they didn't want it). Then my tendinitis, even off duty, was compensatible under workers comp.
BTW. I believe in California, an employer cannot punish you for legal off duty conduct.
Fight Spammers!
No, management isn't going to care if you and 2 coworkers meet up after your shifts to drink some beer and shoot the shit.
Yes, management IS going to care if you and 200 coworkers meet up after your shifts to plan a collective bargaining strategy.
This ruling says that they can now fire you with impunity for the latter. A blanche-er carte blanche to engage in union-busting practices couldn't have been given to Industry.
It makes me a little bit sick.
I find it sickening.
I never spellcheck and I freely admit it. Save your karma for more worthwhile "lol erorrs" replies
Well this is going to come back and haunt employeers, far too many times I struck a moment of brilliance at a bar and wrote down ideas on a napkin while drinking with co-workers
Fuck you. I will socialize with whomever I please. The more you try to force me otherwise, the worse it will be for you.
Yes, that was a threat. And yes, I am willing to back that up.
Mod me down with all of your hatred and your journey towards the dark side will be complete!
It's not wasting time, I'm educating myself.
this add another "excuse" for the girls at work to use when I ask them out.
I would make some +5 Funny reply, but I can't even read TFA to make an intelligent comme... wait, what am I thinking? I don't need to read the article to post! I'm still too lazy to be funny though. Pretend this was witty.
Men occasionally stumble over the truth, but most of them pick themselves up and hurry off as if nothing ever happened.
And to think there was a time when I saw USA as an example for freedom...
...if they can't even stop you from reading Slashdot while on the clock?
;-)
Nope. Still got slashdot. All is good.
first, how isn't this a violation of the first amendment garantee of freedom of assembly?
second, it's not unheard of. i was subject to a similar ban when i taught in japan. that ban was a little different, it prohibited fraternizing with students, but a similar idea. interestingly, a japanese court ruled that it wasn't legal, because employers couldn't regulate what employees do when they are off the clock
Why do you call the U.S.A the "land of the free"?
:o)
They mean free as in beer, not free as in freedom.
say it: "Slashdot Redefines acronym for National Labor Relations Board"
SLASHDOT: news for people who can't concentrate on work or have no life at all and got tired of yelling back at the TV.
can I now ban the employees from deficating on company time?
I am not paying them to sit on that toilet or paying for the removal of their human waste..
Who's in charge of that? I want to eliminate the unfair worker age laws... I have lots of jobs for 7-12 year olds at $1.25 a day.
dammit as an employer it's my right to fuck over my employees!
I own ral estate, which I rent to people to live in.
Can my boss decide who I can or cannot offer a place to live? Real-estate laws require that I not discriminate. Does this law allow a loophole so that my boss could force me to discriminate against people working at the same company as I do? If these two laws have to duke it out, which one wins?
Eh, what a joke. Since graduating form college and moving away from friends and family, the people at work are the only people I know. I am not going to completely sever from my only social life because I happen to work with these people.
kinda does away with "leaving work at work" doesn't it? I think anyone under these rules would up and quit... Of course i wouldnt put it past walmart to try and implement it for some reason or another...
Of course this won't make it through appeal, but if the law is passed, then an appeal is the only hammer strong enough to shatter it.
...ad nauseum...
It is enough, however, to frighten and dissuade weaker workers. It will fit nicely into those employee agreements that stipulate that the employer can terminate the employee at any time, with or without reason.
It is yet another risible rule that can be arbitrarily enforced to the employer's benefit, fitting nicely between "We can terminate you, at Our sole discretion, for failure to abide by these rules:
1) No keeping food in the employee refrigerater overnight
2) No personal use of office products materials (justifiable, but who hasn't forwarded or printed even ONE joke or article)
3) Employee attire must be reasonable in both appearance and safety (how many employee dress codes are even more subjective?)
I'm banging a co-worker...wonder what the nlrb would say about that...
but this is a little excessive. I can understand that employers don't want to hire people they know are doing illegal things outside of work (see drug testing), but outside of that, if they aren't paying me for that time, I'll do what I want. I am actually having a little trouble figuring out how this is legal. Company policies that prevent two relatives from working in the same place, etc I can understand, and if two people in the workplace get married, then one has to go. But to tell them they can't date/get married/drink/etc is out of control. If the government can't regulate what I do with my time, what makes an employer think they can?
Also, companies that push this will feel the pinch, because any employee worth his salt will find somewhere else to work. That will only leave the bad employer with bad employees, and that is a recipe for disaster. The only other option I see for them is to raise their wages so high that people are willing to put up with it, but then they raise their operating cost and allow their competitors to undercut them.
Fraternization is a management term for carnal knowledge. It can create conflicts of interest and misunderstandings in the workplace. Management is justified in having policies about such things, since workers themselves seem to have poor judgement in such "affairs."
Google cache, since article is already going slow:: www.americanrightsatwork.org/workersrights/eye7_20 05.cfm+&hl=en
:) )
http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:mO-w2Me3Sy4J
This sounds like a very disturbing ruling. IANAL, so I'm not sure how any of this will stand to to serious scrutiny, but would this give employers the power to "ban" employee unions it doesn't like? And yet workers have the right to associate (at least I believe they do, its been a while since I researched workers rights at all, correct me if I'm wrong
More importantly, what useful purpose could this serve, and how would you enforce it? Without following your workers around 24/7, this ruling is nearly unenforcable.
This whole think reeks of silliness.
If your employer "bans" you from meeting up with your colleagues after work, then complains about how no work is getting done outside of the workplace, doesn't (s)he deserve it?
They can try, but I imagine that a lawsuit or two will quickly change their minds.
It really is a very simple formula:
More intrusive government in office +
Big business and said government in bed with each other +
=More intrusive Big business.
insert inflammatory anti-microsoft comment here
Of course, management and the workers hanging out together could actually be a more valid problem, especially when people start crying about favortism.
My conspiracy theory: The NLRB board members are starting their own dating service in areas most likely to see actual enforcement...
"Common sense will be the death of us all"
Far as I understand, the NLRB is for relations between labor management (Unions) and companies. This rulling is directed at union solictiation/events after work and in company uniform.
There are well defined procedures for starting a pro-union vote. Strict rules, and lots of foul play. This group is around to rule which side screwed up that delicate dance.
This has no affect on individual employees after ours and out of uniform. Unless they are having drinks at a bar with the local union rep and their entire department. Then god knows the rules and laws that have to be followed.
The concern (towards both parties) is bribes and kickbacks to a select group of workers to get or not get in place a union.
Move along people, nothing to see here. Nothing 'chilling' about this. No slope, and nothing slippery about it.
-Malakai
A Dragon Lives in my Garage
With IT workers so commonly producing some of our best work 'after hours'...
Please don't read this as a flame, but what the hell is meant by this? Maybe its because I don't buy into this work-till-you-drop mentality that so many people in capitalist economies seem to have, but why on earth is this being used as a rationalisation for maintaining outside-office freedom of assembly?
This reads as akin to "How dare they stop us meeting outside work! Don't they know that we do more work for them when we meet?", and is from my viewpoint pretty disgusting.
What about "How dare they stop us meeting outside work! Its none of their god damn business what we do outside of the time that we are payed by them!"
Why the seeming sycophancy? Are people so brainwashed by capitalism that they think they have a moral duty to comply with their employers, and no right to stand up and say "Hey, go screw yourself. My personal time is mine and mine alone"? That's all the "rationalisation" that should be required!
Oh my. Either the submitter got mixed up America really has lost its brain. Ouch, what a scary thought this law would be.
Weather's nice up here in Cannuckistan...
wait a minute, there's an off-duty now? I thought there was just work-in-office, work-at-home, work-in-bar, and work-in-sleep (yes i've actually drempt about programming)
I came to the datacenter drunk with a fake ID, don't you want to be just like me?
Workers in IT (esp. programmers) spend long and irregular hours, socialize with eachother, and exchange ideas. That's just the culture of it. I somehow doubt that the employers who pushed for this decision are specifically thinking about their IT staff. "These are not the droids they are looking for" basically.
-----------
mobile search
It seems to me that if any employer (especially if federal) actually tries to enforce this ruling--provided the victims are competent--there will be a court battle. In my unexpert opinion, this clearly impinges upon our constitutionally protected right to free speech. Plus, unless our government deems us property of those we work for (I'm not saying it doesn't), there's just too much gray area to enforce this.
"I'm a philosophy major. That means I can think deep thoughts about being unemployed." -- Bruce Lee
I'd say this is more of an effort to stop workers organizing (Unions) which is in line with the trends of our (U.S.) current low wage administration.
SSSHH... here come the thought police...
Totalitarism.
Do anyone have a better word? The next thing we'll know, we won't be able to speak to people we like, do things are we are told by the govt, etc.
That reminds me of the time when americans where apalled by the conditions the people living in the USSR had to stand. We are not very far folks! Maybe next 4 years cycle will give us that too!
I'm ashamed that some human beings could come up with something like that. I don't think it's funny at all. I'm Canadian and hope nothing like that would ever happen here.
"Sockets are the standard networking API, also useful for stopping your eyes from falling onto your cheeks" zeromq.org
It seems to me that the primary stab of this is at unions. If you can't get together with your coworkers, then you can't have union meeting. Nevermind that this give corporations control over our first amendment right of free assembly at their discretion... All and all it's a fascist law, and I don't think I'm using hyperbole.
1 point Hysterical*
/., would this be a '+' or '-' rating?
* for dispensing with a pedestrian "summary" of the facts in TFA in favor of hyperboic and hysterical misreading according to one's own personal filters, or as an attempt to induce such hysterics in others.
The only question, for
-Styopa
The company, then, has a somewhat reasonable explanation for the need to restrict fraternization - it is a potential security lapse, which would result in a significant loss of reputation for their company.
In this limited role, I cannot help but agree. Especially since the NLRB rules only on the basis of interference with union-organizing activities. As I read the NLRB decision, this wasn't a review for Constitutionality -- only to determine if the rule was designed to curtail or prevent union activity at the company.
If they want to fire somebody. Just make a policy that you aren't allowed to talke to people outside of work. Make sure everybody knows it is a firable offense. Don't enforce it. Then when somebody comes along you want to fire - fire them using that policy and that would be it right there.
...And when they came for me, there was no one left to speak out for me." - Martin Niemoeller (1892-1984)
Man my company takes us out for happy hours. I guess we should all sit in separate booths. How do you expect people who spend eight or more hours a day together not to possibly hang out after work? Also, this has got to be constitutionally illegal. I can't talk with someone after work because we work for the same company? What happens if I work in a large (10,000+) company and meet someone coincidentally at a bar...what I have to ignore them? What if my brother gets hired at the company I work for (I work for a small firm,
This is lame, and I am sure unconstitutional (some lawyer on here can probably find a rule better then I can).
Lets not forget - it's my own time - so go FUCK OFF!
I mod down so you can mod up. Your welcome.
This ruling says that they can now fire you with impunity for the latter. A blanche-er carte blanche to engage in union-busting practices couldn't have been given to Industry.
No it doesn't. What it says is that you and a bunch of your buddies can't go get plastered at the bar after work in uniform. IN UNIFORM is the key to this ruling.
Why?
I don't really see this being a big problem. I am assuming, of course, that your employer pays you for all 24 hours in the day, of course. Let's see, where I live, the government mandates overtime at time-and-a-half past eight hours in a day. Or double-time past twelve hours in a day. That works out to 6.65 times my base pay. So yes, I'd happily not socialise with my coworkers, provided I get AT LEAST a 565% raise. Heck, I'll even carry a pager for that.
Oceania has always been at war with Eastasia.
I wear street clothes to work every day. Does this mean that I have to put on a uniform to meet with work buddies?
No, it doesn't. That's illegal. What they can fire you for is dating, fraternisation &c. in uniform. Sheesh.
Why dampen sensationalism with the facts? :)
"I'd rather be a lightning rod than a seismometer." -Ken Kesey
I would see this more aimed towards the walmart / megacorp retail outlet employee. You know, the kind who all technically work part time at 33 hours a week, so the company does not have to give them healthcare, etc. And you can't get more than 33 hours worth of work if you tried, since everyone else is struggling for the hours, you dare not risk losing the precious hours you already have. These organizations already have policies that intimidate any worker who tries to form any sort of union. Like the dining service employees at my university. Now the companies have a LEGAL reason for firing someone for starting a union, but they can't exactly call it that. But what other reason would companies fear their employees getting together outside of the office hours, besides to organize a strike / demonstration / push for better working conditions?
I read the link you provided, and you have misrepresented what it says. The issue of being in uniform relates to distributing literature while off duty, and that in fact was the only one of the three issues that was found illegal. So employees may distribute literature while in uniform. Nowhere does it talk about fraternizing in uniform. You have confused two seperate issues.
The ruling states explicitly that prohibiting off-hours employee fraternization somehow would be automatically understood to not cover issues regarding section 7 rights. How the employees would understand this, I'm not sure, and in fact the one dissenting opinion mentions this. Being understood by the employees, the employer has no need to mention it in the handbook. So 1b doesn't really do anything. They can't interfere with section 7 protected activity, but they can sure make it sound like you will be fired for it.
Most of the rest of the ruling you quoted has nothing to do with the issue portrayed in the article. It has to do with the other two parts of the case. You have obfusctaed the issue, either deliberately or through ignorance. It took me all of two minutes actually reading the ruling you so kindly linked to in order to find your error, so I can only assume that you prevaricate on purpose.
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
The article itself is Slashdotted, so I'm going to infer from the website that it comes from (americanrightsatwork.com) that the problem may be in TFA, and the summarizer may have just been reflecting their mischaracterization.
Which is annoying. If you want to fight for the rights of the American worker, you do yourself and them a disservice by protesting and mischaracterizing every ruling that doesn't go your way. It makes it that much harder for me to actually hear you when actual abuses occur.
(And yeah, it's also pretty annoying that neither the submitter nor the Slashdot editors did the same research you did. But Slashdot readers are pretty good at debunking bogus articles, whereas if the web site is wrong in their article, where on the web site will you read the counter-argument?)
Congress shall make no law
Anyone here recognize this text? What's the probablility that, after John Roberts is confirmed, the Supreme Court won't apply it to this NLRB regulation?
And, lest people object that this wasn't intended to cover beer after work, I'll mention the well-known quote from one of the Founding Fathers (Ben Franklin), that "Beer is the proof that God loves us, and wants us to be happy."
Those who do study history are doomed to stand helplessly by while everyone else repeats it.
You don't have to love everyone in your office, but if there's not one person there that you don't like well enough to forget about whatever employment annoyances you might have, then maybe it's time to find another job.
Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
We have a fundamental right to associate and assemble with whomever we choose. Any and all attempts to restrict that during our non-work time involve a violation of our fundamental rights. This ruling is completely out of line and the wave of apathy that is the overwhelming response to it demonstrates that Americans, not Terrorists, not Chinese Fascists or anything else are the single greatest threat to American civil liberties.
The circumstances show why it is clear that this company, or other companies, seek to have such 24-hour control over their workers. The circumstances being that some workers are considering organizing in the SEIU union, who brought this case. All of the work done at Guardsmark, all of the wealth created at Guardsmark is done by the people who work there. If they got together after work, they might start wondering why so much of the wealth they created is going towards the profit of the company owners, instead of to their own wages. If the company forbids this from happening, and the government uses its might to enforce this, then they are merely wage slaves working at the behest of the company. US companies were allowed to get away with this, company towns and many other things up until the 1930s, when the government was pushed back from enforcing things as extreme as this, but starting in the 1970s it began coming back, and now we are at things such as this, and it's going to get worse.
The whole point is that the workers get individualized, while the ownership and management of this company and other companies and the government all work together. Thus it becomes this array of forces against the individual. Companies have been trying to isolate people, and make them think of themselves in terms of individuality for a long time. In the US this has been very successful. In Europe less so, which is why they have mandatory month-long vacations every year and things such as that. Then again, Europe has had peasant uprisings going back to the Middle Ages, and slave uprisings going back to Spartacus, so workers there have a long tradition of solidarity and standing up for themselves. Such rulings seek to put the force of the government against such cooperation in the US.
Should have known it was bogus, the ruling as hyped by that crappy little website would have been SO controversial that we would have all been seeing wall to wall coverage on every news net on every part of the political spectrum from NPR to FoxNews. Good to know this is just hysterical Democrats doing thier fundraising thing.
But folks, it wouldn't be the first time an employer has pulled a stunt like this, making demands of your off time, and there are even some cases I could envision where it would be justified. Off the top of my head would be a lot of highly classified work splits things up so that no worker bee sees the whole picture. Often they don't even know what the end product will even resemble. They often have rules in place to keep it that way.
But the proper response when an employer does something stupid isn't to go running for the Nanny State to some in and make that bad ol boss play nice. Are we not Free Men, the inheritors of the blessings of liberty bought at such horrific prices of blood and treasure by our mighty forefathers? Are their descendants such pussies that they can't handle such an easy problem themselves? Nay, the correct response would be for a dozen or so key employees to have banded together and marked riht into that pointy haired boss (probably in terror of liability from the sexual harrassment nazies) and made him an offer he couldn't refuse.
Demand he front the money to start a company softball team. In one swoop you accomplish several things:
1. His PHB manual says he has to agree so you win.
2. Putting his name on the purchase approval form pretty much voids his "no after work association rule" in writing.
3. Makes him may a token but real monatary penalty.
And if the employyes are such sheep they won't stand up for themselves then I judge that as sheep it is the boss's duty to shear their pathetic asses.
Democrat delenda est
Ph33r teh grasshoppa. Your economy is going DOWN now, suckas. You've pissed off the WRONG 15 year old now!
w/e.
George Orwell was right!
He who knows best knows how little he knows. - Thomas Jefferson
Oh wait, that never happened before. I work in IT.
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
whatever.
The thing is I can't tell what's satire and what's real any more.
"None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free." -- Goethe
Leave it to timothy to post this overblown, melodramatic tripe. His posts, submissions, and comments are always biased and rediculous knee-jerk reactions.
First, I suffered the Anti Compete clause.
Then, the "if you invent anything while you are an employee, then we own it."
Now, my basic speech can be limited?
Fuck this. Seriously. Fuck everyone who passed this as law.
My father used to sell Electrolux vacuum cleaners when I was very young, and he had an older coworker who gave him this sage advice on romantic relations with people at work: never deficate where you eat.
Now, we are not talking romantic relations in the above subject, but even so relations with friends will have their ups and downs, and it is unfair to an employer to expose their work environment to the emotional instabilities in your or your friend's lives.
I have had close personal friends at work in the past, but these days I keep a healthy distance, and things go much easier. There are lots of people who are suitable friends out there; your workplace is not your only option. YMMV.
..cause I *have* to be concerned about my workplace 24/7/365 and available to immediately respond to a systems emergency.
Up, Up, Down, Down, Left, Right, Left, Right, B, A, START
No, I have not misrepresented it.
First of all, this ruling is over a year old, so I'm quite at a loss of why it's being trotted out now, if only for drama.
Second, it's pretty clear:
Contrary to our dissenting colleague, we do not believe that the Respondent's rule would reasonably tend to chill protected employee activity. The Respondent's proscrip-tion against fraternization appears alongside proscrip-tions on "dat[ing,] or becom[ing] overly friendly with the client's employees or with co-employees." That being so, we believe that employees would reasonably under-stand the rule to prohibit only personal entanglements, rather than activity protected by the Act. In our view, it would be an unreasonable stretch for an employee to infer that speaking to others about terms and conditions of employment is a "fraternization" that is condemned by the rule.
It is well established that employees have the right under Section 7 to engage in union solicitation on the employer's premises during nonwork time, unless the employer can demonstrate the need to limit the exercise of that right in order to maintain production or discipline. Republic Aviation Corporation v. NLRB, 324 U.S. 793, 803 (1945), citing Peyton Packing Co., 49 NLRB 828, 843-844 (1943), enfd. 142 F.2d 1009 (5th Cir.), cert. denied 323 U.S. 730 (1944).
There is a longstanding principle that is well-understood and acknowledged by the NLRB that employers MAY NOT interfere with employee's rights under section 7 of the Act.
However, if you're doing something - anything - that is significantly interfering with your, or others', workplace productivity, then you may be terminated.
How or why does this possibly come as a surprise? Further, if you're an at-will employee, you (generally) can be terminated at any time without cause.
The entire text of the over-year-old fraternization section of the ruling is below. Keep in mind that the NLRB was reviewing a decision that a judge already made determining that the rules, as applied, did not violate the act.
B. The Fraternization Rule
The judge also concluded that the Respondent did not violate the Act by maintaining a work rule that directs employees not to "fraternize on duty or off duty, date[,] or become overly friendly with the client's employees or with co-employees." The judge reasoned that such a rule "does not on its face, or by reasonable implication, pre-clude activities protected by the Act." The General Counsel excepts, arguing that employees reasonably would understand the rule to prohibit activity protected by Section 7.
We find no merit to this exception. The Respondent's rule is somewhat similar to a work rule we reviewed in Lafayette Park Hotel, supra, and found lawful. There, the employer's rule mandated that "[e]mployees are not allowed to fraternize with hotel guests anywhere on hotel property." 326 NLRB at 825. We concluded that the rule was lawful because employees would not reasonably read "this rule as prohibiting protected employee com-munications . . . about terms and conditions of employ-ment." Id. at 827. Although the Respondent's rule is not identical to the one in Lafayette Park Hotel, we find that any differences between the rules are not material and do not warrant a different outcome here.
Contrary to our dissenting colleague, we do not believe that the Respondent's rule would reasonably tend to chill protected employee activity. The Respondent's proscrip-tion against fraternization appears alongside proscrip-tions on "dat[ing,] or becom[ing] overly friendly with the client's employees or with co-employees." That being so, we believe that employees would reasonably under-stand the rule to prohibit only personal entanglements, rather than activity protected by the Act. In our view, it would be an unreasonable stretch for an employee to infer that speaking to others about terms and conditions of employment is a "fraternization" that is condemned by the rule. As in Lutheran Heritage Village, our dissenting co
... is rolling on the floor laughing
The editors and posters make me laugh sometimes. Most don't bother to RTFA.
Constitutional freedoms prevent GOVERNMENT from interfering with you NOT private citizens or corporations. Got it?
Welcome to Slashdot, where Online apparently necessitate being Online at all.
Re-read the ruling. There are twqo seperate issues, handing out literature in uniform and fraternizing. You are conflating the two when they are completely unrelated. And mods, please, don't mod this man up until you read the ruling yourself. If I am wrong, you can mod me into oblivion, but this man is spreading outright lies and being modded up for it and it disgusts me.
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
I saw nothing regarding uniforms in the article, so I did a search for the word "uniform" and didn't find such a word. I don't know why this got modded up. Moderators, RTFA.
FYFL-
The judge also concluded that the Respondent did not violate the Act by maintaining a work rule that directs employees not to "fraternize on duty or off duty, date[,] or become overly friendly with the client's employees or with co-employees." The judge reasoned that such a rule "does not on its face, or by reasonable implication, pre-clude activities protected by the Act." The General Counsel excepts, arguing that employees reasonably would understand the rule to prohibit activity protected by Section 7.
We find no merit to this exception. The Respondent's rule is somewhat similar to a work rule we reviewed in Lafayette Park Hotel, supra, and found lawful. There, the employer's rule mandated that "[e]mployees are not allowed to fraternize with hotel guests anywhere on hotel property." 326 NLRB at 825. We concluded that the rule was lawful because employees would not reasonably read "this rule as prohibiting protected employee com-munications . . . about terms and conditions of employ-ment." Id. at 827. Although the Respondent's rule is not identical to the one in Lafayette Park Hotel, we find that any differences between the rules are not material and do not warrant a different outcome here. Contrary to our dissenting colleague, we do not believe that the Respondent's rule would reasonably tend to chill protected employee activity. The Respondent's proscrip-tion against fraternization appears alongside proscrip-tions on "dat[ing,] or becom[ing] overly friendly with the client's employees or with co-employees." That being so, we believe that employees would reasonably under-stand the rule to prohibit only personal entanglements, rather than activity protected by the Act. In our view, it would be an unreasonable stretch for an employee to infer that speaking to others about terms and conditions of employment is a "fraternization" that is condemned by the rule. As in Lutheran Heritage Village, our dissenting colleague continues to advocate finding a violation where an employee could possibly perceive a conflict between a rule and protected activity. We, instead, limit the Board's reach to rules, unlike this one, where an em-ployee would reasonably perceive such a conflict.
We recognize that the rule in Lafayette Park Hotel prohibited fraternization with guests, while the rule here prohibits fraternization with client employees or coem-ployees. However, in context, the rule here is reasonably understood as prohibiting personal entanglements, rather than activity protected by the Act. Moreover, as the judge noted and our dissenting col-league ignores, the Respondent's rule is designed "to provide safeguards so that security will not be compro-mised by interpersonal relationships either between Re-spondent's fellow security guards or between Respon-dent's security guards and clients' employees." Given those heightened security concerns, we think the Re-spondent's justification for its fraternization rule is even stronger than that of the employer in Lafayette Park Ho-tel, where we concluded that a fraternization rule was a proper means for preventing the "appearance of favorit-ism, claims of sexual harassment, and employee dissen-sion created by romantic relationships in the workplace." 326 NLRB at 827 fn.
There are definite consequences to sexual relations at work. Some are written down, some are not.
I believe that the title is referring to the NLRB not the NRLB, which apparently does not exist.
Back in my highschool summer-job days I worked at a place with employee uniforms. We were barred from driking and smoking in or around the building while wearing our uniforms, and if caught could be severely punished and/or fired.
This isn't to say we weren't allowed period, as all we had to do was take off the uniform, and this is a bit less radical than what this ruling states, but it's still a valid example. Employers don't want their business' image to be tarnished by a drunken employee stumbling around in uniform.
Nasa spent billions making a pen capable of writing in space. The Russians just use a pencil.
There have already been several examples of companies dictating what their employees cannot do on their off time. Weyco, Inc., recently implemented a policy that required employees to take a test, similar to a drug test, that would detect if an employee was a cigarette smoker. If the employee was found to be a smoker or refused the test, they were fired. Note that this test did NOT care if the employee smoked at work or not. This seems like quite an invasion of privacy to me, as smoking cigarettes is not only legal, they do not possibly affect an employee's judgement or motor skills, which as I understand it is the reason regular drug tests for illegal drugs are implemented. Cigarette testing doesn't fall under the same logic. Do a search on "company fires smokers" for plenty of examples of this.
The operative words here are "speech" and "assemble".
Freedom of speech doesn't mean that you can slander anyone you like. You can't sell graphic pornography in a toy store. There are limits to free speech. You can say what you want, but you can't do so in a purely unlimited fashion.
Freedom to assemble also has limitations. You can't just get 50,000 of your best friends together for a march on the White House without a permit. The government can't deny you a permit without good reason (say, security concerns), but in the real world the freedom to assemble isn't infinite.
This NLRB regulation seems borderline, though. Sure, the uniforms are owned by the employers, but they don't necessarily have any Constitutional right to control their brand identity when employees are wearing those uniforms. Police, firefighters, and military personnel all have rather strict regulations about fraternization while in uniform, but their salaries are paid by the state, and they work directly for the public.
It would be interesting to see how the Supreme Court would rule if the NLRB regulation was challenged and made its way to the Supreme Court.
Read the EFF's Fair Use FAQ
You are a liar, and you know it. The ruling says nothing about fraternization in uniform, but by posting that lie literally dozens of times in this article, you have obviously gotten thousands to believe you. Please mods, read the ruling and decide for yourself. The ruling talks about handing out information in uniform and fraternization after hours and they are two distinct issues.
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
There's a simple answer to this: Any attempt by my employer to tell me who I can or can't communicate with outside of work will be met with my resignation.
I have a skill-set which is very much in demand, and I'll have no problem finding a new job if I want one.
It's good to use your head, but not as a battering ram.
A: Twennyfoah. Youse gotta problem wit dat?
And I tought I had the perfect plan:
1. Get secret clearance and defense job
2. ???
3. Get lucky with lots of sexy Russian spies!
Damn rules!
You're not old until regret takes the place of your dreams.
The right of association is entrenched in law. Some of our nation's leaders seem to hate the constitution because it thwarts their desire to remove our freedoms. The NLRB should be ashamed of itself. Here's a link:
t 01/12.html
caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendmen
Okay, the damned article is at a pro-union worksite, and their interpretation of the NLRB ruling is decidedly inline with their own agenda; it's not necessarily a fair interpretation of the NLRB ruling. Twisting facts to scare the public at large -- including ./ers -- is the same technique that union organizers have been using since unions have become irrelevant. Fear and intimidation is the only tool that they have to support their stupid monopoly cash cow. It so happens that I *am* a union member not by choice but by having the choice forcibly taken away from me by the same damn assholes that publicize these scare tactics. We're trying to *decertify* our stupid loser union -- considering the NLRB *won't* let us circulate petitions at work, where does everyone expect us to present information and circulate petitions? Oh, by the way, the same damn, lazy assholes who brought in the union did all of their campaigning on company property. Where does the power lie?
Yeah, okay -1 for flamebait, but that's evened out by my making +1 for a damn good reminder to read what you will with a critical eye -- even if it's only reading this response!
--Jim (me)
Please point out where it talks about that, as that is the issue you have posted about numerous times in this thread. Are you being deliberately dense? The fact is that the company can make it seem like they can fire you for fraternization relating to union affairs, while they can't. Besides that, they can fire you for fraternization that doesn't realte to union affairs.
To repeat: where does it talk about fraternization in uniform? I would like you to publically retract your statements if you can't back them up. If I am wrong, I will publically retract my statements.
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
If my boss tells me i cannot go out with XY in MY FREE TIME and do whatever from getting drunk to reading books to having sex, I just leave the company the same day.
....
This is completely unacceptable bullshit that can only exist in the US as a legislation.
Besides that: it usually turn out in after-hour activities that your workmates are not as hypocrat assholes as they have to behave at their workplace, and those after hours make workplace a bearable place most of the time....
on the other hand i gave up on workplaces for a long time and work alone as i am too antisocial and tired to keep up with all that bullcrap that goes on in a regular workspace
Sadly, daveschroeder also misread the NLRB decision. He says the ruling is limited to off-duty, in-uniform fraternization -- not so. The NLRB said in-uniform solicitation can be prohibitted. The term "solicitation" has a particualr meaning in labor law that doesn't relate to dating or fraternization.
The ruling also separately said that a rule prohibiting off-duty fraternization, dating or becoming too friendly with employees of a client company did not violate the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA). Thus, if you are an employee of an IT subcontractor, your employer can prohibit you from socializing with the contracting company's employees without violating the NLRA. The NLRB did not limit this to circumstances where uniforms are worn.
Dumber the law, the harder it is to enforce.
In Soviet Russia, articles before post read *you*!
Right now, employers can be sued for all kinds of crazy things. If two employees were having a romance off hours, and they break up and one person is angry, they can sue the company and most likely win a huge settlement. If someone tells a dirty joke to a co-worker after hours, that can be used as evidence when filing a sexual harrasment suit against the company. And what if there was a fistfight between coworkers after hours. I cannot see a way the company (in the U.S.) could avoid getting sued.
People overwelmingly want companies to be liable for any possible interpersonal hiccup that occures in the workplace. If a company can be held liable for millions of dollars for any slight discomfort or social awkwardness in the workplace, then of course they are going to need the power to demand these kind of things.
Please, dave, quite being dense and just show me where the ruling talks about fraternization in uniform?
And just because the two conservative, Bush-appointed anti-labor idiots on the board think that employees will understand that the rule doesn't apply to union related issues doesn't mean they will understand that.
Finally, the company can still prohibit any fraternization that doesn't relate to union activities, in or out of uniform, while you have gone out of your way in numerous posts to make it seem like the issue is about being in uniform. It's not. They are prohibiting people from meeting together out of uniform.
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
So, how does this ruling affect police-persons in donut shops?
Your job should not have any impact on your private life. That's complete bullshit. If more people just told their employers to stay out of their fucking business and moved on to greener pastures, this shit would dry up over night. Personally, I'd rather work for less pay and prestige than have my boss controlling what I do when I'm off the clock. If this shit keeps up, I think we're going to have to make a much more intense statement... heads are gonna roll.
-"...bad old ideas look confusingly fresh when they are packaged as technology" - Jaron Lanier (Digital Maoism on Edge.o
The US constitution guarantees the right to free speech and the right to peacefully assemble. So in any circumstance, employees who are told they cannot "fraternize" have an obvious right to sue based on the bill of rights.
I, for one, welcome our new Antichrist overlord.
Since there is no law protecting the right of workers to socialize outside of work, the court allowed the rule that they couldn't to stand. There is a law, thanks to union lobbying, saying workers can meet outside of work to discuss unions or union business - so this is the ONLY reason workers are allowed to meet each other outside of work. As far as uniforms, the court further put the restriction that workers can not wear their work uniforms at these meetings.
People are trying to spread disinformation and FUD about this. If it was a ruling only applying to some little rule about uniforms or some obscure union regulation, it would not be a big deal. Anyone who reads the ruling can see what it says.
And mods, please, don't mod this man up until you read the ruling yourself.
/. as how one should not mod. If you disagree then reply (like you have) and ask others to do the same. However your level of badgering in your replies disgusts me a bit. It would probably also be improper of me to mod down every one of your posts every time I have mod points because I find you so obnoxious but I might just do that. And I might suggest that anyone else reading this read the breadth of this user's comments and decide whether you want to do the same.
That, to me, seems equivilant to modding based on opinion which is specifically requested by
Why do you call the U.S.A the "land of the free"? :o)
They mean free as in beer, not free as in freedom.
Reminds of that joke about American beer and sex in a canoe.
The rock, the vulture, and the chain
...only so long as they are paying me "on my own time". Else the only leverage they have is my job, which isn't too important if they treat me like a slave.
I'll go find another one or start my own. Jobs are cheap and easy.
For chrissakes, could you just read the damned ruling?
4 4/344-97.pdf
http://www.nlrb.gov/nlrb/shared_files/decisions/3
The NLRB in fact ruled that Guardsmark had to RESCIND the order, so you COULD engage in solicitation while wearing your uniform!
Why is National Labor Relations Board reduced to NRLB? Are they French or something?
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
Do you have an anti-American employer? Does your company's policy attempt to violate your rights to assemble peaceably?
Out them to the media. Give the media the angle on the story and call all the outlets. It might cost you your job, but trust me, you don't want tot work for peopel like that anyways.
the major advances in civilization are processes which all but wreck the societies in which they occur - A.N. White
This is totally fucked up. The first thing I thought when I read the summary was; "This is the perfect way to keep unions from forming".
Isn't this law essentially illegal?
Bullish Machine Tzar
This is more of a joke kind of comment, but if they are going to decide what we can and can't do after hours, they might as well pay us overtime.
Imagine the possibilities this ruling creates for the self-employed schizophrenic...
Proverbs 21:19
Remember 1984.
There's a fine line between genius and insanity. I'm right on it.
Look, there is no reason to mod someone insightful when they are flat out wrong. This isn't opinion, this is facts. Read the ruling yourself. There are two seperate issues, handing out literature in uniform, which by the way the board overturned, and the fraternization issue, which they upheld.
So go screw yourself, dave. Yeah, I can tell from the way you write this is you. You like to come across as completely rational, but like all authoritarians, when you think you can get away with it, the fists come out.
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
The owner of that company should be shipped off to a Russian Gulag for a few months for "re-education".
On the other hand if you're in uniform it does cast the issue in a little different light.
Still, we're turning into a nation of hall monitors.
That's our life, the big wheel of shit. - The Fat Man, Blue Tango Salvage
But work is already depressing. Do you know what drinking alone is going to do to me?
1984 is a big blur of Sesame Street and Mr. Rogers. I remember 1994 though. I got laid for the first time. w00t!
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?
There exists no way of exchanging information without making judgments. --Bene Gesserit Axiom
"With IT workers so commonly producing some of our best work 'after hours,' even at home or in restaurants/bars..."
I don't know what is more sad. The fact that you believe to be so special that you should be allowed to work in bars unlike all of the people working in every other industry except yours. Or that when you are in said bars you think about working instead of meeting women and having some great time with them. Or maybe talking with your "cubicle neighbor" after work being the most important form of social interaction. In any case, you definitely need to get a life. You and everyone who's just agreed with you here. Here's my advice to all of you: go out without any of your geeky, nerdy, dorky and wussy friends. Meet real people. Meet real women. And I mean attractive women (no, that girl you met on the Star Wars premiere doesn't count). Have great time with them (including sex). And at that point it should be obvious why complaining about not being able to legally talk with your fellow cubicle drones after work (by consciously misinterpreting the spirit of the NRLB rules, I might add) was utterly ridiculous and simply laughable for everyone in the Real World(TM).
Karma: Positive (probably because of superiour intellect)
Call me a dumbass (You're a dumbass!) if I missed it, but is there any clarification on what constitutes a uniform? For example, say the IT company I work for states I have to wear business casual clothes to the office. Does that constitute a uniform? If so, then if I go out on a date with my customer's hot secretary (It could happen! really! heh, I can't even get through that statement with a straight face) wearing clothes that could be worn to the office, then would they have a right to stop me from doing that?
When their numbers dropped from 40 to 8, the other dwarves began to suspect Hungry.
They can have my co-worker when they pry her from my cold, dead hands!
In all seriousness, your employer doesn't own you, no matter what he thinks. If your employer expects to direct your actions 24/7, he can pay you 24/7. Folks who are on-call 24/7 should be paid accordingly. Read your employment contract before signing
My former employer tried the all-encompassing "we own everything you think of" trick. I explained that I was already an officer at another company, and that obligation preceeded this one. (Start your own business
My husband and I more or less met at work. We were vaguely aware of each other from college, but if we hadn't started talking to each other in the cafeteria at work, we would never have gotten together.
Work is a major avenue of relationship forming, both romantic and platonic, and without it you're left primarily with either church, bars or mutual friends as ways to meet people. (Yes, clubs and other hobby oriented activities exist, but I wouldn't consider them a major avenue.)
This is so wrong, on so many levels.
1) The last time I looked, there was this thing called the Bill of Rights which guarenteed our right to free speech. And it also guarenteed our right to assemble (albeit peacefully). So how far do you think this proposal will go with that in mind?
2) If it is directed only towards the labor unions, good luck there too. We live in a free country, and we have the right to bitch and moan all we want. People have gone to war to protect that right.
3) The web site referred to was down when I clicked it. It may have just been slashdotted; or nuked by irate hackers.
4) I think the article was just someone putting a nasty spin on an innocent article by the NRLB. The article was meant to provoke our anger; and yeah, I bit. Stupid me.
I think what everyone is trying to say is: Fuck NRLB. Fuck corporations. What the shit ever. Your paycheck doesn't define your 24hr life.
There's no way I want to socialize with those sick fuckers I work with.
Unions. I never liked them but understood they were a necessity of management/labor relations.
Reminds me of a past professor who had a saying, "Any company that is unionized probably did something recently or in the past to deserve it".
And you know what? When I look around at who has a unionized workforce, he's exactly right.
Conoco/Phillips is opposing a law in Oklahoma which prohibits companies from disallowing employees to store firearms in their cars while on company parking lots.
The NRA is opposing Conoco/Phillips and claims they are going to boycott because the company is anti-gun.
But what seems really at issue here is how much soul do you owe to the company store?
You can't stop to buy donuts at the Mr. Donut while in uniform because it harms the image of the company?
If you're a employee of Ford, you can't drive a Dodge onto the company parking lot?
It's pretty easy to come up with reasons why an employer might want to do something. What is more difficult, and really should be the burden of the law is what right does the employee have to live his own life seperate from that of the company?
The first problem with this ruling is that it's unconstitutional; we have the right of assembly, especially for political reasons. Voting is a political process, so union meetings are protected.
I wasn't able to get to that link, but I have some more questions; does the employer require the uniform? Does the employer supply the uniform? Does the employer provide enough time and a place for the worker to change into the uniform at work?
If the employer either does not supply the uniform, or does not allow a time and place to change into, and out of, the uniform, then it is not reasonable to prohibit the wearing of the uniform after hours, regardless of the circumstance.
Welcome to 1984.
Best regards.
Since Guardsmark does not allow them to enjoy coworkers company after work they should go have drinks with the competition.
http://www.transnationalsecurity.com/
http://www.krollworldwide.com/
http://www.alliedsecurity.com/
I am sure management would love it if their competition got to hear all their gripes of bosses and complaints about contracts.
Act Quick! If this is not already illegal then it will be soon.
I have secretly hidden some mispelled words in this post. Can you find them?
The documents do in fact affirm that you can be prohibited from fraternizing with coworkers while not on duty, REGARDLESS OF WEARING A WORK UNIFORM OR NOT. Posting the same thing 50 times does not make it so.
In the threads below where you argue your point, you subtletly change your position, and end up admitting that prohibiting worker fraternization, on or off duty, in or out of uniform, IS LEGAL according to this ruling. What IS protected, however, is the right to form a union. The argument being that banning fraternization doesnt' impact the right of the workers to form a union, as an employee wouldn't assume that employee communication between employees regarding unionization matters would be considered fraternizing.
Of course, by the time the actual facts are admitted to by you, in a very spun convoluted manner, the moderators have lost interest, so it goes unnoticed by the casual reader.
Sticking feathers up your butt does not make you a chicken - Tyler Durden
Only the crack editors at Slashdot could misspell "NLRB". Geez... What next? Misspell "PhD"? Misspell "C++"? Mispell "Misspell"?
I agree, and in fact, I tell people to treat work as an intermission to living your life. No one ever spend their last day on their death saying, "I wish I could have stayed just one more day at the office."
-Valiss
No, the Bill of Rights specifically prohibits Congress from passing any law which abriges the right of the people to peacably assemble, and to do so to redress grievences with the government. Free association is a natural right, not guaranteed by law, but guaranteed by the fact that it's a natural right. Try checking lesser bodies of laws for protection on that, like your State constitution.
We may not all agree with unions, but done right WE can start to tell big business what we need THEM to do. Add to that the might of a IT Union to lobby in government. Fight fire with fire.
Before anyone says it, YES we need to include countries like India, Pakistan and the Philippines in this union. If we get all IT workers on an equal pay footing - the whole benefit of outsourcing goes right out the window.
DAMN YOU OCTODOG! DAMN YOU TO HELL!
It's the NLRB, not the NRLB. Get some proofreaders Slashdot.
Who is management going to play golf with now?
Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
This is simply an extension of the people that we voted in. When you think about this, will go well with patriot act and the continued weakening of personal rights and freedom. I guess now is the time to do the "we welcome and honor our overlords" BS.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
I thought you weren't going to be able to post for some time?
More importantly; fact of the matter is a lot of us get some pretty good ideas while kicking back with the coworkers over a beer or two, and I'm not quite sure why you had a such a knee-jerk reaction to this. I'm quite sure ol' timothy has some find out-of-geek social interaction, and even if he doesn't why the fuck do you care?
Little needy of something and all the MensaMens are too busy sitting around with their wine, cigars, and talkin about Proust to help you?
jesus christ. assumptions, assumptions. Take a pill.
s'wut i sed.
Since the parent is highly moderated and will be seen, I'll respond here, duplicating one of my other responses:
The ORDER of this ruling, which is the only substantive piece of the ruling, relates to in-uniform provisions. The NLRB took NO ACTION with regard to the fraternization decision, already made by a judge, noting simply that such provisions are not prohibited and that precedence exists for employers to maintain anti-fratnernization laws. In other words, the only positive, definable action taken by the NLRB was with regard to in-uniform rules, as can be seen in the order, and simply held the status quo, albeit with comment, with regard to allowed anti-fraternization rules.
In other words, a labor website picked this up, twisted it to mean something that it didn't by taking it WAYYYY overboard, then someone posted it to slashdot, no doubt awaiting the inevitable accusations of a conservative Republican corporatist conspiracy. The fact of the matter is that employers can maintain regulations, and can indeed terminate you if you do not adhere to them, period. The NLRB made NO AFFIRMATIVE DECISION in that regard, simply commenting that it jived with previous precedent (with a dissenting member), and did not reverse a judge's preexisting ruling. Section 7 provisions must be protected, and if you and others want to interpret this as an affront to Section 7, fine, but frankly, I'm in the philosophical camp that employers must be able to release employees for any reason (excluding reasons prohibited by e.g., protected classes, and so on), so we'll likely not agree here. Being employed at a particular place, or indeed being employed at all, is not a right.
No web site is configured at this address.
NOTICE TO EMPLOYEES
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
The National Labor Relations Board has found that we violated Federal labor
law and has ordered us to post and obey this notice.
FEDERAL LAW GIVES YOU THE RIGHT TO
Form, join, or assist a union
Choose representatives to bargain with us on your behalf
Act together with other employees for your benefit and protection
Choose not to engage in any of these protected activities.
WE WILL NOT maintain or enforce a provision in our employee handbook
that may be reasonably interpreted as prohibiting employees from registering
complaints with clients regarding wages, hours, or other conditions of employment.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere with, restrain, or coerce
employees in the exercise of the foregoing rights guaranteed under Section 7 of the Act.
GUARDSMARK, LLC
I don't know how it works for a merc company, but in the United States military, you are never "off-duty". Ever.
Even when you're in civilian clothes, you're not off-duty. You might very well be off-watch, but you never get off duty. The President never gets off duty; he's on duty, just in a different location than District of Columbia.
24/7, 365. I suspect merc companies work the exact same way, just with an NDA rather than waving your Constitutional rights in leu of the UCMJ...
Let me point out that in your original comment you stated "The critical and key aspect of the ruling was that it allowed for the prevention of such inappropriate fraternization while in Guardsmark uniform." (emphasise yours)
Now you are trying to backpedal and claim that you were making a completely different point. Originally, the supposed "in-uniform" clause was the issue, now that that has been shown to be a false issue, you claim that all along you had been stating that the order, which overturns a judge's decision that employers may forbid employees from handing out union literature in uniform, was the issue. Please explain the inconsitancy between your posts, and please explain why you have not corrected the obvious misinformation I quote above.
I will hazard a guess as to you ideology: Cheap Labor Conservative. As in, someone who will do anything to promote cheap labor and undermine the power of the working man to receive a fair wage. I would also go so far as to characterize you as a n authoritarian ideologue. This is only based on the kinds of things you post here, I really have no idea what you are like outside of slashdot.
If you were not an ideologue, you would retract your incorrect statements.
When a party to a complaint appeals a judge's order and a higher body upholds the original decision, that is still an affirmative action. The board is the final arbiter, and as in a previous case, the two Bush appointees upheld an employer's right to prohibit after hours fraternization while the same Clinton appointee disputed it. This is the only case mentioned in the report, so to claim that the board made no affirmative action in this regard is a little disingenuous.
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
freedom of speech.
they can rule whatever they want in their vacuum...but when it first see's the light of day, someone will be getting a nice little payout when they sue their employer and its ruled unconstitutional.
Where are you looking, so everybody else knows where to look.
Only on Slashdot will the general populous of readers balk and pretty much riot at any "study" that says *anything* bad about Linux, no matter what it is, and dredge up any and all "evidence", no matter how esoteric, irrelevant, or obscure to "prove" their point that Linux is God^H^H^HLinus's gift to mankind but take any rumormongering and obviously slanted "publication" with an agenda's interpretation of a legal ruling with a spin that sounds apocolyptical as gospel truth, simply because it is something that they think sounds plausible given their own misguided, and frequently just silly, view of the way the world works.
Actually... it sounds *exactly* like the things that this same group of people constantly accuse the public-at-large about in relation to public news outlets (FOX, CNN, etc), anyone in a "Red State", or anyone who thinks something "W" did that isn't evil and serving the rich and or serving Christians (of course, any other religious or anti-religious group is OK).
What
a
bunch
of
hypocrits
Oh come on, I don't know about you, but defecate sounds a whole lot dirtier than shit. You aren't saving anyone's honor.
daveschroeder is a known fundamentalist right whin(g)er who posts long whinding comments generally aimed at "prempting" balanced comments aiming at contributing positively to the discussion at hand.
If you have a subscription, look up his full comment history (especially those posted in the politics section), and see how often he starts of his comment with "Before any Anti-Bush comments are posted" (reworded from memory), followed by a usually fallacious and strongly right leaning drivel. If that's not enough, look up his "wisc.edu" webpage and look for fundamentalist religious content aiming at evangelizing the reader to his fundamentalist POV (point of view).
PS: Not a troll, though it may seem so. Merely wanted to point out the evangelizing slant in parent. I have nothing against a balanced POV, but my liberal attitude stops right where people try to convert me to their narrow POV.
PS: Since I posted that last comment, he's changed his webpage to remove his fundamentalist comments. In all probability he'll suggest (as on earlier occasions) to look up earlier versions through archive.org, but it's known that archive.org only archives pages at periodic checkpoints.
My honest impression of your posts this entire time was that you were asserting the ruling had nothing to do with in-uniform issues, when that was almost exclusively the focus of the resultant order in the ruling. I could not understand how you could possibly continue to state that uniform provisions were not at issue, when that was section (1)(a) of the order.
If it is your concern that I stated that the original ruling regarded "fraternization while in Guardsmark uniform" as opposed to "solicitation in Guardsmark uniform", while ignoring the anti-fratnerization (without regard to uniform) provisions, then I really don't know what to say. You seem to be concerned that because the post was moderated up, people would read it and think that the ruling really only dealt with a uniform issue. However, that is the case. The actual order of the ruling, i.e,, the part of the ruling that took new action, did deal with the uniform issue. That is the part of the ruling order that caused Guardsmark to be require to post a notice that it was found to be in violation of the National Labor Relations Act, and explicitly inform employees that they are allowed to assemble and discuss and form unions, or not.
The fraternization (non-uniform) issue is a separate one, for which no action was taken and previous precedence was cited. If it is your opinion that this constitutes a NEW action, i.e., one that new slashdot readers should be concerned about, that is not the case. This ruling did not cause anti-fraternization provisions to become allowable. Previous NLRB and court decisions had already done that. If you think it is wrong, fine; that is certainly your right. But the slashdot submission makes it sound like a new decision was made regarding anti-fratnerization provisions by employers. That is untrue. A new decision has been made regarding in uniform provisions, including fraternization, solicitation, and any off-duty activity while in uniform. I.e., it is technically accurate to say that the only new decision to arise from this ruling is regarding off-duty, in-uniform activities.
If you want to believe I'm trolling, go ahead. I'm more than open about who I am; I'm not anonymous, and anyone is free to contact me directly via any number of means, all of which can be seen via my user page or by personal web page.
If you want to accuse me of having an agenda, I would say I have an agenda only as much as you yourself might, or the person who submitted the article might. Anyone who reads the ruling, as you yourself have, can see clearly that the decision is not designed to infringe on workers' Section 7 rights, which SPECIFICALLY deals with assembly, meeting, and other union activities. The net result is that Guardsmark has to make explicit statements to that effect.
While I am politically conservative, I am not a fundamentalist or evangelical religious advocate, and am not anti-abortion or anti-gay marriage. I did not vote for Bush (And no, I didn't vote for some off the wall right wing candidate or the libertarian candidate either. And yes, I did vote.) Your invocation of "working man" and "fair wage" tug at the heartstrings, but they don't address what a company might be able to do to maintain its existence in the United States when it might be an order of magnitude cheaper to produce the same product (or service) overseas. Implicit in all of this is my belief that employers, as I said before, must be able to terminate employees for all reasons except those universally thought to be protected reasons, e.g., protected classes, protected labor activity, and so on.
If your assertion that the NLRB's inaction on the anti-fratnerization issue - even as it repeatedly and pointedly states that Section 7 protections are critical - is really an underhanded tactic to allow employers easier tools to dismiss employees that may be attempting to form unions, I simply reject that premise. My initial response to this issue was no more sensationalist in terms of attempts to grab attention than the submission.
My parents met at their job. I've met many of my friends via jobs. This rule is just plain wrong.
Has anyone thought about how this could impact hiring practices? Will employers outright ban hiring married couples? How about those dating? If two employees married, will their honeymoon gift be getting fired?
Are we now going to have to have "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" at the workplace?
No employer of mine will EVER control what I do outside the workplace. This is why workers need unions. This is the type of issues you strike over. Is corporate America going to be the new Big Brother, tracking who we fraternize with, and busting in on our late afternoon rendezvous like the Thought Police?
I refuse to accept that, EVER! I don't even allow my employer to dictate what I choose to do on my breaks, which is MY time! We're human, not lab rats, not machines, not pets, not robots, not computers! I'm nobody's bitch, and I'm nobody's slave!
I8-D
Here's a google cache of the link you couldn't get to: google cache
I have to say, I fully, 100% agree with the right of an employer to terminate you, for any reason they see fit. Whether you're fraternizing with co-workers after work, shagging the bosses daughter, or running a porn business on the side, it doesn't matter... the right of employment should always sit with the //employer//. They should not be forced to employ anyone.
That said... none of the above should be JUST CAUSE to fire someone! If you want to let me go for something that happens off the clock, you have to pay me out my full severance! What happens off the clock is no business of the company, and if they don't like it, too bad. It's not Just Cause, and the minute it becomes Just Cause, you should move own, because your company pwns your ass.
Repeat after me kids... "My Work Is Not My Life. I Work To Live, I Don't Live To Work. The Company Does Not Own Me. I Am Not A Number."
I don't care if I have to scratch out a living in the mountains, growing my own food and hunting and fishing and living in animal skins. Once the company stops paying for my time, it's MY time, to do with as I wish, and what happens is NOT Just Cause to let me go. And if they start thinking it is, I will move on.
If I knew the wedgies I gave you back in 6th grade would have resulted in this . . . I might have taken a moments pause.
oh wait, your Boss tells you not to meet your co-worker ... damn it. Freedom gone again ...
I think we should put up a new country for "Land of the Free". How about China? North Korea? Iran?
"Freiheit ist immer auch die Freiheit des Andersdenkenden" - Rosa Luxemburg, 1871 - 1919
First that's NLRB, not NRLB. Consult the National Council to Combat Dyslexia in Abreviations, (NDCAC).
I read this from the NLRB's web site. The ruling only states that you can't fraternize with others while you are on duty whether they are off duty or not.
Seems overly controlling to me, but within the employer's rights. Two off-duty employees would still be able to communicate, organize, etc.
This administration seems to be trying to erode the rights of workers but if we're going to make accusations against them, we need to have the facts on our side. Exaggerating our case makes it easier for them not to be held accountable by the American people.
If you are a salaried worker, then you are hired to do the job and the employer has very broad rights as to what they can require; they can't actually require anything but set it as a condition of employment for at-will employees. There is no reason that one of the 99.9% of saleried employees without written contracts should assume the job is only 40hr/wk. The business gets to choose what it thinks are the "optimal" (of which cost is but one part of the productivity equation) employees - whether it is $120k/yr for 60hr/wk or 80$k for 40 or $40k fo 20 hr/wk. And the employee has the absolute freedom to balance their desires, including time and income, and choose their employer.
The next step will be no more fraternizing with potential employers interested in hiring you away from your current employer.
Come on editors, try and get the headline and body matching at least. Is it too much to ask for?
Boy do they have you all trained well! If you consider the huge influx of women to the workforce after WWII, the hugh gains in productivity from modernization, the over aboundance of useless nick-nacks and meaningless bueracratic work, and the billion of capable people on the planet who are basically under/unemployed... properly organized we could be living _far_ better lives at only a day or two's worth of work a week. But nah, the super rich would rather not work at all. instead they have everyone else busting ass as fast as they can go. And, he he, get this. They tell em it's "good work ethic". Yea. Wonder what they'll say when humanoid robots come to bare and this employment gap begins to open wide.
:T:R:A:N:S:
My buddy "ed" got me a job there.
Sorry ed, I can't see you any more outside work ours.
My girlfriend "jane" got me a job there....
She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
Most constructive post I've seen here.
Whoops! Mod the parent DOWN. The ruling also plainly states that an employer MAY institute a rule that prohibits off-duty fraternization with co-workers:
Respondent did not violate the Act by maintaining a work rule that directs employees not to "fraternize on duty or off duty, date[,] or become overly friendly with the client's employees or with co-employees."
I think the parent mistakenly addressed a different part of the ruling.
I'd say an employer's implementation of such a rule is dumb in most cases. It may be sane if you're talking about security guards, however ("scheming is prohibited").
Regardless of the details, does anyone really worry about this? It seems like a self-correcting behavior -- if the company you work for mandates any outside-of-business conduct that you find objectionable, well, that's what quitting is for. If enough valuable people leave, it will force a re-evaluation of the policy.
-- Gary Goldberg KA3ZYW 301/249-6501 AIM:OgGreeb Digital Marketing Inc., Bowie, MD
I think you mean NLRB in the headline!
OK, I get the "no dating your co-workers" thing; you're just asking for trouble if you do. However, I find it very depressing to be told I cannot even make friends with the person working next to me all day every day of the week.
Dictionary.com defines to "fraternize" as:
1. To associate with others in a brotherly or congenial way.
2. To associate on friendly terms with an enemy or opposing group, often in violation of discipline or orders.
Now, unless they are claiming that my co-worker is my enemy or an otherwise opposing group, they are reffering to the first definition. Notice that this says nothing about dating or having sex with others. If my employer bans me from fraternizing with my co-workers, they have banned me from associating with them.
Have you ever gotten in an elevator with people you see every day and felt an incredibly awkward silence b/c no one really has anything to say to each other? It sucks. We tend to issolate ourselves enough as it is; we don't need a simple, friendly "hello" to be banned as well!
I like to get to know the people I work with. I like to know who they are, what is going on in their lives, and what things I may be able to sympathize with them about. It makes for a friendlier, more enjoyable work environment to be able to look over to the next desk and say, "Hey Bill, how's your son's baseball team doing?" or "You know Jan, there is a really great play showing tonight which I think you would love! Would you like to come see it with me?" It means oen can actually have friends at the office.
To be banned from simply talking to my co-workers/friends outside of the office is to be told I can only be a part-time friend. "Oh I know we're friends at the office, but don't bother me once the work day is over. I only have time for you and your problems while we're on the clock."
Does this sound lame to anyone else but me?
I agree that this is an infraction of human rights. My employer may only dictate what I do on my own time if those actions hurt the company, and that kind of decision should be made on a case-by-case basis.
But one day Tom, he went and caught the River-daughter, in green gown, flowing hair, sitting in the rushes
Here's what Dave said:
The actual ruling... (Score:2) by daveschroeder (516195) * on Wednesday August 03, @03:33PM (#13233393) (http://das.doit.wisc.edu/) .
NLRB ruling [nlrb.gov].
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 [nlrb.gov], 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:
So basically, except for the chopped sentence, everyone reads "The critical and key aspect of the ruling was that it allowed for the prevention of such inappropriate fraternization while in Guardsmark uniform." Whether you meant to say that or not, that is how the flaming ----es are reading you. You can't get more specific than that, saying it was about activity in uniform.
If you want to get all Clinton about "allowed for prevention" not same as "ruled in favour", you'll find most people don't read it that way, I'm sure.
I kinda agree with the thrust of this or the hotel ruling - being chummy with people when you are expected to stay aloof can compromise security - that's how social engineering gets people past security barriers; or give the wrong impression of the service in a posh hotel.("We want service to be 'Yes, sir, no sir', not 'Sure nuff, bubba' even if he is your friend.") The ban on fraternizing with co-workers does seem to take it too far. And, any company that finds it necessary to forbid their employees from telling clients how poorly they get paid is probably not on the "10 best places to work" list.
The concept that people can be "fired at will" seems pretty bizarre outside the USA. In Canada, yes, an employer can dump anyone (non-union) as long as it's not discrimination - but the severance pay provisions kick in; it will cost you. (Typically from 1 week to 1 month per year of service, depending on various factors - age, difficulty or finding replacement job, etc.)
Heck, it's illegal in Canada to demand a drug test or lie detector test as a condition of employment. That's an invasion of privacy...
Land of the free? whoever told oyu that is your "enemy" isn't telling people that they can't assemble off hours against the contituions right to assemble? correct me if im wrong.
Because that's pretty much my uniform. I guess if you're wearing a corporate logo golf shirt that counts too, doesn't it? What about a company parking pass on my car on the weekend in the mall, does THAT identify me?
You don't really need to know the details of the law. If the law conflicts with what the judge wants to do, then so much the worse for the law. Don't count on appeals, either - you probably can't afford one or didn't have a court reporter at the trial and anyway, it's just asking another judge to express contempt for a colleague. The purpose of the maze of laws is not to direct what must be done, but to ensure that you will hire a lawyer to figure it out.
Here is a rough guide which is more accurate than the law at predicting who will win in courts:
1.Federal government
2.State Government
3.Banks
4.Multinational Corporations
5.High level VIPs
6.Local government
7.Other corporations
8.Mid-level VIPs
9.Pretty women
10.Women
11.Men
12.Lower-class people
The greater the difference in level, the more certain that the outcome will go to the higher rank.
If in a state court and only one of the parties is in-state, move the in-state party up 1 or 2 notches. You get about 1 notch for each 25% by which your legal bill exceeds the other party. You lose 1-2 notches for being clearly in the wrong. Other easily-spotted exceptional circumstances can move a party up or down the list, as well.
"Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery?" - Patrick Henry
There is a nice French restaurant in town... the owner is from Morocco, and his wife is from Switzerland. I started going there with a friend of mine several years ago. We always eat at the bar (yes, we drink, but that isn't necessary), and I know several of the wait staff, the bartender, and the owners pretty well.
Or another... there is a little bar/cinema nearby; I see a lot of indie films there. I know most of the staff pretty well. I've been asked to invest a few times, but the timing was never right.
Find a place where you like the food and the atmosphere. You don't even have to talk much; just make it a habit, and before you know it, someone will know you.
Yes, there is a lot of arm-twisting to drink in modern social life. Just because I give in doesn't mean that you have to.
I think I remember that in Japan it actually happens the other way around.
Coupling between emplyees of the same place is generally seen as a good thing...
or did I missunderstood something?
errera hunamum ets
"hey peter, whats happening? yeah...I'm gonna need you to go ahead and come in tomorow,we , uh , lost some people this week and we need to sorta play catch-up. So if you cold be here around 9, that would be great. ummmmkkk. Oh oh and i almost forgot, i'm also gonna need you to go ahead and come in on sunday, Thanks!" Bill Lumbergh
Don't correct my punctuation, grammar, or spelling. If you're paying attention to that, you're missing the point
This ruling does NOT mean your employer can ban socializing with coworkers. The original article, confirmed by the document you link to, complains that the board did not strike down language in the handbook that APPEARED to bad such socializing.
The NLBR argued that this rule would not be interpreted by employees as forbidding off-duty association. Reading the rule, that is clearly total bullshit, it clearly WOULD be interpreted to ban such association. Their claim that it only would be interpreted as being related to dating and entanglements is bull, since the rule mentions dating, and "fraternization" isn't a qualification of "dating" but an extension of the rule to ban protected behavior.
Of course, this does not actually change employee rights in any way whatsoever. If the employer did fire or discipline an employee for associating with coworkers, that would be just as illegal as before. This is a question of whether the employer can threaten employees with discipline implicitly through confusing and easily misinterpreted rules. That's what the original article talks about and what the ruling confirms.
Hold more union meetings. Vary the location. Turn some of them into union-organized and sponsored events - pep rallys, competitions, socials, etc.
Four could be a double date, but five is just a bad reality tv show.
"You saved 1968." - Ms. Valerie Pringle to the crew of Apollo 8
NRLB? National Right to Life Bureau?
A lot of posters seem to be under the mistaken impression that their bosses have to have a good reason to fire them. In most states, like my home state of Florida, a private employer can fire you for any reason that is not expressly illegal, such as a discriminatory reason under Title VII or a violation of a whistleblower or workers' compensation law. Only government employees or those with employment contracts receive extra protection. This means that you can be legally fired for plently of bad reasons, such as "I don't like your hair style" or "I just don't like you." The fact that your employer can fire you for hanging out with co-workers off-hours falls under the "bad, but not illegal" category. And before you say "what about my freedom of assembly?" realize that the Constitution only places limits on the government's ability to mess with your life, not your employer's.
What you say is pretty funny. Substance abuse is pretty common, especially after work, and often even at lunch on Fridays! :-)
Karma: It's all a bunch of tree-huggin' hippy crap!
"With IT workers so commonly producing some of our best work 'after hours,' even at home or in restaurants/bars,"
HAHAHAHAHA - You clearly haven't seen the IT guys I have to deal with. Skinny white pasty guys who live in their parents basement and think good beers are Natural Ice or Miller Light.
I once knew this IT guy who was a little more normal, he had a BBQ at his house, but all he did was show people his multi-computer setup in the living room - he had another coworker actually do the BBQ because he had burned the chicken earlier in the day and of course we had to bring our own Sierra Nevada's (a cheep but alright tasting beer) because we didn't want to drink Coors Light.
Ave Molech Setting
I kind of have to side with "the big evil corporations who take away your freedom" on this...My reason is "off-duty fraternizing among co-workers" IS A PROBLEM at my work.
The majority of the time people chatting it up is fine, but what an employer needs to be able to reprimand people who do more socializing at my work than actual work.
For example at my current job there is one employee who constantly is on the phone with ttheir family and/or friends so much so that other peopl ein the office make fun of the issue. The person in question has actually been spoken too several times about this, but continues doing so. This person also tends to be the "super friendly" type who if you see them in the break room - suddenly they want to talk to you about your day, how you're really doing, what your plans are after work, what you're doing this weekend, and of course they have to tell you a story from their own life about each reply you have.
They waste my time, company time, and in all honesty their own time acting a fool like this. Seriously this person can't go to the bathroom without talking for 10-15min with each person in the hallway between there and back.
I would probably think that this was a bad thing, if I didn't see this abuse of company time everyday on a first hand basis.
Ave Molech Setting
The judge orginally stated:
"I find the provision to be sufficiently clear on its face to advise employees that they should not engage in unofficial business while in uniform. This implies that such activities are permissible provided they are not in uniform [...]"
...which was overturned by the NLRB as being too vague. I find it to be exceedingly clear, but regardless, the NLRB wants to make it clear that Section 7 activities are allowed...which is what this is all about right?
Right?
I mean, you're not actually saying that employers can't damned well set any guidelines they please for employment (as long as it does not violate a protected class or status), are you? Because they can. This whole submission - the original article, the labor site that was linked to - all talks about this being chilling to the formation of labor unions. Not who you can have a beer with after work. Because, see, you have a right to form a union, which has not been impinged, and in fact, has been dutifully upheld. Such behavior is not grounds for termination.
You also have a right to start fucking one of your coworkers. Or having a beer after work. Or playing poker. Or all of the above. But if your employer, for whatever reason, chooses to prohibit such activity, and they find out about it, and enforce it, this was, is, and will continue to be, allowable. To say nothing of the fact that being an at-will employee allows for termination for pretty much ANY reason. That's the problem with labor advocates: they erroneously believe that you have a right to work, or a right to continue to work at a particular job.
You don't.
So the NLRB ruling on one specific case means they issued a ban applicable to every company in the US? I'll take it there aren't many lawyers posting here.
President Bush did not clean house at the NLRB when he came into office, so if you want to blame someone, look into the judges behind this, and the cuplrit who appointed them. Who knows, it could be good ol' Slick Willy behind it all, or worse, Prez. Carter! More than likely, it was someone appointed by someone appointed by someone who was voted in by someone you voted in years and years ago.
Please, if you believe that you can successfully collectively bargain against your employer, do so to the best of your ability, but remember that work is just something you should do for 40 hours a week...
The 40 hour work week. Brought to you by collective bargaining and America's Unions.
I think it is extremely interesting how people are responding to this story in these threads. People have their own prepared agendas, preconceived notions, which determine how they're responding - some are entirely determined, others are just influenced.
This ruling is extremely obvious in its effect: employers can tell employees with whom they can associate, even after hours. You'd think that every responder who's an employee (probably nearly 100%) would be outraged that employers even tried such a power grab over them. Or that they were supported by politicians. Especially that it's now law, especially under the administration of the NLRB (if the responders understood that the NLRB is a government agency designed to enforce workers and employer's rights). But only a few people can see how simple and obvious is this fascist merger of corporate and state power, exclusively at the expense of the worker.
You're doing the kind of exhaustive, patient responses to even the most clueless reactionary that I often find myself doing. The truth has the power to overwhelm even outnumbering opponents armed only with ignorance and lies. Like a little candle in a big dark room. It isn't easy to be the candle, with all the dark sucking the light, but it certainly feels right. Glad we're not alone.
--
make install -not war
I too am so choked about our treatment as salaried workers! Man, I was in one office where a top level directory said behind closed doors in a management meeting regarding compensation "They should be happy they get paid at all!" What really pisses me off is everyone's complacency on this, no one cares that their jobs are being outsourced, no one cares that there is project after project lined up with unrealistic expectations and deadlines that you have no say in (but you'll have to put in that 60 hour work week to get the job done), no one cares that some bonehead clown out to make a name for himself will work on a project that falls in your domain in a way that will break everything you worked on for the last 2 years...
I just can't believe how no one cares or better yet, how they believe it's fair for them to be worked into the ground.
It really does bring me down.
Oops, how did this get here?
09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
Can businesses and workers make agreements that cover a worker's behavior when he/she is not "on the clock"? Yes.
This is not about giving businesses more power; it is about allowing businesses and workers to make any agreements they want, and they can tell the government to MYOB.
So, a business can say to a worker, "If you work for us, you cannot socialize with your coworkers off the clock." And if the worker does not like it he/she does not have to work there. Similarly, a worker can say to a business, "If I work for you, I am going to socialize with my coworkers off the clock." And if the business does not like it, they don't have to hire the worker.
With IT workers so commonly producing some of our best work 'after hours,' even at home or in restaurants/bars, will this ruling come back to bite employers in the IT industry?
Of course not. Just because it's legal for IT companies to do this doesn't mean they're going to.
Can they really stop you from talking with your cubicle neighbor on the bus home, if they can't even stop you from reading Slashdot while on the clock?
No, but it gives you an excuse for them to fire you.
Yours is not to question why, yours is but to pay and die.
Get with the program and support our administrations efforts to more effectively block conversation that might potentially lead to terrorism in the workplace.
How is this not a violation of free association?
This sig is false.
It's NLRB.
You know, like in the summary
No more carpooling since that could be seen as fraternizing
Ignorance is not a crime; neither should it be a way of life
Congress control $ = inmates run the asylum
Look out! It's the law!
You haven't been married very long, have you?
"Stop throwing the Constitution in my face, it's just a goddamned piece of paper!" - George W. Bush Nov. 2005
just say hello, oh sorry I cant speak to you off of company time.
Then hang up and leave the phone off the hook.
Someone else can fix whatevers broken.
Wow. The US Unions must be the most toothless gutless cowards on the face of the earth. How did this happen to you? Will these policies be passed to Australia via osmosis due to the constant contact between john howard's lips and george bush's arse?
For legal purposes? Maybe to probably if it's in your contract, but IANAL.
For practical purposes? Unless the boss or some assistant crony is there with you, I doubt it.
Is Capitalism Good for the Poor?
...that the employees in question were (drum roll) SECURITY GUARDS??
...?
Isn't it reasonable to prohibit your security guards from getting too friendly with one another, or even getting to know one another?
How you say... Inside Job
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
There is NO fucking way this ruling will stand up in court.
RS
Shoes for Industry. Shoes for the Dead.
While *I* refuse to have any out of work relationships with any of my co-workers
[...]
I do everything I can to not even mention work to friends and family. When I am outside the office walls my brain is on everything but. It's healthy to have time to yourself, your family, and your hobbies.
I do believe that there has to be a balance struck here. Things like office romances and nepotism are definitely unhealthy behaviours and employers should be able to make reasonable restriction on such behaviour....ON COMPANY TIME ONLY. On that point I agree...YOUR time is YOUR TIME...not your bosses, not some corporation's and not the government's.
From your post though it looks like you might be overcompensating. A person simply cannot completely separate work and personal life without causing added stress. For example, if you come home from a rough day at work you might think you are being a good husband by not burdening her with your problems...but guess what? You're still going to be a surly bastard and your wife will be frustrated because she'll haven't the first clue why. She's there for you and she might be hable to help you feel better. Same goes for if you are on the other side of the situation--if your wife comes home from a bad day at work don't avoid the subject---ASK what happened. You might not be able to solve each other's problems, but even simply sharing gripes about the kids being monsters at home while some client was being an ass at work can make you feel better.
The same goes for work--personal situations can affect work performance, and if you're distracetd your boss or others might want to know why--believe it or not, your boss (if he is a good boss) will want to help you resolve those problems--if only to get the best performance from his team.
This crazy idea of opening up the possibility of your employer deciding who you can associate with when you leave work? Seems to step quite a bit over the line and wouldn't do any good in fostering good labour relations. Oh yead...and it almost sounds unconstitutional--is freedom of association not a fundamental right in the free world?
...or are public elementary schools.
I cried real tears when Li Mu Bai died.
The American mentality when it comes to work is both a gift and a curse. American works are the world's most productive workers. Not only are comparably skilled, intelligent, and creative to their counterparts elsewhere, they have absolutely sick work ethics, especially when it comes to spending time at work. Now, Americans might spend a lot of time working, but so do other people in the world. The difference between Americans and others who work just as long or longer, is that those other people are working in sweatshops because they have. The gift of it is that the US has roughly 5% of the world population, but is 21% of the world's economy. The curse is of course that you have people working like they are in a sweat shop and need money to keep from starving when they don't.
Personally, I am grateful there are nut jobs out there that spend 100 hours a week working. I am sure their contribution to driving up the standard of living for the sane ones is more then just trivial. Successful startups in particular are known for being run by insane work zealots who hire more insane work zealots. I have even known a few, and they are indeed very productive individuals. They are dysfunctional as hell when it comes to their personal lives, but, eh, whatever makes them happy.
Me personally though? I live in America where the poor are more likely to die of a heart attack from over eating then they are to die of starvation. I have a grip on reality. I don't need to work 100 hours to keep from starving. I could ditch my job and flip burgers and I still wouldn't starve. As much as I might enjoy my work, I recognize and appreciate the fact that I don't like it THAT much. I enjoy it above all the other things that someone is willing to pay me for, but not more then I appreciate my free time. I don't delude myself into believing that I love waking up every single morning even when I am tired and just want to sleep in a little longer. If they stopped sending me a paycheck, I would stop coming. If I won a few million, I would retire regardless of my age.
So, my hat goes off to those crazy whack jobs that spend more time at work then they do anywhere else. I appreciate all those wonderful things their hard work goes into producing. I appreciate them even more because I am sane enough to call it quits at 40 hours enjoy the fruits of someone else's labor.
Finally, as to that extra 30% they are making more then me, does it bother me in the slightest? Hell no. They can take their higher pile and do whatever they do with it. Time is money, and my time is worth a hell of a lot more then a few extra tens of thousands of dollars.
Really people, don't work a shitty job and complain. Take a pay cut and work a job that doesn't make you miserable. Leave working like an animal and living by stupid rules like 'no having fun outside of work' to the nut jobs that enjoy that kind of insanity.
This firm is security provider (probably ran by some government agency security ex-officials or ex-military). When they issued "no hanging out" order, it was obviously "technological" requirement, copied from "the book".
No they can't.
From the moment you swipe out, to the moment you swipe in the next morning, your employer has no power over you. The company rulebook does not apply to you. And your boss is just another civilian like you. Nothing that you do while you are on your own time has any relevance in any matter to do with the company; to all intents and purposes, "you at work" and "you at home" are two different people.
Even if you don't have a "proper" time clock, every place of employment needs some way of knowing who is in the building at any time in case of emergencies -- if there's a fire and someone is not at the designated assembly point, does that mean they're still in the building or they aren't at work today? So there must always a clear record of who is on the company's premises, and therefore bound by the company's rules -- or not. And if there is no such record, your employer could be in trouble with the Fire authority.
What really matters is that your labour is worth more to the company than the company's wages are worth to you. And watch out for the little creep who doesn't bleed when his brother gets cut.
Je fume. Tu fumes. Nous fûmes!
Wearing my maids uniform while dating the roughneck janitors downstairs turns me on gooooood.....
'nuff said...
It is very difficult, and in many situations unpleasent.
It is good to have a good working relationship with your colleagues, but socializing should be kept to a minimum so everybody can keep professionalism unnafected by friendships.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
The bill of rights only applies to government, not private employers. The only issue raised in the article is whether such a rule would abridge a statutory (not constitutional) right for employees to meet for purposes of possibly forming a union. When a private employer says you can't hang out with co-workers after hours, no Constitutional violation occurs.
Don't understand your sig, why are you comparing your photo with Google's satellite image???
Are you suprised that they look the same?
And the people shall be oppressed, every one by another, and every one by his neighbour Isaiah 3:5
The people allowing you to keep your lifestyle.
The people paying you a livehood.
Whatever, since you are dealing with their money and their resources they surely need to have some input in how you lead your life in anything related to your work. Relationships is one of them since for many reasons this could be detrimental to the company's activities.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
So you ar completely innadequate to relate with people (that by definition will be different) but you blame it on them?
Mate, you need to have a hard look at yourself, you may be happy the way you are, to each one his own, but don't come with this bullshit about the rest of the world being inadequate.
The same 2% of compatible people will be out ther in any activity you perform, the big difference is that you are not risking both your professional standing and your friendship when you make friends that are not your coworkers.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
I have visited their web site and I have corresponded with the head of the organization. What they say sounds pretty good on first hearing. Then, I looked a little harder and saw how dishonest they are about the second amendment. I don't expect every group I support to agree with me 100%. But, I do expect them to be honest and make their decisions on principled grounds. The ACLU does not consistently do either.
I'd love to argue this one before the Supreme Court. If something is unconstitutional, no one may do it. The Bill of Rights is exactly what it says: The menu of freedoms to which we are all entitled. They are inviolable by anyone.
If a security guard were fired for having a beer with a co-worker, I'd take it to federal court immediately as a violation of citizen's right to peaceably assemble. I'd probably win right there, but if the company appealed, they'd get their asses kicked all the way to the Supreme Court. Hell, the Supreme Court probably wouldn't even bother to hear it.
This one's a slam-dunk. The NLRB is wrong.
Thanks for playing.
RS
Shoes for Industry. Shoes for the Dead.
.... great, good for you.
For many of us that is not the case, we are paid to perform a job, we do that job, clock hits 17:00, end of the history for the day.
Of course you can't understand it because you are in the odd position of being the owner of something but having to work like mad to keep things going.
That is you, I very much hope that any employees in your company are sane enough to have an unhindered life out of bussiness hours.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
In many businesses (specially in the financial sector) certain departments of the same company should not have any contacts with others for many different reasons.
If you can go an fraternize with that same people, the "Chinese wall" provisions go up in smoke. And the respective company may be liable.
Also in many cases conspiracies to defraud are inside jobs organized by a group of coworkers, Although such provisions would not stop any criminals, it certainly would make clear that in some businesses (the company in question seem to be in the security area) socialization puts in danger the very business that brings the money to the organization that is paying everybody's salaries.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
Look buddy, keep to yourslef all the fascist- rethoric-whatever-slippery-I-don't-know-what nonsense.
Firstly it is not becoming illegal for everybody to fraternize with colleagues out of office hours. What the ruling says is that is is not illegal to put a clause in an employment contract forbiding employees to do so.
It is a fscking contract you know? One of those things that you can decide to sign or not. If you find a measure too draconian the solution is simple: do not put your signature in the dotted line. You will be not shooted, no final solution for non signatories, no fascist measures.
There are many situations in which fraternization is a bad idea (hint: look at the business of the company involved) for the business the company is (and for extension the employees themselves).
Knee jerk reacting faster than a gunslinger can pull out his trusty Colt is not a good way to look at an issue so complicated as this.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
Imagine you and your friend work in such a company, one of you casually slips some information thatn the other should not know about.
Sorry, but in some circumstances fraternization is a bussiness risk, in such cases your friends should be found elsewhere.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
If the work situation offers the possibility of forming friendships and even long lasting relationships, that is great and cool.
But a bussiness main purpose, for both employees and employers IMHO, is not to facilitate socialization.
I would theorize that people having as main avenue to relate to others their workplace have either too much work, too few life interests or a combination of both.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
They are requesting something in a contractual clause.
If the requirement is asinine you can refuse, in some places to put an unreasonbale clause that would force you to refuse to accept it, would amount to unfiar dismisal.
But if the clause is a legitimate business need only people prepared to work in that line of business should join such a company.
No cohercion here.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
Prise to you...
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
US workers are not the most productive in the world.
I will not fish out the details for you, but organizations like the OECD and others will cure your unabashed optimism.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
When people say a company is forcing you to do something that is just coloquial descontextualized lingo.
A company enters an agreement in which the company wishes that you refrain to do certain things because they could be counterproductive to the company's bottom line.
YOu can say yes or not.
They are forcing you do do nothing.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
Your substance abuse inclusion makes you a big fucking hypocrite.
-Clio
Karma: Bad (mostly from not giving a fuck)
Blog: http://clintjcl.wordpress.com
The Bill of Rights was added to the Constitution to safeguard certain specific rights from abuse by a potentially tyrannical federal government. You have the right, indeed the initiative to change employers when you deem their policies to be restrictive or intrusive. There is only one Federal Government, and you don't have much choice in that.
Your comments are very revealing of something more sinister - a nanny state mentality. That is to say that instead of taking responsibility for yourself on a personal level, you defer to large corporations and the government for guidance on what your rights are. You may do this even though you consciously abhor the idea. A person isn't truly free until they first feel that they are free, then protect that freedom. Your answer betrays the notion that you're not free, and you need some government, corporation, or pseudo government to make you such. Snap out of it man!