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?"
Why do you call the U.S.A the "land of the free"?
Interesting that the dissenting board member was the one appointed by Clinton. The others were appointed by the current president.
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!
It's not wasting time, I'm educating myself.
You, sir, are a complete and utter troll. And you have successfully goaded me into responding. Bravo! If you don't live in the US, and it appears from your odd syntax and broken English that you do not, please refrain from making disparaging remarks about those of us who choose to criticize some of the corporate bullshit we are subjected to, day-in and day-out.
Have a coke and a smile, and STFU.
"To hope's end I rode and to heart's breaking: Now for wrath, now for ruin and a red nightfall!"
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
Can the slashdot editors replace the original post with this one? What about super-modding up to about 12? It's so typically slashdot to have a misleading news posting (it's pretty bad when original poster hasn't RTFA) and a plethora of totally irrelevant and indignant comments to follow.
It's such a waste of time to find the one comment that has anything to do with anything.
Don't become a regular here, you will become retarded. -- Yoda the Retard
People are so obsessed with the numbers that show on their paycheck that they forget that their work habbits are creeping into their personal lives and causing serious issues.
Yea, easily said. How about this response "You don't like our corporate policies, then quit. Someone else will do your job. Have fun paying the mortgage."
Unfortunately, bosses do have us by the balls. Yes you can look for a new job, but that boss can screw you as well. you just have to get lucky or form your own company (not that easy).
Most companies who have salaried employees equate that to mean you WILL work over 40 hours per week.
I am lucky that in my department, my boss compensates us with some off time. So if I come in on a Sunday, I get about (no hard numbers) 75% of that time in time off at some chosen date. Other departments in my company do NOT get that.
I mod down so you can mod up. Your welcome.
You appear to misunderstand what the NRLB is chartered to do. Its purpose is to protect the rights of employees to organize and form unions. It does not have a charter that allows it to rule on employment contracts in general.
The real issue here is that the Bush administration has a history of attempting to make it easier for employers like WalMart to prevent attempts by employees to unionize and demand a fair wage for their work. This in turn hurts taxpayers like you and me who are forced to subsidize corporations like WalMart that pay so little that most of their staff are on welfare. I don't shop at Walmart but I still have to pay their employees, how screwed up is that?
What happened in this case was that a security firm tried to stop their employees from organizing by prohibiting them from meeting outside work. It has nothing at all to do with professionalism or the image of the company. The only reason for the rules was to stop workers from organizing.
The Bush administration appointees on the NRLB supported a rulling that would allow the security firm to effectively prevent employees from organizing outside work through the pretext of prohibiting dating.
I don't think it is at all likely that this type of rule would ever come to IT. The industry does not have a history of organizing and if people were to decide they needed to organize they could do so through the Internet if there were attempts to prohibit meeting in bars. Trying this type of stunt would be the type of thing that would be likely to start people organizing.
Looking for an Information Security student project suggestion?
Try http://dotcrimeManifesto.com/
"Both of the above" is also a valid option.
It's true I tell you, feller at work's next door neighbour read it in the paper.
I hate the current corporate attitude that management should have the right to interfere in human relations in the work place. Who the fuck do they think they are?
Does a Christian soccer team even need a goalkeeper?
You seem to miss the point of the ruling. The managers and owners of this company are united in their activities. They are united with the might of the US government, which has backed what they are doing. Less obvious, they are working with the managers and owners of other companies, who have helped bring this ruling into effect by various means (the NRTW and so forth). The object of the ruling is to isolate the individual worker. Which is precisely what you are saying, you are one worker who does one thing, I am here doing my thing, and so forth. For some reason, the employer seems to prefer to mobilize an army rather than fight a war singlehandedly, as you seem to sugegst doing.
...if they pay you to work 40 hours, then you only work 40 hours...
If you are told to work a 50 hour work week by your boss, and you fail to do so, you can be released from your job immediately. In most states, anyway. It's insubordination.
C//
I don't think that unionizing is high on the list of priorities for IT people. They tend to like the independence they have, and most I know do not trust unions, many having been in them before. (I live in SoCal, and a significant portion of IT here has been employed in aerospace at one time or another.)
From another angle, unions are often seen as a lower tier of workers by many in IT, something probably due to the blue-collar roles held by so many union members. Salaried positions are craved because they are a status symbol. We lost our salaried positions and were changed to hourly with a strict 40-hour limit without prior approval; I've rarely heard so many complaints before. It wasn't that we were restricted in the number of hours worked, but that the status symbol of being on salary had been taken away. Time after 5pm was seen as a relaxing time, when things could get done that were difficult to do during the day due to normal troubleshooting.
Finally, there is little desire to see that much more of the paycheck disappear. Taxes eat a fair portion, and medical insurance costs aren't going down for us, either. Seeing yet more taken out by a union that may or may not see the situation as individuals do is not going to make most much happier, especially since so many unions seem content to make a point rather than to maintain jobs for their members.
You can never go home again... but I guess you can shop there.
since when is it insubordination to insist on sticking to the contract? (the one that says that your working week is 40 hours and any overtime on that must be paid [you did have that clause in there, didn't you?])
On the plus side, if you do get fired you'll be set for life on the proceeds of the lawsuit...
>> And it is not about being brave
If you're already in a position, and hold that position due to merit, surely you can afford a little backbone.
I've turned down numerous requests for both unpaid and paid work after hours. If my employer requests anything unreasonable, I feel free to refuse. I think if anything it engenders some respect.
If what they want really needs to be done, they'll lean on someone else to do it. There is always someone afraid to say no. - it just isn't me
http://request-header.info
You appear to misunderstand what the NRLB is chartered to do. Its purpose is to protect the rights of employees to organize and form unions.
Actually, the right to organize and form unions is already protected by the Bill of Rights (right of free speech and assembly). The NLRB is there for two other purposes. The first is to protect the privilege of the employee to remain employed. The second is to protect the privilege of certain groups (unions) to impose their will on other groups (business).
Please note that I am differentiating between a "right" and a "privilege". A "right" is liberty or property common to everyone, and does not exist at the expense of another. A "privilege" is a liberty or property that is not common to everyone, but common only to a group or class. A privilege only exists at the expense of another's rights or privileges. The privilege to collective bargaining can only exist by removing the right to voluntary association. This does not mean you can't *attempt* to collective bargain. It just means you can't coerce your employer into participating without a state granted privilege.
Don't blame me, I didn't vote for either of them!
Thank you, Mr. Grumpus. No, I was not requesting that you personally talk to my boss. That was an attempt at humor to diffuse a potentially volatile situation. Obviously, it failed.
That said, I agree with another response to this comment that work bleeds too much into personal time. When I was hired here, there was nothing in the contract that said "Thou shalt work all hours of our choosing" - this was something laid out to my by my boss because of my explicitly stated aversion to him for being stuck here working late nights on things that I shouldn't have to be, because other people failed in their duties.
I'm not one to be slack in my duties, and I'd prefer to have all of my work done before I leave for the day. I do find that there is one important point to remember: it's just a job, it's not my life. Even a career is just a job, something you do to pay my bills and have money to feed my family. It's the people in my life that really matter, and I'd rather have time to spend with them than my boss and my desktop computer.
A wise person makes his own decisions, a weak one obeys public opinion. -- Chinese proverb
Actually, I know a lady who DOES support a family by working as a hourly worker at Walmart. She makes more than minimum wage, since she's been there probably 3-5 years. Admittedly, they don't live in a superexpensive metropolis. The family has one kid, lives in an apartment. Both she and her husband have student loans that they are paying off (he has been doing seasonal work). Yes, they have health insurance.
----- Question authority, but not ours. Hate the man, but we're not him.
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.
I agree with what your bosses. I don't want you to tell me how long you work, I want you to tell me how much you got done.
Also, don't complain about how long you're working unless I've asked you to work extra hours.
If I ask you to do something and you say, "I can do that, but it's going to take some extra hours unless you don't want me to do this other thing" that helps me plan. I may at that time say, "Okay, I'll get someone else to do it", or I may say, "Can you work some extra hours?", or I may say, "If you can do that, I'll get you some comp time later", or I may even say, "If you'll put in that time, I'll make it worth your while". But if you don't tell me, I can't do any of that stuff.
Look, I don't want anyone that works for me to get burnt out. I want them at the top of their game. If a person is working 60+ hours a week every week, they aren't at the top of their game. If you think you are, you're fooling yourself. Take a couple of short weeks and compare the quality (not quantity) of your work.
Back on topic - I think this ruling sucks, and I think it violates the right to free assembly. When I'm on the clock, my boss expects me to do my job, and I can understand why they wouldn't want me to be flirting with that new cutie in Sales, but when I'm off the clock, I'm my own person.
As a salaried employee my hours are not a set 9-5, so they are set by mutual agreement. If my boss wants that to include all the time I might be out drinking a beer or other non-work related activities, he'd better pay me a lot more than he is currently.
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