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?"

7 of 871 comments (clear)

  1. Why are we allowing work to control us? by garcia · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:Why are we allowing work to control us? by v3rb · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I don't understand people who refuse to socialize with co-workers. I can understand not wanting to talk shop, but I have had the pleasure to work with some great people that I enjoy seeing at and outside of work. Knowing these people from a social standpoint has helped us work together better.

      Trying to keep your work life completely separate from your home life is like trying to have two separate families. It's possible to do, but more difficulty than it's worth. It's hard for people at work to really trust you when they don't know a thing about you.

      A man who's work is both his vocation and his advocation is truly blessed.

    2. Re:Why are we allowing work to control us? by Zeinfeld · · Score: 5, Interesting
      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.

      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/
  2. Wife, please read this article! by bigwavejas · · Score: 5, Funny

    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
    1. Re:Wife, please read this article! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      and a bonus...you won't have to get up off the couch to go to bed ;-)

  3. The actual ruling... by daveschroeder · · Score: 5, Informative

    ...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.

    1. Re:The actual ruling... by daveschroeder · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Now can you explain how an employers has ANY right whatsoever to tell us what to do when we are off the clock?

      Sure.

      When you're still in your employer's uniform, especially that of a security company wishing to maintain its reputation as a professional organization, you shouldn't be going on dates with your clients.

      That help?