Feds Settle Case of Woman Fired Over Facebook Posts

Mr.Intel writes "Employers should think twice before trying to restrict workers from talking about their jobs on Facebook or other social media. That's the message the government sent on Monday as it settled a closely watched lawsuit against a Connecticut ambulance company that fired an employee after she went on Facebook to criticize her boss in 2009."

Comments

Ruling doesn't affect Internet blocking

[ThreePhones]

This says that companies can't stop employees from commenting using their own device on their own time. It doesn't require them to provide access to social media sites at work.

Re:Ruling doesn't affect Internet blocking

[schnikies79]

Nor should it. A company should be able to block, or not block, anything they want on company property.

Re:Ruling doesn't affect Internet blocking

[iammani]

Agreed! But they should not be able fire people for criticizing their bosses or their employer.

Re:Ruling doesn't affect Internet blocking

[TWX]

Right, as long as they don't do it on company equipment, and to an extent, doing it on company time while on one's own equipment could also be grounds for termination, though that would be because the employee is slacking off on the clock instead of working. This would probably only really apply to hourly employees.

Re:Ruling doesn't affect Internet blocking

[MightyMartian]

That really depends. If there are NDA's or similar privacy/confidentiality agreements in place, surely those should still stand, right?

(Within the limits that they cannot be enforced where the company is breaking the law)

Re:Ruling doesn't affect Internet blocking

[mc6809e]

So if one of my employees writes somewhere that he thinks I'm a moron or he insults my wife or spreads nasty rumors about my sex life I just have to keep happily giving him my money?

That's crazy.

Re:Ruling doesn't affect Internet blocking

[NiceGeek]

Welcome to freedom of speech, don't want someone to call you a moron? Don't act like one.

Re:Ruling doesn't affect Internet blocking

[_KiTA_]

So if one of my employees writes somewhere that he thinks I'm a moron or he insults my wife or spreads nasty rumors about my sex life I just have to keep happily giving him my money?

That's crazy.

Yes, that's exactly what this states. Because his private conversations in a private place, or even his public conversations in a public place, on his or her own time, are absolutely none of your business.

From a professional standpoint.

Just like if one of your employees went to a bar after work and was ranting about you. You would have no justification in firing them for their behavior off the clock like that.

You are paying for your employee's time, knowledge, and skills. You have to earn their loyalty and respect.

Re:Ruling doesn't affect Internet blocking

[jeff4747]

Nope. Libel and slander are still on the books. Not to mention there's plenty of ways to fire them without bringing up their online behavior.

Re:Ruling doesn't affect Internet blocking

[DarwinSurvivor]

Exactly, in the eyes of the legal system you cannot punish them as a boss, you must address it as if it were your neighborhood posting those things.

Re:Ruling doesn't affect Internet blocking

[RightSaidFred99]

Yeah, freedom of speech doesn't trump freedom of association. Nor does it apply to private individuals. Your entire outlook on life is coddled and ridiculous.

Re:Ruling doesn't affect Internet blocking

[RightSaidFred99]

Bullshit. Writing something on Facebook is publishing. If I take out an add in my local newspaper saying my company sucks and I hate them, they have every right to fire my ass.

Re:Ruling doesn't affect Internet blocking

[darth dickinson]

Freedom of speech also implies dealing with the consequences of said free speech.

Re:Ruling doesn't affect Internet blocking

[mikael_j]

I think you are wrong.

Putting something in print is "publishing" it and thus you extend that to "putting something on Facebook is publishing because it uses text and it is observable by the public". This is IMO false. A status update on Facebook isn't publishing, at least not in the same way that putting an ad in the paper or writing a newspaper article is publishing, nor is it like writing a lengthy blog post. It is more like saying something in public, only you are doing it with text.

Also, where you live it might be legal to randomly fire people (I know certain US states think it's perfectly reasonable to allow companies to fire you for no reason at all), in a lot of places someone writing something bad about their employer in the paper might be likely to end up with them fired, if the bad things claimed in the paper are false, if they are correct it is more likely that the employer will be afraid to fire the employee because they know the employee will be back with a union-paid lawyer to discuss the unlawful firing of an employee. There are plenty of laws protecting whistleblowers.

Re:Ruling doesn't affect Internet blocking

[icannotthinkofaname]

Of course that's crazy. The more reasonable solution, obviously, is to happily give your attorney your money in order to sue the guy for defamation. However, this only works if what the guy says is demonstrably false, so if you really are a moron* and what the guy says about your wife and your sex life really is true, you're SOL.

Disclaimer: IANAL.

* Wait, if he thinks you're a moron, you may still be SOL, no matter how non-moron you are. He can believe whatever he wants. It's if he starts spreading these lies as facts that you should start giving your attorney your money.

Re:Ruling doesn't affect Internet blocking

[mazarin5]

I think you are wrong.

Putting something in print is "publishing" it and thus you extend that to "putting something on Facebook is publishing because it uses text and it is observable by the public". This is IMO false. A status update on Facebook isn't publishing, at least not in the same way that putting an ad in the paper or writing a newspaper article is publishing, nor is it like writing a lengthy blog post. It is more like saying something in public, only you are doing it with text.

The employee isn't necessarily publishing, but they are making criticism available.

</RIAA>

Re:Ruling doesn't affect Internet blocking

[91degrees]

But then the nature of what they say shouldn't be considered.

Firing someone for using facebook at work would seem a little extreme. A simple request to stop doing that would be considered a more measured first response.

Re:Ruling doesn't affect Internet blocking

[Xaositecte]

Continuing to employ someone who calls you a moron is moronic.

Re:Ruling doesn't affect Internet blocking

[Xaositecte]

I didn't think you were right at first, but it turns out you are!

The legal arguement in this case was:

Lafe Solomon, the board’s counsel, said: “This is a fairly straightforward case under the National Labor Relations Act — whether it takes place on Facebook or at the water cooler, it was employees talking jointly about working conditions, in this case about their supervisor, and they have a right to do that.”

That act gives workers a federally protected right to form unions, and it prohibits employers from punishing workers — whether union or nonunion — for discussing working conditions or unionization.

Additionally, this is a federal labor law, so it applies even in states with At Will employment laws.

Re:Ruling doesn't affect Internet blocking

[91degrees]

Not sure how that works. Doesn't that mean you have freedom of speech in every country, it's just that the consequence may be your execution?

Re:Ruling doesn't affect Internet blocking

[RyuuzakiTetsuya]

If your boss being an asshole is a trade secret, that's a big red flag.

Re:Ruling doesn't affect Internet blocking

[Opportunist]

There's this old joke that in the GDR the reason it was illegal to say that the politbureau is inapt and incompetent wasn't slander, it was giving out state secrets.

And, bluntly, I have been working in a few companies that knew quite well that they were doing a bad job and used NDAs to keep that from leaking. You really start to look down at "professionals" when the only thing that makes them "professional" is that they do it for money.

Re:Ruling doesn't affect Internet blocking

[Ihmhi]

Are you kidding?

First, if he thinks you're a moron and says as much - not to your face, but on their own private facebook page - then as far as this particular jurisdiction that is indeed true. But honestly, firing someone for bitching about their boss (which I imagine a hell of a lot of people do regularly) is petty at best.

If someone is rude to your face (and you have witnessess) you can get away with terminating someone for insubordination and/or gross insubordination.

If someone spreads rumors about you that they deliberately know not to be true (and not idly passing along gossip), they may be liable for libel or slander. Not only could you most probably fire them, but you might have a civil lawsuit against them.

And lastly, there's loads of creative management types who can terminate someone with a non-specific reason. Terminate the entire department but only transfer *some* of the staff (unloading some of the ones they want to get rid of due to "cost overruns" or "cutting back"), laying off him/her because they've been there the longest (or the shortest), etc. Anyone who's remotely competent can come up with a reason that would probably stand up in court.

However, if someone is saying you're an asshole, then either they're unhappy with their workload or work environment (which is something you should personally study and attempt to fix), unhappy with your leadership (which is something you'd personally have to resolve - are you being a poor leader?), or unhappy with the fact they actually have to, you know, do stuff to get paid (can their asses!)

Personal experience speaking here, but nine times out of ten when I hear "Oh, the boss in an asshole" I usually can see why they mean it clear as day. This guy takes out his problems on his co-workers, he picks on this one person, etc. So again (in my experience), if one of your employee's genuinely believes you're an asshole, you're probably an asshole.

IANAL, personal opinions only herein.

Re:Ruling doesn't affect Internet blocking

[Khyber]

I'd keep them in employ just because they actually had the balls to do such a thing.

Even more so if they did it to my face, hell I'd give them a raise.

Re:Ruling doesn't affect Internet blocking

[sumdumass]

I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that the first response was already taken in the computer use policy and possible the handbook where it generally says you can use the work computers only for work related tasks.

Almost every computer use policy I have written said something to that measure.. Most employee handbooks I have read make that clear too.

Re:Ruling doesn't affect Internet blocking

[sumdumass]

Of course not.. You simply find a way to discharge that person without citing those accusations and rumors as being the reason. You can also give them crap job duties, impossible hours, and so on to make them want to quit. Be careful there though, there is a thing called constructive discharge in which someone quitting is turned it around as if you fired them because you made the workplace unbearable or something to that effect.

Bottom line, no, you do not have to continue to pay them. Just find any other reason to get rid of them. If they are protected by a union, promote them to a non-union position, tell them some company secret that you know they will blab (like you are going to lay off half the employees Christmas day) then fire them for fraternization with employees and insubordination.

Oh, and do not tell anyone your master plan as they might not like you either and blab about it on their facebook page.

Re:Ruling doesn't affect Internet blocking

[moortak]

It isn't at all crazy to limit the restrictions an employer can place on an employee during hours they aren't being paid.

Re:Ruling doesn't affect Internet blocking

[91degrees]

I suppose technically they could. Seems a bit extreme though. Given the options of verbal warning, written warnings, demotion or dismissal, dismissal seems like something of a nuclear option.

Excessive internet use is a written warning at worst (probably verbal), and occasional personal use is usually tolerated.

Re:Ruling doesn't affect Internet blocking

[dkh2]

Actually, although IANAL I can tell you with certainty that from a legal perspective posting on Facebook IS publishing. It may be not as public as a newspaper or a billboard but it is definitely publishing. Writing on you blog is publishing. Your Twitter feed can even be defined/construed as publishing.

Re:Ruling doesn't affect Internet blocking

[Dcnjoe60]

What if they did it in the newspaper as a letter to the editor? People have been fired for that and it has been upheld. What makes it different on FB?

Re:Ruling doesn't affect Internet blocking

[Dcnjoe60]

What if the boss goes on facebook saying how hot his secretary is and would like to hook up with her? Would that be protected speech, too? I'm pretty sure he would still get charged with harassment and get fired.

Re:Ruling doesn't affect Internet blocking

[arth1]

A company should be able to block, or not block, anything they want on company property.

except the toilet

Actually, anything that is generally seen as human rights, including breathable air, potable water, heat during winter, and other basic necessities. We may not consider internet a basic necessity and human right today, but our descendants might.

Re:Ruling doesn't affect Internet blocking

[Anonymous Coward]

That would depend on what jurisdiction you're in.

Re:Ruling doesn't affect Internet blocking

[xelah]

To do that it at least needs to be fully and evenly enforced. Otherwise reasonable use can be tolerated and treated leniently until there's someone a manager doesn't want or like - then it suddenly becomes a firing matter. And then you get sued, for sexual/racial/age/religious/disability/whateverelsethereis discrimination (or flat out unfair dismissal, in this country anyway). Besides, it's not really sensible - in many cases it's going to cost you an awful lot of money and disruption to find someone new, so if something less is effective it's a better choice. Or you can just live with it - being very controlling of your employees is always going to come at a cost.

Re:Ruling doesn't affect Internet blocking

[Anonymous Coward]

Your comment makes no sense. I will cite an example from a few years ago. The Dixie Chicks publicly criticized Pres. Bush for some of his actions running up to the Iraq war. This outraged some of their fan, who began to boycott the band. The Dixie Chicks protested, saying they had the right to say these things, but missed the whole idea that everyone else has the same right to say and do what they want. So if I hired you to do a job, and I find that you are unhappy with your working conditions, either through Facebook comments, or overhearing a private dinner conversation, why shouldn't I have the right to let you go? -nexus

Re:Ruling doesn't affect Internet blocking

[Anonymous Coward]

I encourage constructive criticism. If one of my employees approaches me with concerns over recent decisions, I would be a moron if I didn't listen. However, if you fly off the handle, saying I hate my boss, to everyone except me, I am not likely going to keep you around long.

Re:Ruling doesn't affect Internet blocking

[UnknowingFool]

There is a difference a fine line between free speech and slander. If your employee calls you a moron or your wife a name, that's the price of living in a society with free speech as it is clear to most people that is your employee's opinion. If your employee said that you have sex with goats that's probably slander as he/she is speaking a lie about you in public. You can sue someone for slander but another distinction is that you sue, not your company. Your company also does not terminate said individual.

Re:Ruling doesn't affect Internet blocking

[bwintx]

The way I heard it during the 1960s was that some guy ran into Red Square yelling, "Khrushchev is a fool!" and ended up going to prison for 30 years -- five years for publicly insulting the Premier and 25 years for revealing a state secret.

One might guess similar jokes have circulated concerning other dictatorships over the years.

Re:Ruling doesn't affect Internet blocking

[Anonymous Coward]

So if I hired you to do a job, and I find that you are unhappy with your working conditions, either through Facebook comments, or overhearing a private dinner conversation, why shouldn't I have the right to let you go? -nexus

Because that's a dick move? How about *gasp* providing a less shitty working environment?

Re:Ruling doesn't affect Internet blocking

[stonewallred]

In NC if you fire someone who does not have a contract, for any reason other than a few Constitutionally protected ones (guess what, free speech is not one of these), you are good to go.

Don't like yellow socks?

employee wears yellow socks?

fire employee and not be sued.

Re:Ruling doesn't affect Internet blocking

[TWX]

I don't know that I entirely agree that it needs to necessarily be evenly enforced. Everyone tends to rack up infractions whenever they're in an environment with rules, but the number and nature of infractions are what can determine if someone should be terminated, not simply that an infraction has occurred. If an employee excels for the company and the company generally knows and acknowledges this, then the company is more likely to ignore infractions from that employee. If an employee doesn't do good work or causes a lot of problems for other employees, be they equals or superiors, then I could honestly expect that simple infractions will carry more weight against that employee than average.

I know one thing- I'm certainly not going to complain about a company that I work for while I'm on company time, and I generally avoid criticism except in company-managed and solicited situations when there's a chance of it being noted for the record, and when making criticism that's solicited I'm very careful about what I say. One would be a fool to give someone in authority a documented reason to add to the demerits pile.

Re:Ruling doesn't affect Internet blocking

[Americano]

If the claims are false, then you could always sue him for libel.

If the claims are true, maybe you should consider being a nicer person, and try to correct his perception of you.

If you don't want him being an employee, there's a lot of ways you could force him out - you just can't do it an hour after he posts on Facebook, and cite that as the sole reason for his termination. Build your paper trail, or simply announce layoffs amidst a restructuring, and get rid of the people you don't like.

Re:Ruling doesn't affect Internet blocking

[Anonymous Coward]

I think I see the root of the problem here. Perhaps you should approach your boss with constructive terms more precise than "shitty", rather than just ranting about them on Facebook. A dick move, perhaps, but why should I keep someone around who is that miserable?

Re:Ruling doesn't affect Internet blocking

[stewbacca]

Because everyone grumbles about their boss and if you fired everyone who did, you wouldn't have any employees.

Re:Ruling doesn't affect Internet blocking

[overlordofmu]

How does it feel to know that every computer use policy you have ever written has been broken by every employee that has ever been expected to follow it?

I have never seen an employee with a computer not use it for personal things.

Ever.

Re:Ruling doesn't affect Internet blocking

[Skuld-Chan]

Its kinda funny isn't it? I have to give my undying loyalty to the company, but then they will turn around and fire my ass as soon as things get tough - sometimes with very little notice.

What is crazy?

Re:Ruling doesn't affect Internet blocking

[shentino]

The captain has every right to sink his own damn ship if he darn well pleases.

Sucks for us peons that have to go down with it though.

Re:Ruling doesn't affect Internet blocking

[stewbacca]

Criticizing your boss is protected speech. Hitting on your employees is not. Yes, it really is that simple.

Re:Ruling doesn't affect Internet blocking

[shentino]

Just like in China, bureaucracies often make a shitload of rules just to give the higher ups a toolbox of excuses to remove people they don't like.

When everybody's breaking the rules you get to be picky about who you punish.

Doubly so if your boss can get away with using at will employment as a backdoor loophole for whatever prejudices he wouldn't dare put down in writing or mention in earshot of potential witnesses.

Re:Ruling doesn't affect Internet blocking

[xelah]

The captain has every right to sink his own damn ship if he darn well pleases.

It isn't usually the captain's own ship. He probably either has his own manager to answer to, or he has to answer to shareholders. They in turn probably care more about results than Facebook use.

Re:Ruling doesn't affect Internet blocking

[Dcnjoe60]

So, a boss cannot ask an employee out on a date? That's really odd, because, there are numerous cases where "bosses" have married administrative assitants, secretaries and others in the company.

I know that I have picked an extreme example, but, exactly where do you draw the line on what is protected speech on facebook and what is not? And why single out facebook and not other media? According to the article, it is about the freedom to unionize and discuss work conditions. Hitting on an employee, even though I didn't say the boss did, would be related to discussing work conditions, would it not?

My point in all of this, and I am not supporting bosses hitting on their employees, is exactly where do you draw the line. Even the article states that it is quite blurred.

Re:Ruling doesn't affect Internet blocking

[shentino]

What's crazy is that you're letting your personal problem with him influence your workplace relationship as his boss. What's good for the goose is good for the gander with regards to leaving personal issues at home where they belong, and if he took his personal problems on the clock I'm sure you wouldn't appreciate it any more than he would your sacking him for something that happened off the clock, the stupidity of pissing off your own boss notwithstanding.

The only reason you can get away with it and he can't is because you're his boss and you have leverage he lacks, namely, the ability to use your position and influence to ruin his job and career if he pisses you off.

In your place, however, I would have a private chit chat with the employee, warn him that his behavior outside work has caused me to question his competence ON the job, and furthermore that while personal stuff stays personal, there may well be consequences off the clock, and finally, before putting him back to work, remind him that he's on duty. I may be tempted to use his off clock conduct as an excuse to sabotage/punish him at work, but I choose not to because I consider that tactic akin to hitting someone below the belt, especially since he's already losing personal points with me outside the office.

However, I might be a fair enough boss not to let personal stuff get in the way of work, but I sure as hell wouldn't hesitate to avail myself of remedies once I shuck the uniform/role. A nice lawsuit or C&D for slander/invasion of privacy would go a long way towards keeping him in line off the clock.

On the clock, I'm his boss, and the usual managerial process will take care of things as one may expect with regards to employee performance and behavior.

Re:Ruling doesn't affect Internet blocking

[shentino]

Legally yes.

Morally, it's still a dick move and it may cost you later if karma decides to bite you in the ass.

Re:Ruling doesn't affect Internet blocking

[shentino]

However, it's only because his coworkers joined in that it became collective bargaining.

If he was left high and dry, out on a limb all by himself, then he'd have no leg to stand on. The fact that his coworkers shared in his opinion saved his ass and gave NLRB a loophole to rescue him.

Re:Ruling doesn't affect Internet blocking

[shentino]

Except that he could use at will employment as a loophole to backdoor the system. It works quite well in practice if the boss keeps his trap shut.

Re:Ruling doesn't affect Internet blocking

[shentino]

Sure, the captain might be court martialed afterwards for sinking the ship but all hands are still lost.

Re:Ruling doesn't affect Internet blocking

[Sosetta]

You can ask out a co-worker, or subordinate, as long as if they say "no", that's the end of it, and you don't pursue it. You're not creating a hostile work environment, or anything like that. It's just when there's a pattern of continued requests (even after rejections) that you expose yourself to winnable lawsuits.

Re:Ruling doesn't affect Internet blocking

[cdrguru]

Just about everywhere you can be fired because I'm having a bad day. I don't need a reason - I just can't use any of the reasons that are currently protected, such as sex or race discrimination. Any other reasons are OK, like I whacked my elbow and decided to blame you.

Some federal contractors are subject to restrictions on this and require more documentation. Documentation never hurts when firing someone, but if you are doing work for the federal government it is likely required.

Just about everyone else though can fire anyone at any time for any reason, other than some protected ones.

Re:Ruling doesn't affect Internet blocking

[KhabaLox]

It is more like saying something in public, only you are doing it with text.

Try this analogy. Posting on a blog, or writing in the newspaper is like making a speech in a public square. Writing a status update on Facebook is like telling something to people at a dinner party (or at a backyard barbecue that is open to all your neighbors, depending on your security settings). Posting to Twitter is like shouting something during the Superbowl where everyone else is also shouting.

Re:Ruling doesn't affect Internet blocking

[Anonymous Cowpat]

that's not the loophole. That you're won't be protected unless a colleague joins in is the loophole.

Re:Ruling doesn't affect Internet blocking

[Anonymous Coward]

Perhaps you should approach your boss with constructive terms more precise than "shitty"

I work in a stable, you insensitive clod!

Re:Ruling doesn't affect Internet blocking

[vertinox]

One might guess similar jokes have circulated concerning other dictatorships over the years.

I'm going to loose my mod points over this, but one of my interests happens to be Eastern Block humor. (Especially the Polish Eastern bloc joke about the Bank of Moscow)

Many jokes of that time period and area were always word of mouth (for obvious reasons) and many jokes ended up being reworded for the leaders and country it involved. Since there was no official publication of the jokes (as that would be treasonous) no one knew that they were copying each other until the after the 1990's.

example

Honecker and Mielke are discussing their hobbies. (both historical persons in charge of the Stasi in East German)
Honecker: "I collect all the jokes about me that are in circulation."
Mielke: "Then we have almost the same hobby. I collect those who bring the jokes into circulation."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/East_German_jokes

And then the Russian version:

"Comrade Brezhnev, is it true that you collect political jokes?" â" "Yes" â" "And how many have you collected so far?" â" "Three and a half labor camps."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_political_jokes

So the OP is most likley right in that he heard an East German version as you hearing a Russian version seperatley.

Re:Ruling doesn't affect Internet blocking

[sumdumass]

I do a lot of work with companies who are borderline if not HIPPA cases. They touch aspects of insurance, payments, and so on but don't get into the actual medical records except for a small few people at the company. I deal with some companies who do taxes and financial planing and could have enough private information not only to compromise someone's identity, but to pretty much guarantee it's likely going to happen if those records get loose.

There are a lot of viruses and other things that pass through social networks or non-worked related websites that could open these people up to legal ramifications from exposure of client information. I imagine, although I don't pretend to know for sure, that even the employees who caused an infection would have a case against the company if their personal information was lost due to misuse of the internet.

Outside the risk of physical harm, I can see little difference between showing up to work drunk and getting fired and abusing the computer access policy in place with the same result. It's still a blatant violation of the rules that everyone is aware of and expected to follow. I would have a lot more empathy if we were talking about kids who forget the rules faster then they learn them. But in the real world, with real adults, too much trust is put on people and following rules to respect customer's and fellow worker's information to have that trust violated. I can see where a few special people in special cases might not be fired, but there is no reason to expect that as the norm.

Re:Ruling doesn't affect Internet blocking

[steeleyeball]

Exactly which is why you sue for Libel or slander... instead of firing them. The cost of the court proceedings will help you to decide if it's worth it.

Re:Ruling doesn't affect Internet blocking

[sumdumass]

I think the other reply said it best. It really is just a method of selective punishment and covering your own ass.. It's way of saying "this employee broke the rules which is why your personal information was leaked, it wasn't because we didn't take steps to protect it".

However, how does it feel, I don't personally care about it one way or another. The more personal use they do, the more work I get. If it starts making me look as if I'm not doing the job well, I start pointing out where the problems are coming from. And yes, access to and from the network is logged according to workstation so I do have not only a log of what IP's access what system on the internet, I also have a log of what websites they accessed which can easily be determined if it's a source of the problem or not.

Re:Ruling doesn't affect Internet blocking

[Fulcrum of Evil]

Given that everywhere I've worked, most people used work computers for personal browsing, they can't really discipline you for that. All that they can do is discipline you for doing it to excess or missing deadlines.

Re:Ruling doesn't affect Internet blocking

[91degrees]

Sure. Specific cases where there's specific information that absolutely must be kept secure.

But would you really fire a secretary for checking her home email account once a day. Most of the places I've worked haven't had particularly valuable information stored on the network (mostly presentation and video games companies).

If you had that policy there, I think about 90% of the people I've worked with would have been fired if there was a zero tolerance personal internet use policy.

Re:Ruling doesn't affect Internet blocking

[Anonymous Cowpat]

"where just about everywhere" = "around half the states in the USA".
No other first world country has such flimsy employment law.

Re:Ruling doesn't affect Internet blocking

[sumdumass]

If it's in the rule book or a known policy, just because it isn't enforced doesn't necessarily mean they give up the ability to enforce it.

All they need to do is claim they didn't catch everyone else and wasn't going to launch a witch hunt because of a disgruntled employee on his way out.

Of course, that would be looking through the colored lenses of glasses and not exactly true. The problem is where it can or can't be proven and by who.

Re:Ruling doesn't affect Internet blocking

[Fulcrum of Evil]

The thing is that if they go after you and noone else, you can argue that it isn't actually a banned practice - there's some legal precedent for requiring rules to be enforced somewhat uniformly.

Re:Ruling doesn't affect Internet blocking

[sumdumass]

If the checking of that email causes a virus infection because her webmail account bypasses our filtering software, Yes.

The problem with employees is that they aren't always smart when it comes to computers. Worse yet, they are completely dangerous when they think they are and ignore basic rules in the workplace. Take the idiots in the government who fell to some attack over the Christmas holidays hoping they got an email from the president.

Re:Ruling doesn't affect Internet blocking

[stewbacca]

exactly where do you draw the line on what is protected speech on facebook and what is not?

It's called legal precedent. It's not up to you or I to draw any line, as the line has already been drawn for us. Here are the 9 categories of speech that are not protected:

Obscenity
Fighting words
Defamation (includes libel, slander)
Child pornography
Perjury
Blackmail
Incitement to imminent lawless action
True threats
Solicitations to commit crimes

Everything else is protected speech. Since I don't see "I hate my boss" in that list, then I'd suggest the courts got this case correct.

Re:Ruling doesn't affect Internet blocking

[HornWumpus]

Some employees force the boss to be an 'asshole'.

They are usually also the loudest complainers.

For every boss who times your bathroom breaks there are ten employees who spend an hour a day in the bathroom.

When I hear 'the boss is an asshole' the first thing I think is: 'Is this employee so lame that the boss has to treat him like a middle schooler?' About half the time the answer is yes.

I like the old rule of threes. If you've had three bosses/girlfriends etc with the same or very similar problems, then it is not their problem but yours

Re:Ruling doesn't affect Internet blocking

[sumdumass]

It's all about perception. They can claim they didn't know others were doing it then drop the hammer on them too. Except them knowing that you can get fired, they just stop doing it.

After a while, things get relaxed again until they need to dick someone over.

And yes, I agree with you in principle. I just know there are limitations in practice. A friend of mine was denied unemployment compensation after being fired for excessive days missed. Of course the days missed were covered under the Family medical leave act, so they gave him his job back for 1 week then shit canned him without reason. When he tried to apply for unemployment compensation, the workplace cited that he quit and wasn't fired because he gave a 2 weeks notice some 9 months before but they talked him out of leaving at that time. OF course they didn't say anything about talking him out of quitting by giving him a hefty raise to stay.. they made it appear that he was quitting, got ill and they replaced him so he left. He couldn't do much of anything but fight it but it wasn't a good paying job anyways.

It's not about what is right or wrong.. It's about how they can make it appear to whoever is concerned. And if they are dishonest in doing that, it's a matter of the disgruntled ex employee's word against theirs.

Re:Ruling doesn't affect Internet blocking

[Dcnjoe60]

But in the case reported, there was defamation of character (the case was more than I hate my boss). It seems that the department of labor has a different list. Actually, the article states as much in that it is a really big grey area now as to what is permitted and not permitted. Also, the ruling dealt just with social networks, so technically, newspapers, email, blogs, etc. are still up in the air.

Re:Ruling doesn't affect Internet blocking

[AK Marc]

Waiting until someone does something you don't like, then applying the written policies inconsistently in order to single them out for termination is borderline illegal. If it's a policy, you have to enforce it consistently or risk losing a lawsuit when you do use it to lie about the reason you are terminating someone (and yes it is lying because if you claim the policy is the reason, but you don't fire others for the same thing, you've lied for the reason for firing someone).

I don't have an issue with a place that has an upfront policy of "if you use the internet for personal reasons, you will be fired." I hope a place that states "you can't use the internet for personal use" then lets everyone use it as a matter of course, then picks one and only one employee they don't like and fire them for breaking that rule when they know quite well that everyone breaks that rule.

Re:Ruling doesn't affect Internet blocking

[xero314]

Hitting on employees is not in anyway a violation of any law. It is protected like any other speech. Applying negative consequences when they turn you down on the other hand (such as passing them over for a promotion) is I violation of harassment laws. There are plenty of other areas where communications can pass into violations, but in general the speech it self is protected.

Re:Ruling doesn't affect Internet blocking

[xero314]

You miss understand at-will employment. This is overly simplifying it, but at-will does not mean you can fire someone for any reason, it just means you can fire them for no reason. If you have a reason to fire them, then you better have a legitimate reason. If the person being fired can show that they were fired for illegitimate reasons, or in violation of protected rights, then your at-will protections won't mean a thing. This case shows that pretty clearly.

With that being said employees can abuse these statutes just as well as employers. Simply do something that could be seen as offensive to the employer but is a protected right. Then your employer will need a documented legitimate reason to fire you.

For me personally, it's a moot point, since I have no desire to work for someone that does not want me working for them, so at-will employment works fine. But I also make a decent salary so termination is no real threat to me.

Re:Ruling doesn't affect Internet blocking

[stewbacca]

Allow me to ellaborate--hitting on your employees when it isn't welcomed is not protected speech, it's harrassment.

Re:Ruling doesn't affect Internet blocking

[sumdumass]

What would you do if you worked somewhere where there was no internet at all? I mean seriously, you act as if that's not even possible.

How about if you got a promotion and you never touched a computer at your job again, would you quit or declare the company was doomed to die a painful death?

There are a lot of companies to which the extent of the internet is little more then routing to a remote server somewhere for information or perhaps off site backups and that's pretty much all you can reach. These companies, or more likely departments within some companies have been around longer then you have too.

Giving employees internet access and free surfing on paid time is not in the slightest a requirement to keep employees happy. Else wise you would see ports to plug in your laptop on the burger line at McDonald's. and with most smart phones now, it's completely irrelevant as you can check you email through them and even surf the web through them if you absolutely need to get your web fix. It's not a sinking ship, it's not all hands lost. In fact, if anything is lost, it's the immature idiots that the company would likely benefit from not having on the payroll in the first place.

Re:Ruling doesn't affect Internet blocking

[sumdumass]

Waiting until someone does something you don't like, then applying the written policies inconsistently in order to single them out for termination is borderline illegal.

I agree.. I would take it further and say it's also immoral. But it happens.

If it's a policy, you have to enforce it consistently or risk losing a lawsuit when you do use it to lie about the reason you are terminating someone (and yes it is lying because if you claim the policy is the reason, but you don't fire others for the same thing, you've lied for the reason for firing someone).

It's a he said she said situation. If the fired employee complains that it's never enforced, you simply claim you never caught anyone before. If they say So and So is doing it, you call them into the office and ask them. They will likely deny it seeing how someone just got fired for doing it. You reiterate the policy making sure people know who caused the clampdown, defend yourself in court, and once things blow by, ignore it again.

It's all about perception. It's hard to change that perception when you signed a computer use document stating no personal or work only web usage or sign that you received an employee handbook with the rule written in it. In other words, if any of that is true, then you getting busted and terminated because everyone else does it has about as much chance as getting out of a speeding ticket by saying other cars were going faster then you.

I don't have an issue with a place that has an upfront policy of "if you use the internet for personal reasons, you will be fired." I hope a place that states "you can't use the internet for personal use" then lets everyone use it as a matter of course, then picks one and only one employee they don't like and fire them for breaking that rule when they know quite well that everyone breaks that rule.

I agree, but the reality is that it happens, and it will continue to happen. Most of us are completely helpless when it does happen unless we can provoke the management into making a statement of some sort in front of others to validate the claim. But with management firing and HR doing the dirty work, that opportunity isn't there for the most part.

Not too many people will have a conscious when their job and future advancement is on the line. You would literally need people to state on record that they do the same things you got fired for doing and no one punished them. That's a tuff sell unless someone else is disgruntled.. And even then, being disgruntled works against you.

Re:Ruling doesn't affect Internet blocking

[shentino]

Having no *official* reason is what my post and your second paragraph are referring to.

Like I said, it works if the employer keeps his trap shut.

Well in that case...

[mfh]

No just kidding I fucking love my job.

TBH, I think employers in the States are a little presumptuous over the lives of those who work for them.

Meddling with your employees only turns them against you. Stop it.

If you are worried about what people will say about you over social networking sites, then it's time to have better policies that make sense to everyone, and consider your employees first, but this doesn't cover disloyalty, so if you work for Pepsi or Coke and you drink the other company's products on your social media you could still be fired.

Re:Well in that case...

[TWX]

I really don't think that something like using a competitor's products instead of products from one's own company would result in too many lost jobs, unless one's job specifically was for doing promotions. Even in that case, I'd think it would apply to a paid promoter providing said product, not simply consuming it. If one is at a social event and the competitor's product is the only one available (as is common with exclusivity agreements with vendors) then it may not be possible to have one's company's own product.

I'd be that there's existing caselaw on such matters.

Re:Well in that case...

[Anonymous Coward]

I came when I saw your userid.

Re:Well in that case...

[Libertarian001]

There's no such thing as "loyalty" to a brand for an employee. If Pepsi expects me to drink just Pepsi products regardless of the forum or venue that I'm attending then I'll be submitting a claim for cost plus time. That's a minimum two hours travel and two hours work, and there's a good chance it'll be overtime. And I'm claiming mileage as well. Oh, and my corporate-shill rate is higher than my just-doing-my-job rate. I'll consume whatever I damn well please and they're just going to have to get over it.

Re:Well in that case...

[IAN]

I came when I saw your userid.

Multiple orgasms ahoy.

Re:Well in that case...

[Opportunist]

Hold it. Me and my employer have a contract. I sell him my knowledge, my time, my experience, my workforce. In return, he gives me money. He neither bought, nor were they for sale, my beliefs, my ideals, my interests or even my loyalty. The latter may be given freely on top of the package if I feel like it. And usually it is if the company's ideals, beliefs and interests correspond with mine.

If a company does not understand the difference between what's for sale on a work contract and what's not, it's time to go to a company that does.

Re:Well in that case...

[roman_mir]

No, you misunderstood. You do NOT love your job. You hate your job and you should post that on every forum and especially on FB (since it has worked in court). You should post it every week, just in case.

This way if you get fired you can always point at those postings and require that the employer either keeps you or pays you money, after all, you have uncle Sam's guarantee that you can't be fired. (that's what this ruling really means.)

Take advantage of this situation.

---

Now, sarcasm off. It's as if MORE reasons were needed never to hire Americans.

Re:Well in that case...

[Anonymous Coward]

> so if you work for Pepsi or Coke and you drink the other company's products on your social media you could still be fired.

WTF ? Take you head out of your ass right now.

What you do in your own time, in your own life, is NONE of your employers business. Not unless you're living in East Germany in the post war period.

Re:Well in that case...

[ub3r n3u7r4l1st]

"TBH, I think employers in the States are a little presumptuous over the lives of those who work for them.

Meddling with your employees only turns them against you. Stop it."

It is. With the large # of low-cost illegal and H1-B available out there in the labour market these little rats will find every way to fire your high-cost ass.

Re:Well in that case...

[Anonymous Coward]

me too...

Re:Well in that case...

[Ed Peepers]

There is while you're at work. I work at PepsiCo (my views are my own, standard legal disclaimer yadda yadda) and there's no requirement that I must consume only Pepsi/Frito-Lay products all the time. But when I'm at work, I would have to be a complete idiot to bring in Pringles and Coke for lunch. Same goes for work-related events or meals, which nearly always held at a "Pepsi pour" location. It's just good business.

We're obviously encouraged to visit Pepsi pour locations on our own time, but nobody's following us around with a clipboard. Even at work it's not a formal rule, there's just a very strong cultural taboo given our good-natured rivalry with that carbonated beverage producer in Atlanta... :)

Re:Well in that case...

[Delarth799]

I think he is more saying that if your drinking/supporting the other company on social media and its listed what company you work for then it could be seen as a form of disloyalty. Of course its not quite as bad as if a Pepsi employee was seen drinking a Coke product while in uniform or vice versa , which is actually grounds for dismissal at both companies. You work for the company they want you to show some form of loyalty. They don't give a damn what you do on your own time but if your going around supporting the competition openly, then perhaps you should work for the competition instead.

Re:Well in that case...

[iamhigh]

It's never an official policy... usually peer-pressure is the driving force behind the culture of "OMG, you work for Rockstar and bought a Monster!!11".

Re:Well in that case...

[Anonymous Coward]

My god, 56.

Also, agreed.

If employers aren't dicks to employees to begin with, they won't post bad things about them.
A good idea is to have an anonymous message box so people can write in things that they haven't been liking recently and then there could be meetings to attempt to solve whatever problems there is, if they are serious.
These tend to work pretty damn well, especially if you get enough support behind it. ... or you could try friending them on Facebook and jokingly insult them... Worked for some of my friends.

Also, on the disloyalty thing, i find it hilarious when tech companies are all out using each others hardware even when they have similar hardware out.

Re:Well in that case...

[mrrudge]

Or for Henry Ford

Re:Well in that case...

[Anonymous Coward]

With that attitude, you'll go far in marketing (far far away from any raises, bonuses, promotions, retention during layoffs....)

Re:Well in that case...

[w_dragon]

I'm in the same situation, only with smart phones. I'm sure some people own that phone from that fruity company, but they aren't bringing them to work. On the other hand, if you own a bottom-of-the-line cheap little smart phone for personal use no one is going to care if you bring it. In the case of Pepsi I bet no one would care if you brought no name cola, since it isn't really a competitor.

Re:Well in that case...

[hesaigo999ca]

I do not understand how someone working for Pepsi could be fired for drinking Coke, I mean really, if that was the case, someone working for dove could get fired for using soap from irish spring, etc....the list is endless of lack of common sense situations that could be twisted in such a way to make the employee seem totally disloyal....bread, cereal, soap, shampoo, really, the list IS endless.

So if you are being watched that closely, you must have done something else for you to bring those eyes upon you, since no one in upper management at Pepsi really care about the lowly workers down below.

Re:Well in that case...

[Anonymous Coward]

> If one is at a social event and the competitor's product is the only one available

You could always drink... water!

Re:Well in that case...

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm sure this is totally off topic, but wow... low user id!

Re:Well in that case...

[LordLimecat]

Your general point is taken, but the hyperbole is a little excessive. I havent heard of a job where you can go to your boss and declare "you now owe me this much".

Re:Well in that case...

[davev2.0]

Actually, each case of Coke or Pepsi firing someone for drinking the competition's product involved workers wearing their company uniforms drinking the competing product in public. In every case, it was behavior which brought embarrassment and public ridicule on the company.

Re:Well in that case...

[Gumbercules!!]

Now this deserves mod points...

Re:Well in that case...

[shentino]

Employment contracts are a lot like EULAs. Forced on the weaker party by a stronger party with all the bargaining chips.

Re:Well in that case...

[stewbacca]

I've done some consulting work training Apple employees. I figured there would only be iPhones, but I saw plenty of Android based and just plain old flip phones at their iPhone support center. I even saw lots of Dells and off brand pcs as well. I think any company that would use only their own products is delusional.

Re:Well in that case...

[stewbacca]

Is "Loyalty" a legal basis for termination? And if it is (I doubt it), should it be? That's just really stupid. You EARN loyalty, you don't demand it.

I work for my company because I like my job, not because I'm loyal to a bunch of rich old white guys who make all the decisions behind closed doors even though they don't have the slightest clue of who I am or what I do for them.

Re:Well in that case...

[stewbacca]

Every car salesman on the planet would have to drive the product they are hocking as well, but that's not always the case.

Re:Well in that case...

[cdrguru]

I suspect you are very, very wrong. There is no "contract" and just about any court will help you with that if necessary. What you have isn't even an employment agreement. It is extremely important to understand that because it will lead to a lot of grief if you do not.

In the USA you are generally employed under what is considered at-will rules. That means both you and your employer can terminate the relationship at any time, without notice and without cause. If you are in a union that changes things, but most people aren't in unions. There are some cases where there is an actual employment contract, but most employers stay far, far away from that sort of relationship.

The scope of the relationship can be pretty much whatever you and your employer agree on. If that means working for Pepsi and not drinking Coke ever, well, that is what it means. It does certainly mean that they can decide to fire all the Coke drinkers one day because they drank Coke with no other reason than that.

Re:Well in that case...

[halcyon1234]

It isn't the lowness of it. The poster just really, really likes the number 56.

Re:Well in that case...

[Anonymous Coward]

There is while you're at work. I work at PepsiCo (my views are my own, standard legal disclaimer yadda yadda) and there's no requirement that I must consume only Pepsi/Frito-Lay products all the time. But when I'm at work, I would have to be a complete idiot to bring in Pringles and Coke for lunch.

I do not work for any competitor to Coka Cola or Pringles, but I would still be an idiot if I brought it for lunch.

That kind of food would completely ruin my ability to work in the afternoon.

Re:Well in that case...

[Anonymous Coward]

Wow, I had no idea PepsiCo made Kool-Aid too...

Re:Well in that case...

[w_dragon]

It's called eating your own dog food. If every Apple employee got a free iPhone (for work purposes, of course) do you think Apple would still ignore issues that technical people care about? Internal bug reports tend to carry more weight then internet complaining.

Re:Well in that case...

[mfh]

He neither bought, nor were they for sale, my beliefs, my ideals, my interests

I absolutely agree with you here. However, when you are employed with a company you are expected to be loyal as part of the obligation. Employees that trash their company's products or blatantly use the competitor's products are not going to be long-term career assets to the company -- they will be used and tossed aside.

If a company does not understand the difference between what's for sale on a work contract and what's not, it's time to go to a company that does.

I think what this speaks to is corporate cultures. I think that every person should try and find an organization that adheres to their own personal values, but more importantly is able to entice us with perks when we perform, and help us to grow as individuals with new challenges and even overwhelming duties that help us to maximize our potential as human beings. Many people are not doing this in life, and they are accepting second rate employers as being adequate for the time being, as a kind of lazy excuse not to find a better career.

Employers that treat their people right, get to keep their people. Those that don't end up having silent strikes happening in each worker, or wind up losing alarming amounts of money from employee apathy.

You get what you fucking pay for! :)

Re:Well in that case...

[Opportunist]

And it's not even money we're talking here, at least in my case. I have been most loyal and most productive for companies that agreed that they value my work and that agreed that they have an interest to invest in me, be it with certificates or other courses.

Companies that hire me on the idea that we need today what he can do but we'll replace him once the next gen tool comes out because firing him and hiring the next guy is easier get the same treatment from me.

Direct response is a much better alternative

[yuhong]

IMO directly responding is a much better alternative, and likely will be allowed.

Pretty Obvious.

[exomondo]

isn't this pretty obvious? Telling people what opinions they can and can't express in their own time is not going to go down well.

Re:Pretty Obvious.

[Anonymous Coward]

So if the senior vice president of Intel gets on Facebook and says that the CEO is an idiot, he shouldn't be fired?

Re:Pretty Obvious.

[Mr Z]

Probably not. At least, not for that. However, I would be surprised if it wasn't also a "career limiting move."

Re:Pretty Obvious.

[MaskedSlacker]

CEO probably can't fire the Senior VP unilaterally anyway. Regardless, the I don't think the NLRA applies to management.

Re:Pretty Obvious.

[pacinpm]

It can be covered by NDA because it would be revealing of company secrets.

Re:Pretty Obvious.

[nitehawk214]

Most (all?) people in senior positions at large companies are under a contract and not a standard employee. In these cases the contract will say something to the legal effect of, "Don't embarrass the company." Publicly railing against your superior, or getting yourself arrested for something can fall under that category.

Correct rulling

[delirium of disorder]

Concerted activity is protected regardless of the medium of communication. In order for workers to organize to improve their lives, they must be free to discuss wages or conditions without facing retaliation from their bosses. In practice this is rarely the case, especially since most workers lack a union to back up their rights. It's good that the courts didn't take capital's side for once.

Re:Correct rulling

[gblfxt]

I would disagree, this sounds more pro-capital. An employer who has nothing better to do than browse facebook sounds like a recipe for disaster business-wise.

Re:Correct rulling

[Lord_of_the_nerf]

As a union delegate, and I've defended a number of people who have had their jobs threatened because of status updates.

Fortunately our courts (in Australia) have upheld that if it's in the public interest and truthful, it's fine. However, most people without strong representation who are unaware of their rights usually end up with formal warnings or fired.

Re:Correct rulling

[Dr Herbert West]

Why is it pro-capital, rather than pro free speech?

It's not for the courts to decide whether or not a business is run poorly-- only illegally. I think delirium referred to "taking 'captial's side" in terms of issuing a decision that would restrict worker's freedoms in order to benefit a "captialist" enterprise.

Re:Correct rulling

[gblfxt]

Well, because free speech is good for business, stifling personal freedoms is bad for business. I don't see why personal freedoms has to be at odds with good business opportunities.

From the definition at wikipedia (i know, their souces suck):
"Capitalism is an economic system in which the means of production are privately owned and operated for a private profit; decisions regarding supply, demand, price, distribution, and investments are made by private actors in the free market; profit is sent to owners who invest in businesses, and wages are paid to workers employed by businesses and companies."

In no part of that is there a clause for for taking away personal freedoms or being greedy. I have worked with a lot of companies and most have not been out to get anyone, they usually do business with a sense of do no harm. But like individuals, there are sociapathic companies that have no sense of morality, and give the rest of capitalists a bad name.

Re:Correct rulling

[JoeMerchant]

Nurse at a hospital worked there for 24 years, had a bad day and started ranting around the office about what salaries everyone made and how unfair life is (ever seen M.D. - Nurse working relationships up close? unfair doesn't even start...) Otherwise she was an average to good employee.

Fired within a week.

Re:Correct rulling

[syousef]

Interesting. I live in Australia too, and I've had explicit clauses in every contract I've signed in the last decade and a half (3 jobs) that stated that we were not permitted to discuss wages. Presumably employers just don't want the hassle of justifying why one employee is paid more or less than another. I don't consider it a big deal because I have no intention of disclosing my earnings to all and sundry but I've always wondered about those clauses.

If I'm the one compensating them...

[Just Another Poster]

...I should be able to fire them, for whatever reason I choose. I guess that's the way it was before freedom of association in America was killed off. It may be bad business, and I personally wouldn't want to work for anyone who had such a stringent policy, but any employer should be free to make such decisions, and be free to either benefit or suffer the consequences.

Re:If I'm the one compensating them...

[the_womble]

The problem with that is that you then get people firing someone because they are black, female, gay etc. Its the employees who suffer most of the consequences, especially at times or high unemployment and in low skilled jobs.

Re:If I'm the one compensating them...

[sjames]

No. Not until we have a social safety net that makes being fired not such a big deal. Otherwise there are too many people who would demand sexual favors and complete subservience from employees they knew to be in a precarious financial condition.

Re:If I'm the one compensating them...

[crafty.munchkin]

following your line of thinking... so if the really hot secretary you hired won't blow you, you can fire her?

Re:If I'm the one compensating them...

[jeff4747]

I guess that's the way it was before freedom of association in America was killed off.

So it was better back when you could limit your employee's freedom of association?

Re:If I'm the one compensating them...

[JumperCable]

If I'm the one compensating them I should be able to fire them, for whatever reason I choose.

The problem with that is that if you are working for someone else, as does 99% of the working US citizens, suddenly you have to watch what you say on your own time. I find that incredibly uncomfortable. In fact a large percentage of me speech is throttled because I am well aware that my employer can fire me for almost any reason or for no stated reason at all.

Our life off the clock should be ours to live as we wish. How many of us work for people who have conservative christian leanings? What if that employer is backing some serious overly conservative bible thumping organizations that are trying to limit people's rights and freedoms. I would like to be able to openly protest and fight against those efforts while not at work without fear of being fired.

Re:If I'm the one compensating them...

[Anonymous Coward]

Those are protected classes, and outside the scope of what we're discussing.

Re:If I'm the one compensating them...

[RightSaidFred99]

Amazing, you mean these companies can fire people and not rehire someone else? Why are they paying them to work in the first place, then?

It's a zero sum game, I don't care who they fire or why. If they need asses filling seats, someone will get paid for it. If Joe gets fired that's sad for him and his family..but wait, it's good news for Jane who now has a job and can feed her family.

Re:If I'm the one compensating them...

[nedlohs]

That's right. If I want to fire Jim because he is black, that's my god damn right.

If Joe won't swear on the Bible that he's going to vote for my choice in the next election then it is my right to fire his ass.

If Bill decided to convert to Budhism it is my right to fire him.

If my employees decide to exercise their freedom of association it is my right, no it is my duty as an American to fire their asses.

Re:If I'm the one compensating them...

[Eivind]

The problem with that is that it sidesteps any and all worker-protection laws completely, particularily in areas an times with high unemployment.

It's infact NOT okay to fire people over race, over sex, over age, over religion, over a host of other things that are irrelevant to the performance of a worker. We have actual *laws* decided by democratically elected politicians which state in clear terms, that these actions are not okay.

These laws, are completely moot if combined with totally at-will employment. Because in that case, you still can't say: "We're overstaffed, and so we need to get rid of someone - you're fired because you're black" - but that's scant comfort if instead the boss *can* just point at the black guy and say "you're fired" (no reason given or required)

Re:If I'm the one compensating them...

[91degrees]

We've tried that.

Seems to end up with the employees being essentially slaves, easily bullied into doing things outside the contract agreement. Because the employer has such a strong bargaining position this is not a reciprocal effect.

Re:If I'm the one compensating them...

[Kokuyo]

Something similar came to my mind, too.

Frankly, the original poster is right... but only in an environment where the worker can expect to be able to support himself and his family even if he was fired or chose to switch jobs.

This freedom would have to go both ways and not only from a legal standpoint. Since companies have strived to work more efficiently (meaning with less staff), expecting that everyone will alwaqys have a job has become naive. But as long as you, as an employee, cannot expect to find new income with only little delay, you will always be the weaker party in such a deal. Most companies can live without a few bodies for a few months if need be. A family of three, four or five can't just shrug off the loss of one income.

So while I agree that philosophically an employer should be able to fire you for whatever reason, our world just can't work like that without reverting to quasi-slavery.

That's why, among other reasons, I'd live four our governments to try basic income. It would be intriguing.

Re:If I'm the one compensating them...

[Kokuyo]

Ye gods, the mistakes I make early in the morning... I'd LOVE for our governments to try basic income...

Re:If I'm the one compensating them...

[hellop2]

Yeah, I think that was precisely his point. Besides, who wants an ungrateful employee?

Re:If I'm the one compensating them...

[Required Snark]

So you fire someone for wearing the wrong tie to work? http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-0126-packer-fan-fired-20110126,0,3880241.story Or expressing an opinion? http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/laplaza/2011/01/border-patrol-agent-fired-sues-views-drug-war-mexico.html How about writing a political song and sending it out from your home account? http://www.newschannel5.com/story/12989255/coach-says-he-was-fired-because-of-conservative-song?redirected=true

Being an employer does not give you the right to suspend the constitution. We are citizens, not slaves. Running a business does give to a license to be a tin god. The Founders of the US understood this, and they were willing to die for it. People in the middle east are dieing right now in order to have the right to freely express themselves. Your statement puts you firmly on the same side as King Gorge IV, Stalin, and the Taliban. How does it feel to be on their side? I think you fit right in.

Re:If I'm the one compensating them...

[im_thatoneguy]

Actuuuallllly... when you're working for a conservative Christian you can be fired if it's for religious reasons. Aka, if a minister is seen drunk the church can fire them since it violates the religious standards of conduct. But it's limited to church employees.

Re:If I'm the one compensating them...

[Anonymous Coward]

man, I hope that's sarcasm

Re:If I'm the one compensating them...

[roman_mir]

Being comfortable - is that a 'basic human right' or something?

Any regulation that limits power of employer to fire an employee also limits the willingness of employer to hire more employees.

How many businesses do not go past 49 employees because of the medical insurance requirement? How many businesses do not hire minorities/women/people with disabilities, etc., because those are guaranteed government protection against basically being fired by private companies?

Starting/small businesses cannot afford any distractions, any wasteful spending, so I am sure that in most cases they end up avoiding any possibility of a potential lawsuit, so they would rather not hire at all or only only basically young able white males or illegal immigrants rather than anybody else, because those are the groups with least amount of government protection.

Who really wants to hire an American or a European at this point? Asia - that's where it is, and it is GOOD for their standard of living, which will skyrocket upwards once Asia stops propping up all these failing economies (and they will once they diversify enough of their foreign currency and debt holdings.)

Re:If I'm the one compensating them...

[JumperCable]

> Being comfortable - is that a 'basic human right' or something?

It's not really so much being comfortable, but being able to freely and openly express my political opinions on my free time, when I am not at work I think should be a basic human right. I don't want to sue my employer. I just don't want to be fired when my political opinions conflict with my employer's political opinions despite the fact that I am smart enough not to bring it up at work.

Re:If I'm the one compensating them...

[JumperCable]

The only way I would agree to "basic income" is if the government required "basic work" in exchange. (Invalids & their ilk except.)

Re:If I'm the one compensating them...

[roman_mir]

I agree, you should be able to express your opinion all you want.

I disagree that government must step in and protect you from being fired by your employer if they disagree with your opinion.

The free speech idea is about your being protected from abuse by the government, who has power to jail and kill you. Your job is between you and your employer, it's a private matter and your employer cannot jail and kill you (unless they are also the government, of-course.)

Before the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the black youth in America had much higher employment rate than even the white people in that same age category. Unemployment was about 15% for that category.

After the Civil Rights Act the unemployment started going up, now it's 50% in that category.

There is a lesson, but people do not learn it - create incentives for employers not to hire you and they will not hire you.

Re:If I'm the one compensating them...

[PRMan]

I think he means that he works for a Christian in a secular job. At my last job, I was targeted and disliked for being a Christian. So it goes both ways, I assure you.

Re:If I'm the one compensating them...

[Anonymous Coward]

You can fire them for any reason you wish, and they in turn may sue you for any reason they wish. There is no conflict.

Re:If I'm the one compensating them...

[JoeMerchant]

...I should be able to fire them, for whatever reason I choose. I guess that's the way it was before freedom of association in America was killed off. It may be bad business, and I personally wouldn't want to work for anyone who had such a stringent policy, but any employer should be free to make such decisions, and be free to either benefit or suffer the consequences.

Take that attitude too far and you get backlash like the UAW forming in your town. Sometimes freedom to make mistakes can go too far.

Re:If I'm the one compensating them...

[JoeMerchant]

I would like to be able to openly protest and fight against those efforts while not at work without fear of being fired.

Good luck with that. In the world I live in, it's easier to use online handles that my employers don't know and fill my public real-name Facebook and Linked-In accounts with bland politically correct sentimentality.

Re:If I'm the one compensating them...

[orzetto]

I guess that's the way it was before slavery in America was killed off.

Corrected that for you. Paying people does not mean you have bought them (not anymore). People are endowed with certain unalienable rights, and threatening retaliation for exercising them is simply working around the Constitution.

Re:If I'm the one compensating them...

[LordLimecat]

Being an employer does not give you the right to suspend the constitution.

The constitution mostly deals with federal "cans" and "can nots"-- and as its purpose is to lay out the structure of the government, not grant rights, I think you are rather referring to the Bill of Rights-- which is ALSO not directed at corporations so much. The first amendment, which is so often trotted out, declares "CONGRESS SHALL MAKE NO LAW", not "Corporate policy shall not encompass...".

We are citizens, not slaves

Then quit, or let yourself get fired and find another job! If you were slaves, you wouldnt have that option. Heck, in a third world country you might not have that option. Here in the US, you even get unemployment benefits to help with the period between jobs. Enough with the exaggeration, comparison to slaveery is disingenuous and likely insulting to those in far worse situations more akin to slavery across the globe.

People in the middle east are dieing right now in order to have the right to freely express themselves

Not in private corporations, however. What you seem to be proposing is that a company be forced to employ someone, even if he is openly disparaging of their product in a way that harms sales-- should a Coke employee be able to go onto a news station and abuse Coke products? I see no reason why an employee that becomes such a burden should be offered further employ by that company.

At the end of the day, employment is a contract between two people. If the terms include "you may not go onto nightline and trash our product", or "you must wear a pink tie on tuesdays", guess what-- you have 2 options. Accept the terms, or walk out the door. If the company violates the terms, well, thats already illegal. If you want some kind of employment guarentees, go to a "right to work" state-- they do exist.

Re:If I'm the one compensating them...

[realityimpaired]

The problem with most "workfare" systems is that they take up way too much of your time. Looking for a job is itself a full-time job. Aside from that, if you average out what people on the welfare system get per month, you'd be paying them far less than minimum wage.

I'd support your proposal if, and *only* if, you can be exempt from the "work" clause if you can show that you're looking for employment.

Re:If I'm the one compensating them...

[LordLimecat]

Not until we have a social safety net

You mean like unemployment benefits?

Otherwise there are too many people who would demand sexual favors

Yes, in that instance the safety net is known as "the justice system" and "a lawsuit".

complete subservience from employees they knew to be in a precarious financial condition.

Again, thats why we have unemployment benefits, minimum wage laws, OSHA, etc.

Re:If I'm the one compensating them...

[HornWumpus]

Looking for a job is itself a full-time job?

Bullshit. It surely isn't for those on welfare.

Do you know any of these parasites? I come from a bad neighborhood (immigrant parents), sell your lies somewhere else.

Re:If I'm the one compensating them...

[HornWumpus]

FYI Christians don't generally have a problem with drinking.

It's only Baptists and few others that added that prohibition to the bible. Despite the prohibition on adding or removing things.

I'd wager their are some groups (Irish Catholics) where you would be ostracized from your community for not drinking.

Re:If I'm the one compensating them...

[stewbacca]

Those are protected classes, and outside the scope of what we're discussing.

Sadly, "gay" is not actualy a protected class.

Re:If I'm the one compensating them...

[stewbacca]

The coach was wrong to actively send his political beliefs to players' parents, especially since his political beliefs had nothing to do with his job duties. The difference here is if he had made that his Facebook post from his "Bryan Glover" personal account, there's no problem. But he sent out email as the representative of an organization (even if it was his private email) which gives the appearance of an official position. This is easily a case for termination.

The Border patrol story is stupid, and clearly the courts are taking it on. I was in the military for 12 years. As much as they try to beat groupthink into you, they can't silence ordinary soldiers' opinions when chit-chatting amongst themselves (as was the case in this story). It's not like the guy took on the establishment through a string of letters or poiltcal appearances.

The car salesman guy has a case, but the dealership could argue (and should have made it perfectly clear) that supporting Green Bay directly conflicts with their financial (sponsorship) interests. That's a tough one.

Re:If I'm the one compensating them...

[stewbacca]

Speaking of exaggeration, I wan't to know where you live that gives you unemployment benefits if you quit your job.

Re:If I'm the one compensating them...

[stewbacca]

I dislike you for being a Christian (and I don't even know you). But I wouldn't fire you for it because, a) it's illegal, and b) that would make me a dick.

Re:If I'm the one compensating them...

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm not sure I believe you. 84% of the U.S. population identifies themselves as Christian, and every single one of them seems to think they are being persecuted by the unbelievers.

More likely you were targeted for being a dick.

Re:If I'm the one compensating them...

[stewbacca]

How many businesses do not go past 49 employees because of the medical insurance requirement?

Not very many, because companies hire employees because they have a need to, not because they want to. What you are suggesting is that companies would forego new business if it would put them over 50 employees, which I doubt ever comes into consideration.

Re:If I'm the one compensating them...

[stewbacca]

and they in turn may sue you for any reason they wish. .

Not if Governor Rick Perry gets his "Loser Pays" wish:

http://www.texastribune.org/texas-politics/2010-texas-governors-race/perry-says-the-state-needs-more-tort-reform/

Re:If I'm the one compensating them...

[sjames]

Yes, something like unemployment benefits, only actually paying the bills, help you find a new job, or at least not running out before you can find new employment in a shitty job market.

Of course, even then there is a social interest in preventing capricious employment.

Re:If I'm the one compensating them...

[Raenex]

People manage to find new jobs while working an existing job all the time. Some people work full time and pay their way for secondary education.

Some people spend countless hours goofing off while collecting unemployment and "looking" for another job. The sense of entitlement people have is just amazing.

Re:If I'm the one compensating them...

[david@ecsd.com]

Then forgive them.

Re:If I'm the one compensating them...

[roman_mir]

I am sure you are incorrect. Employers have ways to avoid hiring new people to deal with any new business. Efficiencies, outsourcing, possibly splitting company into more than 1 entity (I know a bit about that) to avoid regulations is another way to avoid regulations.

But at the end if some business has an option to hire additional help or to do with who they have and just force the existing people to do more work because the new hires will trigger some government regulations, they'll go with that option.

Re:If I'm the one compensating them...

[cdrguru]

That can be a problem alright. But all it means is the employer can't use the word "gay" or "black" when they are firing the person.

Don't like that? Work for a federal contractor or join a union. They have rules about how people can be fired. This, of course, means that people that should have been fired long ago are still there because nobody in management wants to put in the effort to get someone fired.

Re:If I'm the one compensating them...

[Just Another Poster]

Anyone is free to associate with others, or speak freely as they see fit. But if I'm paying them with my money to do a job for me, and I don't like what they say about me, I should be free to stop paying them money. To say otherwise implies that others have a right to the money I earned.

Re:If I'm the one compensating them...

[cdrguru]

Well, then you have Germany and other EU states. In Germany after you have been employed for six months it is basically impossible to fire someone. There is no "cause" that is good enough. Of course this means that any business that hires someone better be really, really certain they (a) need another person and (b) that person is the "right" person. Because after six months the decision is not reversable.

What this leads to is very simple: nobody gets hired. Little growth happens because of the overly-restrictive employment regulations. And with little growth of employment there is little growth of businesses. If a business can "get by" with five people the pressure to not hire the sixth is so great that it never happens.

Contrast this with the US where I can hire someone and after 18 months I can't justify keeping them because of lack of revenue. If it makes sense to hire the person, they get hired. If 18 months later it doesn't make sense, they are gone. Period. You can't do that in Germany.

Re:If I'm the one compensating them...

[misexistentialist]

So you can't fire a woman ever since she might claim you required her to blow you? In that case it is better to discreetly avoid hiring females, especially ones that juries would find attractive.

Re:If I'm the one compensating them...

[KingAlanI]

Hopefully it's a hurdle that John Q. Bigot doesn't manage to jump. :P

Re:If I'm the one compensating them...

[Anonymous Coward]

I'd wager their are some groups (Irish Catholics) where you would be ostracized from your community for not drinking.

You have no idea how true that is ...

Re:If I'm the one compensating them...

[Anonymous Coward]

Wouldn't that create a demand for jobs where you wouldn't be required to have sex with your boss, such that the asexual bosses could pay less and hire more people until the demand evened out?

It's sort of like Sony rootkits. If you they give you a rootkit, and you keep standing there presenting your butt to them, of course they are going to give you more rootkits forever. If people go find a company that won't rootkit you in the butt and give your money/employment to them, things will change.

And that's when we finally realize that most people are so apathetic they'd rather just take the rootkit in the butt.

Re:If I'm the one compensating them...

[Shotgun]

I find that incredibly uncomfortable.

Hell, I find getting up in the morning to head into the office uncomfortable. Think I can get the courts to lift that burdern, too?

Re:If I'm the one compensating them...

[Anonymous Coward]

following your line of thinking... so if the really hot secretary you hired won't blow you, you can fire her?

If only.

Re:If I'm the one compensating them...

[myth24601]

The calculation that will be made is what is the value that each new employee brings versus the added cost. If the cost per employee is $x up to 49 workers but on upon worker 50 the cost for all workers goes up by $y then the cost of worker number 50 is x+50y.

The 50th new worker has to add more value than his added cost plus the change in cost for the prior 49 workers. After that one worker, each additional worker only has to add x+y value.

Re:If I'm the one compensating them...

[qwijibo]

The difference is that those are federally protected groups. You may not discriminate on those criteria without running afoul of the law. You can discriminate against someone because they have been convicted of a crime(even if not relevant to the job), are incompetent, publicly express strong political opinions that contradict the employer's purpose, etc. You can't expect a military contracting company to hire a well known anti-war provocateur, can you? A prosecutor's office would not hire a pro-marijuana crusader, would they?

There's definitely a lot of grey area where you could make a reasonable sounding argument to fire someone in a protected group based on some non-protected activity, but that's where consistency matters. If the company fires a black person for the same activity that a white person receives no attention for, they're going to have problems.

I agree with the ruling, but I think it's important for both companies and employees to be sensible about their expectations. I don't name my employer when making statements about the industry, even though my statements may not be related to my current or past employers. I also do not use my work email address for anything non-work related. Many companies have policies about these types of behavior, but they're often vague and not enforced. There are far more employers looking the other way than ones who have the spare time and money to play big brother.

Re:If I'm the one compensating them...

[Anonymous Cowpat]

the order you put those in is very telling...

Re:If I'm the one compensating them...

[Anonymous Cowpat]

How does the ability to file an expensive a futile lawsuit adequately balance the absurd ability of employers to just dump their employees at will?

Re:If I'm the one compensating them...

[LordLimecat]

Depending on the conditions, you may indeed be eligible if you quit or are fired.

Re:If I'm the one compensating them...

[jeff4747]

So again, freedom of association is something you should enjoy, but if you pay someone they must relinquish their rights?

Re:If I'm the one compensating them...

[orzetto]

In Germany after you have been employed for six months it is basically impossible to fire someone. There is no "cause" that is good enough.

If you as an HR manager cannot spot a flaw so serious to warrant a dismissal of an employee within 6 months, you should be fired first. And economic difficulties are a good cause for termination, provided of course you are not using that as a pretext for random terrorisation of employees.

Little growth happens because of the overly-restrictive employment regulations.

Never mind that last year Germany was the European country with the highest GDP growth.

If 18 months later it doesn't make sense, they are gone. Period. You can't do that in Germany.

And that's the way we likes it, thankyouverymuch.

Goes both ways?

[Weirsbaski]

Does it go both ways? The boss is free to criticize their employees on facebook too?

I'm thinking maybe American Medical Response of Connecticut is about to have less to say about the web, and more to say on it.

Re:Goes both ways?

[Wyatt Earp]

Of course they do. The problem was they always had that freedom while the underlings didn't.

Re:Goes both ways?

[Lord_of_the_nerf]

I hear Steve from Accounting goes both ways.

Now I'm waiting for that call from HR.

Re:Goes both ways?

[timeOday]

That's right. Due to this oppressive legal ruling, you can no longer fire your boss for sharing their negative opinion of you online.

Re:Goes both ways?

[JumperCable]

I hear Steve from Accounting goes both ways.

Sometimes the back streets are a faster way to work. Especially when the interstate is congested. Honestly it's almost a coin toss as to which way is the most efficient.

Re:Goes both ways?

[Dr Herbert West]

+1 Hilarious

Re:Goes both ways?

[roman_mir]

As always, everybody on the left misses the point. This, as all other regulations that can cause in employers getting sued, will have another chilling effect that will prevent more people from being hired in the first place.

Just like minorities are hired less by smaller companies for that same reason, that they can sue on various legal grounds guaranteed by the government if they are fired, same here.

You want to work for me? Great, what's the name?

Checking you on FB etc. You are there? Forget it. I am NOT hiring you.

Re:Goes both ways?

[MadKeithV]

Checking you on FB etc. You are there? Forget it. I am NOT hiring you.

Have fun working alone.

Re:Goes both ways?

[roman_mir]

Well actually, I don't have FB account but if anybody wants to be MORE employable in USA now, they should get rid of theirs or never open one, at least not under their real name.

Also you could apply the same argument to the small business after all the Civil Rights Acts and other various cases that protect women/minorities from being fired - have fun working in all male, all white company, right?

Of-course there is an alternative, like in European countries: you end up with only large companies, they all are heavily subsidized and regulated, but your choices of employment are diminished and your ability to open your own business are extremely limited. This eventually leads to less and less economic activity and higher and higher levels of unemployment and reliance on government.

Well, actually USA is really in the same position - more and more gov't guaranteed/protected/subsidized monopolies and less and less private capital and enterprise.

With all the SS and inflation nonsense more people are leaving US to go work and open businesses somewhere else.

The decision in this story is really a very minor thing compared to all the other regulations, but while with other regulations employers could avoid hiring certain groups that are guaranteed government protection, this new decision sets a very bad precedent - anybody can have FB account and if you don't want to get fired or want a large settlement all you need is to post periodically how much of a low life scumbag your boss is all over the Internet.

Eventually it WILL lead to people working alone or in large gov't protected monopolies only.

Re:Goes both ways?

[MadKeithV]

Of-course there is an alternative, like in European countries: you end up with only large companies, they all are heavily subsidized and regulated, but your choices of employment are diminished and your ability to open your own business are extremely limited. This eventually leads to less and less economic activity and higher and higher levels of unemployment and reliance on government.

I live and work in a small European country in a small European company that is not heavily subsidized, and only heavily regulated because we work in the medical industry where that sort of thing is par for the course. Many of the people I know are self-employed, and it's not hard by any means.
I see the EU take a lot more anti-monopolistic action than the USA too, though that is of course biased by European media reporting on it.

Re:Goes both ways?

[roman_mir]

I didn't say there are no small companies in Europe. I said there is less opportunity in Europe because so many regulations basically weed out small business. Of-course there are small companies in Europe and there are self employed individuals, but if there were no regulations requiring that employees must get all the perks and supporting all the unions there would have been more economic activity in European countries. Eventually this will cost Europeans their businesses and capital and jobs and economies.

Re:Goes both ways?

[JoeMerchant]

That's right. Due to this oppressive legal ruling, you can no longer fire your boss for sharing their negative opinion of you online.

But this is America - you can sue them for defamation.

Re:Goes both ways?

[Anonymous Coward]

Nope, we won't give references, positive or negative, because we're likely to get sued if we give a negative reommendation on a former employee, or if we fail to give a positive one while generally giving positive reviews. Yes, our corporate speech is much more restricted than individual speech, in spite of the recent supreme court ruling. I understand that the hive mind doesn't want to believe that, but with deeper pockets comes much more tort.

Re:Goes both ways?

[HornWumpus]

Sure you can.

Firing your boss is called 'Quiting'.

Re:Goes both ways?

[Shotgun]

Try to get a recommendation from a former company or manager. All they will say is, "I can confirm that Joe Smith worked at the Acme company from date X to date Y." You won't get a single bit more if the HR department has anything to do with it. The reason is that telling the truth can get you sued.

So, the answer is No, companies can't say whatever they please about employees.

Re:Goes both ways?

[Anonymous Coward]

You can ALWAYS fire your boss.

Re:Goes both ways?

[HornWumpus]

Generally companies will give out good references.

Bad references sound exactly like what you quote.

Re:Goes both ways?

[drsmithy]

Of-course there is an alternative, like in European countries: you end up with only large companies, they all are heavily subsidized and regulated, but your choices of employment are diminished and your ability to open your own business are extremely limited. This eventually leads to less and less economic activity and higher and higher levels of unemployment and reliance on government.

Yet, "strangely", most European countries with strict regulations around employment have low unemployment rates, strong economies, and high standards of living.

Re:Goes both ways?

[roman_mir]

What's strange is that you believe that MOST European countries are this way. Germany and Switzerland - I agree. Most of Scandinavia - OK.

They are all pursuing more and more liberal business practices, reducing regulations, allowing cheap labor to be imported from other countries. I just took ICE 17, then DB and then Eurostar from Baden Baden through Belgium to London. Belgium of-course is the EU capital, so money is brought in through taxes. Germany is the producer and UK is following the footsteps of USA on the road of economic collapse through inflation, capital and job destruction and asset bubbles (now in housing and UK sovereign bonds - very similar road to US).

Re:Goes both ways?

[drsmithy]

What's strange is that you believe that MOST European countries are this way.

There's no "believing" involved, because it's a fact.

How many European countries can you name with (lack of) employee rights even remotely close to "at will" laws in most US states, let alone close to the "employees have no rights" libertarian fantasy ?

In Europe - along with most of the western world outside of the US - employers need a genuine reason to fire an employee. Downsizing, restructuring, poor performance, bad conduct, etc are all good reasons. Not liking their Facebook page isn't even close. This has been upheld in most countries, as employers in those countries - taking their cues from the "fuck you, peon" attitude towards employees prevalent in the USA - have tried it, been sued for wrongful dismissal, and lost.

They are all pursuing more and more liberal business practices, reducing regulations, allowing cheap labor to be imported from other countries.

Firstly, that's irrelevant, this discussion is about employee rights, not immigration policies.

Secondly, those immigrant workers are brought into the country under very strict controls, only when local workers cannot be found, to perform a very specific job, and must leave when that job is finished.

Re:Goes both ways?

[roman_mir]

Switzerland. We have at will employment, the employment is a private matter based on contract and there is no gov't mandated minimum wage. It's all about contract between employer and employee and it has nothing to do with government.

Again, my argument is that the economies of European countries are also failing, especially for those countries that have very high gov't guarantees, 'social obligations', etc. The jobs will leave, there will be more poverty all due to lack of free market and loss of capital.

Re:Goes both ways?

[drsmithy]

Switzerland.

One country ? I think my "most" statements holds.

We have at will employment, the employment is a private matter based on contract and there is no gov't mandated minimum wage. It's all about contract between employer and employee and it has nothing to do with government.

There is no "universal" minimum wage, it is true. But many trades and professions, specify minimum wages though collective agreements (ie: Guilds/Unions).

However, the suggestion that Swiss labour laws are even remotely close to the lack of regulation you advocate is laughable. Maximum hours per week are stipulated, and overtime must be paid by default. Notice periods - if not explicitly in an employment contract (and typically they aren't - it would be very unusual for an "at will" equivalent to be in a contract) - are at least a month (outside of probation periods). Maternity leave is mandated. Four weeks of annual leave are mandated. Unfair dismissal laws exist. Etc, etc.

On top of this is the Swiss culture itself, which strongly stigmatises employer abuse of employees. Many of the employee-friendly conditions that are not explicitly laid out in law are instead practiced by convention (eg: regular salary increases). Living standards and community cohesion are king in Switzerland, and a lack of employment stability is the antithesis of those. Do not kid yourself for a second if employers started regularly engaging in the kind of actions they do in some other countries, that the Swiss would not vote in legislation to prevent them from doing so.

Sorry, but Swiss labour laws may not be quite as pro-employee as other parts of Europe, but they are far, far ahead of anywhere in the USA. I've lived and worked in both places, and I know which I prefer.

Re:Goes both ways?

[roman_mir]

You asked how many can I name. I named one that I am certain of. As to unions - they are non-government, thus it is not the same thing as government law.

Private unions are fine, that's again, a private matter between the employer and employee.

As to what is it that I would prefer - I do not prefer US or Europe, that's a false choice for me. They are not economically sound at all and the chickens are coming home to roost as more and more European nations are finding themselves unable to serve those ever increasing social obligations they have. They are in a better shape than the USA because of USA military spending. Otherwise they are all coming to a conclusion, which is not going to be preferable for them.

Re:Goes both ways?

[Shotgun]

Not anymore. This comes straight from my manager's mouth. The manager will do NOTHING but refer someone calling for a reference to HR. They won't say ANYTHING other than "Person X did work here from Y to Z." Anything else is grounds for a dismissal. They are serious about it.

Used to be that managers would "kill with faint praise." They won't even do that now.

Of course, my experience is limited to the companies I've worked for. Others may have a different policy.

Re:Goes both ways?

[corbettw]

I have my FB locked down so only my friends can see me, and only friends of friends can even find me in searches. Accomplishes the same thing without having to deprive myself of the social contact the site provides. Win-win!

Proud moment for the US Constitution

[WarmNoodles]

My opinion is;
It should have been obvious to the pointy haired bosses they would loose the case when their lawyers explained the territory in which they found themselves was not a 3rd world country. Pointy haired bosses everywhere should know if your going to be a petty dictator, find a 3rd world country to be it in.

Hooyaaa out to the founders of the US Constitution!
This is where the foundation of US freedom shines brightest.

Guess what she wrote they did not want to refute and it must not have been malicious or surely a competent lawyer would have advised them to they would have advised to bring slander libel suit before loosing the war of public opinion.

Talk about profound and poor legal decisions on the part of the pointy haired boss & lawyers.

Re:Proud moment for the US Constitution

[RightSaidFred99]

This has absolutely nothing to do with the Constitution. Not sure what you're blathering about.

Re:Proud moment for the US Constitution

[Anonymous Coward]

We are all dumber for having read this.

Re:Proud moment for the US Constitution

[WarmNoodles]

Clearly your unqualified to comment on something you no nothing about.

In the US, its the constitution Axioms which protect citizens from abusive 3rd world dictatorial abusers like the moronic employer who thought they could just suspend this ladies freedom of speech as if they were a government power. It also is the sounding board state and federal bureaucrats and the average every day citizens use in principle to prevent abuses.

It was the government which reminded the petty point haired bosses they have no standing, and you think they did it for her to be generous?

Beer companies will fire you

[rsilvergun]

if you're seen drinking a competitors beer. Plus there's been several stories of people fired for political bumper stickers because the company owner didn't agree (it's always right wing bosses firing left wings employees too...).

I'm surprised this woman could fight. Looks like she won because of Union laws. Once again, yay for Unions.

Re:Beer companies will fire you

[Totenglocke]

Plus there's been several stories of people fired for political bumper stickers because the company owner didn't agree (it's always right wing bosses firing left wings employees too...).

Care to provide some support for that claim? Or does it not need support since anyone who doesn't worship the DNC is automatically evil and doesn't need any proof before crucifying them?

Re:Beer companies will fire you

[prichardson]

I seriously doubt that if the owner of Lake Louie caught one of his employees enjoying the latest concoction from Dogfish Head that there would be any problem. People who make beer know how to enjoy and appreciate beer, even if they didn't make it.

Maybe you meant those companies advertise beer but actually bottle alcoholic horse urine? Since Budweiser and Miller both bottle the same thing, I could see why they might get a little upset if one of their employees was drinking horse urine from the other company.

Re:Beer companies will fire you

[nosferatu1001]

What makes you think the democrats can be considered "left wing"?

Slightly less rabidly right leaning does not make you left wing. Not by a long shot

Re:Beer companies will fire you

[iamhigh]

Did you guys see that! He pointed out two micro-brews in a single post and called American lagers urine! This guy is one original and interesting fellow! He also adds much to the discussion!

Re:Beer companies will fire you

[drinkypoo]

I'm surprised this woman could fight. Looks like she won because of Union laws. Once again, yay for Unions.

Once again, boo for Unions, which today exist solely to protect the interests of a privileged few. What we need is labor laws that permit anyone to sue their employer if they should take this sort of action.

Re:Beer companies will fire you

[Anonymous Coward]

Care to provide some support for that claim? Or does it not need support since anyone who doesn't worship the DNC is automatically evil and doesn't need any proof before crucifying them?

You think a Democrat must automatically love the DNC? Are you on crack?

Re:Beer companies will fire you

[rsilvergun]

Here. Took 5 seconds on google. It was a pretty famous story. Why is it when right wing people see something they don't like they're first and only response is to deny it? Not trying to troll, I'm dead serious. My next door neighbor (who's since lost her house due to an abusive ARM loan they promised she could refinance, yeah right), is hard core right wing conservative & has used socialized medicine to keep herself (open heart surgery) and her children alive. If you ask her about that she just kinda wharrgarbl something about patriotism.

Re:Beer companies will fire you

[rsilvergun]

Did I say anything about Democrat or Republican? I was being deliberately party neutral. The point was Unions are a good thing, and unless you inherited lots of money you owe everything you have to them.

Re:Beer companies will fire you

[Insightfill]

Plus there's been several stories of people fired for political bumper stickers because the company owner didn't agree (it's always right wing bosses firing left wings employees too...).

Care to provide some support for that claim? Or does it not need support since anyone who doesn't worship the DNC is automatically evil and doesn't need any proof before crucifying them?

Hmm- Google gives me over 300K hits for "employee fired for political bumper sticker" - admittedly, most of the hits are for the same Kerry story, but there are a few hits for "CEO looking for Obama stickers in parking lot" to enhance the case.

Re:Beer companies will fire you

[fast turtle]

Well I have to agree with him about Bud and Miller but have to add Coors to the Horse Piss class. Sorry but none of them are really a beer anylonger.

Of course these companies survived prohibition simply because they were behind some of its acts in the first place. /conspiracy theory

Seriously though, Prohibition cost the States in excess of 3000 different breweries and brands, most of which were regional or even local and we're only now starting to replace them.

Re:Beer companies will fire you

[stewbacca]

if you're seen drinking a competitors beer. Plus there's been several stories of people fired for political bumper stickers because the company owner didn't agree (it's always right wing bosses firing left wings employees too...).

And neither of those examples have any legal merit. Sure there are several stories, but none of them hold any water. Employers cannot dictate where employees live or what they eat, for example (was on NPR just this morning, trying to get Detroit PD officers to move back into Detroit). And you definitely are violating civil liberties, election law, and employment law if you are found meddling with people's voting choices (with the threat of termination).

Re:Beer companies will fire you

[stewbacca]

you owe everything you have to them.

That's my problem with unions.

Re:Beer companies will fire you

[stewbacca]

I once nearly lost my band's Bud Light sponsorship because our distributor/sponsor guy saw me drinking real beer at a gig. So I started lining my sound rack next to my drums with empty Bud Light bottles and drank a nice Pacific NW micro brew out of a label-less glass.

Re:Beer companies will fire you

[stewbacca]

Salient points. Companies who don't bother or actually care to make a good product are probably more likely to fire you for your inane Facebook updates.

Re:Beer companies will fire you

[ediron2]

Wow, it's now her union's fault that all the rest of us didn't get a decent contract. All the corporate efforts to bust unions and resist employees having anything but a right to be fired immediately without cause are irrelevant? Meh, I don't buy it.

And 'privileged few'? Who the hell's fault is that? Certainly not the unions. These labor laws will never come into effect with the US's right-of-center politics. Nor will those mythic privacy protections enjoyed in europe, equitable healthcare, etc. Heck, we're losing ground on most of these right now. Huge chunks of middle america seem to think anything more than $17 an hour is undeservedly lavish pay, FFS.

Since you're 'good' at this, maybe you can show how unions are also to blame for the existence of Paris Hilton?

Re:Beer companies will fire you

[Totenglocke]

Read closer. I wasn't talking about the beer company firing someone for drinking another beer, I was talking about his claim that it's only Republicans who do this and never a Democrat.

Re:Beer companies will fire you

[Totenglocke]

Ah yes, this old line again that anyone to the right of Stalin is a "conservative". That joke was never funny and it's way past it's prime.

Re:Beer companies will fire you

[Totenglocke]

No, unions were a good thing. Now that we have all of the laws regarding workplace conditions, they serve no purpose but to ridiculously inflate wages (look at GM) and to keep bad workers from being fired for poor performance (look at every unionized institution around the world).

On an unrelated note, why the fuck don't html tags work on the new version of slashdot?

Re:Beer companies will fire you

[Anonymous Coward]

Lake Louie, that's some good stuff. You must be from Wisconsin, they don't have a very big shipping area for their beer. The Madison area has quite a few high quality brewers.

Re:Beer companies will fire you

[EMeta]

Well sure, but if you owned Lake Louie and caught one of your employees drinking Old Milwaukee, wouldn't you have to reevaluate your assessment of his judgement and critical thinking?

Re:Beer companies will fire you

[drinkypoo]

Wow, it's now her union's fault that all the rest of us didn't get a decent contract. All the corporate efforts to bust unions and resist employees having anything but a right to be fired immediately without cause are irrelevant? Meh, I don't buy it.

No union member has to worry about the rights of the rest of us, because they are a union member and already have those rights.

And 'privileged few'? Who the hell's fault is that? Certainly not the unions.

Bah, the Mafia has controlled the SF Plumber's union for years like they used to control teamsters' unions all over the nation. The people at the top of the union profit handsomely. The longest-employed employees likewise, deservedly or not.

Since you're 'good' at this, maybe you can show how unions are also to blame for the existence of Paris Hilton?

Sorry, that was your mom.

what are you serious?

[alienzed]

What? Are you serious?

It is a fine line

[Anonymous Coward]

But if you talk crap about your employer in a public and identifiable forum then they should be allowed to fire you.

Free speech is free. There are consequences though for things said. Trash your friends, they wont be your friends, trash your boss, they wont be your boss anymore.

Re:It is a fine line

[NetNed]

It's one thing to get caught saying such things about a friend, but when a employer is keeping tabs on a person's personal life outside work, then they are overstepping their boundaries. It's would be like saying the employer should be able to wiretap the employee's phone just in case they say something bad about the company. If you think that's cool, go move to a country where that is "cool"

Re:It is a fine line

[Anonymous Coward]

But if you talk crap about your employer in a public and identifiable forum then they should be allowed to fire you.

Free speech is free. There are consequences though for things said. Trash your friends, they wont be your friends, trash your boss, they wont be your boss anymore.

If you talk about crap that is true, no the employer shouldn't.
If you talk crap that your employer thinks is false, there are enough avenues to sue you for defamation/slander or the like.

Re:It is a fine line

[Anonymous Coward]

Op AC here

Your analogy is wrong, I was specifically referring to publicly trashing your employer (and being identifiable as an employee)

It isn't wiretapping or keeping tabs when people jump on a public soap box and scream their feelings out.
It is very public.

Re:It is a fine line

[Anonymous Coward]

thrash black people, they won't be black people anymore

Re:It is a fine line

[Anonymous Coward]

How is viewing publicly available and identifiable information like wiretapping?

That comparison is just plain retarded.

What are we allowed to say in "Work at Will" State

[JumperCable]

I thought people who worked in "Work at Will" states could be fired for any reason (or no reason at all, so long as it didn't run up against discrimination laws. I thought Freedom of Speech only applied to the government's control, not private employers.

Negative attention

[techwreck]

It blows my mind that so many employers take such a heavy handed approach to attempting to control what people have to say about the company. What they fail to understand is that shutting down one medium just drives it to another or puts it behind closed doors. Instead they should focus on understanding what critics have to say and figuring out ways to improve. One of the most valuable tools any business owner can use to grow a business is unbiased feedback. If they put half the time and effort they do in attempting to silence opinions into creating an environment that breeds more positive buzz than criticism, they would have much less to worry about.

Re:Negative attention

[Anonymous Coward]

There is a branch of Market Research that does this for its clients. They aggregate social networking (sort of like Google.com/realtime ) and give their clients feedback based on what people are saying about their company to their friends, family, et c. But that's a completely different story than the employees saying stuff over social networking. I work in marketing research, and we have to sign an NDA that we will not mention any of the clients we work for on social networking sites. But that's a bit different, too. I listen to people talk about their opinions of our clients all day every day. And technically I work for these companies. Anyway... it's different when it's employees talking bad about their company. Should they be able to fire you over it? Why not. Would you say it to the president of your company to their face? Would they fire you then? I know when I apply for jobs they may look at my facebook page. I don't have anything there I wouldn't want a potential employer or my current employer to know.

Re:Negative attention

[AlterRNow]

You might not put anything on there you don't want employers to know, but does that guarantee that someone else won't?

Re:What are we allowed to say in "Work at Will" St

[Anonymous Coward]

It does, which is why so many of the "free speech" "proud day for the constitution" and various other posters of rhetoric are simply idiots that have never actually read the damn thing.

Always blabbing on Facebook

[Anonymous Coward]

Women are always blabbing on Facebook. Blab blab blab.

Re:What are we allowed to say in "Work at Will" St

[Anonymous Coward]

I thought people who worked in "Work at Will" states could be fired for any reason (or no reason at all, so long as it didn't run up against discrimination laws. I thought Freedom of Speech only applied to the government's control, not private employers.

As someone, who was employed in such a state and recently fired (two weeks ago) I can, "Yes, you're right." They've got you by the balls, and unless you can irrefutably prove that you were fired because you are black/gay/tea party supporter/etc there is nothing you can do about it.

Re:What are we allowed to say in "Work at Will" St

[nedlohs]

There is more to the law than just discrimination laws and the first amendment, in this case 29 U.S.C. 157 is the issue: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/uscode29/usc_sec_29_00000157----000-.html

"concerted activities" include discussing work related issues - punishing a worker for doing so is against the law (at least those not excluded from the Act such as independant contractors and government workers). And the NLRB was arguing that facebook posts about work related issues are under that blanket, and since they settled the employer in question obviously thinks that mightn't be dismissed at the first chance a judge gets.

Just because the state is "at will" doesn't mean employers get to ignore Federal law.

Lamebook

[mr100percent]

Behold, Lamebook captured it all so well in one post

Re:Lamebook

[coofercat]

Isn't the link to a completely different case, in a completely different country? TFA mentions a Connecticut ambulance company, but the link is to something that could very well be British (it mentions a P45) , which I think is unique to the UK).

(IMHO, the example you link to is far less unreasonable - adding your boss as a 'friend' and then slagging them off isn't very bright, and if the boss's comment is anything to go by, there were other reasons to fire the employee, and the FB post was the 'last straw'. However, it's easy to comment when you don't know anything about it ;-)

Re:Lamebook

[mr100percent]

Yes, I meant Lamebook captures the issue in an excellent example, not the actual posting in question.

Awesome

[Cant use a slash wtf]

Now I can freely criticise my boss and everything he does within the comfort and familiarity of Facebook. But really, would I be allowed to say this to his face? People don't seem to realise that posting a status update is pretty much the same as sending an Email to everyone who you have allowed to view your profile (which in some cases could be the whole world). Facebook status updates are not private conversation. If my boss overheard me constantly complaining to my fellow co-workers about how much of a dick he is, he would probably fire me and tell me to find a new boss. I would also feel like a bit of an idiot.

Seems the same "libertarian" /.'ers...

[unassimilatible]

who are happy about Big Nanny Government coming to their rescue in the workplace, are the people hailing aspects of Big Bad Government's Patriot Act expiring in the next article. Another case of Slashdot's "libertarian for me, statism for the other guy."

Re:Seems the same "libertarian" /.'ers...

[JasterBobaMereel]

One is about freedom of speech ... and the government protecting it

One is about freedom... and the government taking it away ...

No inconsistency here ...?

Re:Seems the same "libertarian" /.'ers...

[trickyD1ck]

There is also this vile, hateful, racist concept of "freedom of association." There used to be a time when one could choose with whom to work. Thanfully, noone protects this freedom now.

Re:Seems the same "libertarian" /.'ers...

[JasterBobaMereel]

You can say what you want ... but if you shout fire in a theatre they will be consequences

You can do what you want ... but if murder some one they will be consequences

You can associate with whom you want ... but if they are terrorists there will be consequences ...the problem with the patroit act was that it allowed you to be guilty only by association ...

Re:Seems the same "libertarian" /.'ers...

[Shotgun]

You have right to freedom of speech. You don't have a guarantee of a job. It never ceases to amaze me that people have warped "freedom of speech" into "I'll get to say whatever I want without consequences."

Since when does the Constitution apply to

[unassimilatible]

private employers?

this is bad.

[roman_mir]

How about this: do not say about your boss in public (and that's what FB is - a public forum) what you wouldn't be yelling out in the office.

However this is another chilling decision by the government and as every single other thing that gov't does when it creates more of these rules, when the employers can be taken to courts over firing people, this decision will only cause fewer people being employed.

If you are an employer, you'd think twice about employing people who have FB accounts now. Sure, that's a lot of people, so that's a lot of potential people who will NOT be hired.

Just like the entire fiasco of the Civil Rights Act: before the act, 85% of black youth (between ages of 16 and 24) had jobs. In fact their employment was much higher than employment of white youths. Past the Act, their employment was steadily declining and now 50% of black youths are unemployed. But who can argue that today there is more racism than before 1964? That would be quite a trick. No, instead what is happening is that small companies would rather not hire minorities at all rather than putting themselves into a position where they can be sued if they decide to fire that person.

When there is a government 'guarantee' of any kind, it becomes a moral hazard or a deterrent. It always backfires. In a country that is seeing higher and higher unemployment regulations about employment of people should be reduced (like all other business regulations) not increased.

Re:this is bad.

[davev2.0]

^^ THIS!!!! ^^

Why do so many people expect privacy in what is essentially a public space?

Lame fb user

[Anonymous Coward]

OMG, If you still think that facebook is a private chatroom you deserve being fired...

I only criticize my manager in private

[PolygamousRanchKid]

Saying bad stuff about your manager in a public forum is bad for the company. What's bad for the company, is bad for you. Whenever I need to criticize my manager, I do it in private; just the two of us behind a closed door. I was once in a department, where one guy always tried to pick a fight with the manager in department meetings, and get others to join in an insurrection. Of course, the manager had no choice, but to assert his authority. So the guy never got any of his suggestions approved, even though they were valid. I, on the other hand, would talk to the manager in private, and he was always willing to listen.

Now, I once had a manager didn't want to take a few minutes to listen. So I voted with my feet, and moved to a different department.

Re:I only criticize my manager in private

[realityimpaired]

Sounds like you had a good manager. And a very stupid coworker.

Unfortunately, not all managers are like that. My last manager (not my current one, but the guy before him, in the same company) was outright confrontational, and if you went to him in private he would simply ignore your concerns... he'd smile and nod, and say he'd get right on it, and then nothing would happen. Twice, I went to his manager and requested a transfer out of the department only to have those requests ignored, and it wasn't actually until a new project came along which I was lucky enough to be hired for that I was able to get away from that manager (and he fought it tooth and nail, HR actually had to process it as a release and re-hire for me to get away from him)... had that opportunity not come along when it did, I very likely would have quit by now. He's still working for the company, and I can say, in no uncertain terms, that he was the single worst manager I have ever had in my life, and that includes 4 years in the military. (my current manager, on the other hand, is one of the best, and I really enjoy what I do now... it's amazing the difference in productivity and job satisfaction that comes from having a good manager)

You're right, saying bad things in an identifyable way on a public forum is bad form, but I can empathize with people who do it: sometimes people just need to vent, because they are denied what should be a proper channel to air that kind of grievance. If you're saddled with a manager who ignores your concerns, and an upper management who's oblivious when you go around your manager (or worse, bureaucrats who ignore your concern because it didn't come through your manager), then your choices are to bitch about it somewhere, or to quit.

Re:I only criticize my manager in private

[KingAlanI]

Yes, I am glad I have a good supervisor; even though problems haven't developed (I do my part to keep from developing them)

Yes, sometimes it's better to take care of organizational problems internally - if it's truly fixable and fixed; I agree with you on waiting before the need to escalate to external.

Re:What are we allowed to say in "Work at Will" St

[Tim C]

I thought Freedom of Speech only applied to the government's control

The text of the First Amendment:

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.

Seems pretty clear; it only covers laws made by Congress (not even by the States as I read it, but IANAL) not the actions and policies of companies or individuals.

Even I knew the "Congress shall make no law" part at the start and I'm not even a Yank.

Be Careful

[Anonymous Coward]

It's also smart to be careful about overemphasizing the importance of this matter. First, even if it has precedential value, you better be sure your employment situation and your criticism falls within the jurisdiction of the NLRB. Second, it is a settlement, not a court ruling. If your boss decides to fight the NLRB a court could reach a different conclusion.

Re:What are we allowed to say in "Work at Will" St

[JumperCable]

unless you can irrefutably prove that you were fired because you are black/gay/tea party supporter/etc there is nothing you can do about it.

I didn't think that political stance was a protected class in most "Work at Will" states. As far as I knew, the only thing stopping employers from firing people based on political party was the horrible publicity that might swing back at them.

Re:What are we allowed to say in "Work at Will" St

[JumperCable]

It's great that complaining about work related issues is protected. But, for example, if I want to bash (without liable or slander) my employer's favorite anti-gay-marriage organization on my face book account (or myspace, or blog), it is disconcerting to know that my employer would be free to give me the axe over that.

Am I correct that such speech is not protected in "Work at Will" states?

Re:What are we allowed to say in "Work at Will" St

[JumperCable]

Yes. I knew that too. I was just wondering if I had any protections from adverse actions of my employer if he doesn't like my federally protected free speech. Being free from govermental oppression due to speech is great. But there is still the unaddressed tier where rich business owners can silence you.

Another fine example where Unions are needed

[ub3r n3u7r4l1st]

Service industries (IT, Travel, Banking, Health Care etc.) always subject to abusive working conditions. Unionization will INCREASE productivity on these sectors.

We need the power and courage to say "No" to your boss and still get paid. It is human rights. Those who screen out people by stalking their facebook account and denied them employment does not worth to be my boss. Period.

I once mentioned my above view point to a "kid" and he told me to "grow up". Guess what, he is now in jail for mail fraud. That tells you the "ethical standard" of people who disagrees the above viewpoint haha.

Re:Another fine example where Unions are needed

[Americano]

Service industries (IT, Travel, Banking, Health Care, etc.) always subject to abusive working conditions.

Yeah, sitting on my fat ass all day sipping free Starbucks coffee while writing code, browsing the web, and joking back and forth with my co-workers over the cubicle walls, all while interacting with my boss for maybe 3 hours a week in meetings makes me feel so abused. I think we should unionize and make our cushy job conditions more adversarial. While we're at it, let's negotiate a union wage scale so that I can be paid exactly the same as the shitheel down the hall on the sysadmin team, who spends more time outside each day on smoke breaks than he does inside actually getting work done. You'd think with all that, he'd at least notice the signs which ask smokers to stand at least 20 feet away from the door, in the little covered smoker's area that my employer set up specifically for the comfort of the smokers, but no... he's too busy walking back and forth from his breaks to move away from the doors.

Go work a construction job, or a factory job, and then come back and tell us about how abusive the typical IT worker's working conditions are. I guess when all you've known is "pretty good," "pretty good" starts looking average, huh?

way to not make a point

[Shivetya]

Gross exaggeration and strawman do not support one's point of view. I am quite sure I can come up with all sorts of STUPID actions that no one in their right mind would fire or otherwise discipline an employee over. So instead why not discuss why you believe he should not have right to decide who he employs or keeps employed?

If he gives no reason other than its not working out can the former employee sue over for any reason they can come up with? What if they are a minority? I am sure they could suggest something. So what if they are fired for their online behavior.

Look, if you don't like working for me then leave. Why should I put up with you bad mouthing me in any forum that I have access too? If I can't fire you do I still have to give you a raise? Let you work full time?

WHOSE JOB IS IT ANYWAY?

So in your world the only recourse for the private business is to close down when faced with bad employees? Got my bale here.

Re:way to not make a point

[suomynonAyletamitlU]

Gross exaggeration and strawman do not support one's point of view.

No, really.

Sexual harassment, blackmail, and rape are all forms of abuse propagated because of a person believes in and/or creates one-way power relationships. They may be the most serious of such abuse, but they are not the only kinds. Bosses who are petty, backbiting, and in other ways torturous simply because they can get away with it are doing the same thing, even if it's not on the same scale.

"I should be able to fire them, for whatever reason I choose" means different things for a halfway decent person as it does for a one-way power tripper. A normal human being sees it as, "If they've done something wrong or they're not helping my business, I shouldn't be hindered in removing them." A criminal mind says, "If I fire someone, nobody has any right to ask why." They do have the right to ask why, especially if there are allegations of abuse. What the NLRB is (or should be, not having RTFA) saying is, "You cannot blackmail your employees into silence, or we'll look into the situation to make sure you aren't doing something illegal or abusive" or more realistically, "you cannot force them into silence one way or another, you'll just have to continue your abusiveness aboveboard."

Re:way to not make a point

[Shotgun]

"one-way power relationships"?

You do know that you have the right to seek employment at another place of business, or to even create your own business? Heavens to Betsy, no. You prefer to bleat the sheep's mantra. You're an employee, not a slave.

Re:way to not make a point

[suomynonAyletamitlU]

"one-way power relationships"?

You do know that you have the right to seek employment at another place of business, or to even create your own business?

You also have the right to date, get married to and in most cases divorced from, anyone you please. That fact has not prevented spousal abuse.

A one way power relationship is not only created from a physical limitation. Psychological abuse and control are absolutely terrifying things.

Goes both ways...

[Drethon]

If an employer cannot fire you just because they want to then conversely it would seem you would not be able to leave a job just because you want to. Freedom doesn't work too well when it isn't bidirectional...

Re:Goes both ways...

[Anonymous Coward]

You are assuming both the employer and employee to be of equal status. But the employer holds the advantage in any transaction, especially because of the lack of any effective safety net for the unemployed in the USA. So an employee leaving the job for no reason impacts the employer far less than the employer firing the employee for no reason impacts the employee.

Re:Goes both ways...

[Shotgun]

Just because it has become the fashion in this country to mortgage oneself to the grave with huge McMansions and car loans, does not mean there is no safety net. If you are fired without cause, there is unemployment insurance in nearly every state of this Union. Even better, you still have your skills. If they were worthless, why were you getting a salary to start with.

The way it should have been done

[Dcnjoe60]

Of course that's crazy. The more reasonable solution, obviously, is to happily give your attorney your money in order to sue the guy for defamation. However, this only works if what the guy says is demonstrably false, so if you really are a moron* and what the guy says about your wife and your sex life really is true, you're SOL.

Disclaimer: IANAL.

* Wait, if he thinks you're a moron, you may still be SOL, no matter how non-moron you are. He can believe whatever he wants. It's if he starts spreading these lies as facts that you should start giving your attorney your money.

Other option, and what most businesses would do, is to look over the employee handbook and/or job description and write the employee up for any violation found. Then you have grounds for dismissal. Not at your desk at 8:00am -- you're tardy. Happens three times -- perpetual tardiness. Did you turn in leave slips for those times you were tardy? No, another violation. You're allowed one 15 minute break per 4 hours worked. Did you leave your desk more than once for non-work purpose (ie bathroom)? There you go, another infraction.

That way, you aren't firing them for what they posted, but for specific actions that are against policy.

Re:The way it should have been done

[stewbacca]

You're allowed one 15 minute break per 4 hours worked.

Not in all States. Yes, we're dickish like that in Texas.

Re:The way it should have been done

[Dcnjoe60]

Do you offer more breaks in Texas? I thought that was a federal law.

Re:The way it should have been done

[shentino]

And the lovely part of it is that other workers who are breaking the rules even more flagrantly are given a blind eye if they're not pissing off the management.

Selective enforcement is quite fun. Even more fortunate is that once your ex employee is thrown out of the office he loses access to the evidence he needs to prove any wrongdoing on your part.

Re:The way it should have been done

[Dcnjoe60]

And the lovely part of it is that other workers who are breaking the rules even more flagrantly are given a blind eye if they're not pissing off the management.

Selective enforcement is quite fun. Even more fortunate is that once your ex employee is thrown out of the office he loses access to the evidence he needs to prove any wrongdoing on your part.

That's why the notion of having some protection is ludicrous. There isn't such a thing as an employee who hasn't violated some rule -- every take a pen home, even accidently? Well, you've stolen company property. Every employee (at least non-union), in one way or another, serves at the discretion of management. Even whistleblowers, only have the appearance of protection under the law.

There are some companies that view their employees as a resource instead of a commodity, but they are few and far between.

Re:The way it should have been done

[xero314]

No, another violation. You're allowed one 15 minute break per 4 hours worked. Did you leave your desk more than once for non-work purpose (ie bathroom)?

I agree with most of what you have to say, but you have to be very careful as well. Just because you document a reason does not mean it is automatically valid. The employee can easily file FMLA claiming any number of issues, to account for the tardiness, and yes this can be done after the fact. And most states protect a person taking a break for health reasons, this includes having to use the restroom.

A great policy where I work

[CodePwned]

Our company only cares if you use it's name and then only if you pretend to speak as a representative of it on matters. That's how it should be.

Inproper summery?

[gravis777]

I know that it is the first two paragraphs from the Yahoo story as well, but if you read into it, it sounds like this was a settlement outside of court. As such, that wouldn't be a court precidence.

Conflicted

[Jason Levine]

On one hand, I wouldn't want my employer dictating what I can and can't say on Twitter or Facebook. (Well, provided that said speech doesn't violate laws like HIPAA or something. Saying "X was just here at Hospital Y for Procedure Z" is grounds for termination.) On the other hand, I wouldn't say anything on a public site like that that I wouldn't want my boss reading. He knows that I tweet, but I'm pretty sure he doesn't read it regularly. Still, I wouldn't be blasting him or complain about my job in my public Twitter feed just because I was angry. I might go home and complain about him to my wife, but the complaints wouldn't be public. (Granted, I really have little to gripe about. Overall, I love my job.)

Here is an idea

[Evtim]

I know how to fix the problem of employer-employee relation and as a bonus the majority of the problems of civilization will be dealt with too.

Here it is: The active, working population on Earth is N and remains N (slight fluctuations of course). The available jobs are always N+1. End of troubles. Forever.

There can never be fair exchange and fair deal if the supply of people is greater than the demand. In strict economic sense the human life and effort are the cheapest commodity on the planet. A racing horse costs more than a man. A tiger does (there are few hundred of them left in the wild). The list is endless....
Are we surprised that things go wrong? Take a historical example - the lives of peasants during the Middle ages in Europe. Their situation drastically improved after the Plague. There were simply not enough left to work the land. So Feudal masters suddenly became more peasant-friendly.

The bonus: Flat population with ever increasing knowledge and ever advanced technology means ever more possibilities per person. Until we arrive at the real communism (as opposed to the fake thing attempted in the 20th century) - air, water, food, shelter, education and health care are available to everyone, basically for free. I know that I lost any possible mod points by mentioning communism (and even more for suggesting that scarcity is not fundamental "law" of the Universe), but I urge you to meditate on this - limited (but sufficient) population in practically unlimited Universe. The absolute affluent society. Sustainable and rich - not the bloody Ponzi scheme we have now. The security in numbers is achieved. Now we need to stop being stupid animals and become truly human...

Re:Here is an idea

[HornWumpus]

There will generally be a shortage of well trained 'good' employees.

There will never be a shortage of uneducated or mis-educated morons (for example people who still think Carl Marx was insightful).

Most people figure this out early in life and work hard in school so they can be part of the first group.

I have some sympathy for the second group. Not enough to encourage young people to follow that path through subsidy though. Like the demotivator says 'The purpose of some people lives is to serve as a bad example for others.' Pay (most, make them pay too so they make an effort) to send them back to school, if they flunk again, back to ditch digging/back ally cock sucking.

Your example ignores skill level, training etc.

Re:Here is an idea

[Anonymous Coward]

Great idea! ...but I wonder what happens when someone can't work one of those jobs? Do they get eliminated from the allowed population? Or what do you do when someone fails miserably at their allotted job?

Re:Here is an idea

[DNS-and-BIND]

Until we arrive at the real national socialism (as opposed to the fake thing attempted in the 20th century) - air, water, food, shelter, education and health care are available to everyone, basically for free. I know that I lost any possible mod points by mentioning Nazism (and even more for suggesting that scarcity is not fundamental "law" of the Universe), but I urge you to meditate on this - limited (but sufficient) population in practically unlimited Universe. Because after all, the national socialists realized that the world was overpopulated and actually DID something towards that goal, unlike all the talkers out there.

Re:Here is an idea

[Anonymous Coward]

There are more then a few glaring problems to your proposition:
#1 if no one was needed for a job, the job would not exist in the first place; what happens when job N+1 is the guy who monitors power for a given neighborhood, or provides ER medical attention during a disaster, or prepares food that is required for people to not starve?

#2- Buisness innovation will stagnate; no one will open a storefront if there is no one to till it, there will be waiting lists for research projects due to shortage of interns, or even worse research projects will only peruse 'sexy' concepts due to the ability to lure away interns from other projects.

#3- automation: how will your system of fixed population work when someone builds an expert system in a robot body that can do 60% of the work that humans currently do, tended only by 1 person for every thousand machines (this has happened multiple times before and is likely to keep happening until the only thing humans do better then machines is, program machines, watch over them, and research [expert system have made great strides in producing human entertainment recently so I don't think even categories like art, movie, or music are safe]); suppress the technology, cull population; both are pretty scary presidents even if cull population just means 'reduce birth rate to allocate for future loss as technology is implemented'.

Re:Here is an idea

[Anonymous Coward]

Or another way to look at it, the number of jobs should be N, and the population should be N-1. Sure, we may have to get rid of some people, but that does coincide more with the example of the Plague.

Re:Here is an idea

[Evtim]

Look, it is no good to reason about this idea within the paradigm in which we live. I see that most replies fall into this category. My idea is based on simple logic and reality. I do not address the really big problem - the paradigm shift that our civilization desperately needs. I have no idea how to bring about such shift, nor I know what the new paradigm will look like. How could I? But what we know, I think, is this:

1. Our Ponzi scheme is unsustainable and ultimately will bring our destruction.
2. Unlimited growth in finite system is doom to end with cannibalism
3. The effectiveness of using natural resources is dismally low in our civilization. We are not sophisticated at all.
4. Our system is incredibly short-sighted and happily destroys immensely valuable, sustainable wealth for temporarily profit.

Have you asked yourself why science is under attack recently? It is not only the "religion strikes back" phenomenon. For the first time in the history of mankind science (en masse) turns towards society and says "we are doing it wrong and we will suffer the consequences". To my great disappointment nobody wants to hear this message, much less act on it. But I cannot brush it aside for it is reality. And facts are the most stubborn thing in the Universe.

So with my feeble mind and limited life experience I am trying to think of a solution. Much more important - I try to make people see this down-to-earth point of view and act on it. I don't want people to accept solution that I like or think is correct. I just want them to realize the truth about the condition of man and his position in the Universe.

Stephen Hawking does not agree with me, for instance. Remember, he advocated cancellation of our attempts to send signals to aliens because they will come and take the Earth from us. I find this idea incredibly stupid (due respect to Stephen for his brilliance otherwise). What can you find on Earth as resources that is not present in humongous quantities on some lifeless rock in space? What would Earth give the aliens that they already do not posses? Habitable planets? First: do they have a metabolism suitable for Earth? Second: Anyone who found a way to cross the interstellar distances faster than light surely can terraform almost any planet they like. One day, if we survive, Mars and Venus will be made habitable. Third: You know the math (and surely the aliens know it too) - give instantaneous travel to all habitable planets in the Universe to humanity and in 3000 years we will fill them. What next? The good old "kill thy neighbor, take his wife and livestock"? What if the aliens are really out there and some of them passed by Earth, say 100 million years ago and they had the mentality we have now?

"Hey Joe, there are only animals down here, some bloody dinosaurs (not even cute blue-skinned primitive peoples). Let's get that planet!"

Again, do not try to reason my idea from present day economics point of view. Of course it is not possible. I am talking about the time when the motivation of humans will be different.

Re:What are we allowed to say in "Work at Will" St

[HornWumpus]

They can't silence you.

They can fire you. You can get another job. They can get another employee.

Think BEFORE You Speak!

[Anonymous Coward]

There will never be a shortage of uneducated or mis-educated morons (for example people who still think Carl Marx was insightful).

If you're going to criticize someone's philosophy or economic theories, please kindly know enough about them to at least spell their founder's name correctly!

I was actually in agreement with your points (educated workers more valuable than ignoramuses) if not your wording (which bordered on being trolling flamebait) but not knowing how to correctly spell the name of the man whose theories you criticize makes me cast all your points in doubt, because it causes me to wonder if you even know what you're talking about!

Maybe you should go back to school and be re-educated yourself?

--bornagainpenguin (posting anonymously to avoid undoing moderations in this thread)

Duh.

[DarthVain]

Facebook regardless. Criticize you boss/company publicly and often enough, and believe me they will find a way to legitimately fire you.

OK, I read the article

[cdrguru]

This concerns a non-union employer firing an employee for making disparaging comments about (evidently) both her boss personally and her employer. The problem the NLRB had was with a policy that the employer had which appeared to prohibit communication between workers about wages, hours and working conditions which are protected by various union organizing regulations.

I have a huge problem with this for many reasons. First off, it sounds like it is clearly a step towards a very protected work environment where an employer can no longer fire people without cause. That is very, very troubling because what it leads to is complete stagnation. If I can't hire someone and a year later terminate them for whatever reason (or no reason), I'm not going to hire them in the first place without extraordinary reasons for doing so. So just add one to the ranks of the permanently unemployed. This is exactly the situation in most EU countries because of policies like this. And why they aren't troubled by 15-20% unemployement for the last 20 years or so.

Another problem is that if I find a employee is making public statements critical of me or my company they need to be gone. I don't need unhappy employees that are there because they need the paycheck. They aren't going to be doing their best work and their attitude will affect relations with customers. Now this NLRB ruling appears to say that we can't have a policy that says you can't make comments about the company publiclly? This sounds like trouble because it means that such policies need to be reviewed by labor lawyers.

Re:OK, I read the article

[Anonymous Cowpat]

First off, it sounds like it is clearly a step towards a very protected work environment where an employer can no longer fire people without cause.

What almost everyone except you calls 'a good idea'. Also, employers merely being unable to fire people without cause is not very protected, it's the slightest bare minimum of protection.

That is very, very troubling because what it leads to is complete stagnation. If I can't hire someone and a year later terminate them for whatever reason (or no reason), I'm not going to hire them in the first place without extraordinary reasons for doing so

An extraordinary good reason like fundamental expansion of your business which calls for more employees? What you propose is rapid bubbles, followed by unrestrainable busts. You want to be able to take a bunch of people on today, get some short term benefit out of having them now, and then just get rid of them in 12 months time when it's no longer advantageous to you to have them around. This means that the expansion in your business over the last 12 months was essentially fake, and you've made no real expansion at all. It is you who has stagnated.

Another problem is that if I find a employee is making public statements critical of me or my company they need to be gone. I don't need unhappy employees that are there because they need the paycheck. They aren't going to be doing their best work and their attitude will affect relations with customers.

So you propose getting rid of everyone but yourself? Employers who expect genuine enthusiasm from their employees are deluding themselves. They also cleverly take out all the 'overqualified' employees who are obviously not going to be enthusiastic about getting just above minimum wage for their masters-level qualifiactions. Hows that for chalking extra people onto the ranks fo the permanently unemployed?

Now this NLRB ruling appears to say that we can't have a policy that says you can't make comments about the company publiclly? This sounds like trouble because it means that such policies need to be reviewed by labor lawyers.

1) You don't have policies that you expect to be able to rely upon in court checked by a lawyer before you publish them?
2) Why do you need a lawyer to review the text of a policy which you're abolishing?

True, but

[KingAlanI]

True, not at the federal level; but some state/local laws do account for it

I'm all for worker's rights, but...

[Radical Moderate]

the notion that you have the right to cuss out your boss via Facebook does not sit well with me. Posting on facebook is not the same as griping amongst your coworkers, it's more like putting up a billboard. Would anyone expect not to be fired if they posted placards all over town describing what a jerk their boss was? According to TFA, she posted an expletive-filled rant that included personal attacks on her supervisor. I'd like to see the supervisor sue her for libel and recover all booty she gets from the company.

no public health care

[Anonymous Coward]

The same reason we will NEVER see public health care in America. It would draw millions of people out of the workforce immediately and render the remaining workers free to move about without losing coverage. Millions of women work only to secure health care benefits. I think most of them would "opt out" of the crappy environments they put up with now to enjoy time with their families if they had guaranteed public health care. Then again, the funds used to pay for that public option would dry up in that scenario.

Re:What are we allowed to say in "Work at Will" St

[Shotgun]

Your boss, if he has a clue, will call you into her office one day and say, "Your services are no longer needed.", hand you your final check, and escort or have you escorted from the premises.

There is no requirement to state why you are being let go. His punishment will be that his unemployment insurance rates go up (and they go up fast!).

Re:What are we allowed to say in "Work at Will" St

[Shotgun]

You're not asking for freedom of speech. You're asking for freedom from consequences. They are not the same.

fire or be fired for NO reason!

[mrnick]

I cannot speak for other states but in Texas you can fire and be fired for "NO reason". In fact anyone who fires someone for any reason other than "NO reason" is just asking for trouble. If the fired employee can prove that it was actually for a reason protected under law then they still have a case but telling them what the specific reason was is just asking for it.

"I'm sorry we are going to have to let you go." "Why?" "No reason, we just won't be using your services anymore." - is perfectly reasonable and requires no further explanation.

You might find yourself wondering "Did Company X fire me for saying I liked brand Y more on Facebook?" but unless you can prove it then good luck...

Actually, you are 180 degrees wrong

[unassimilatible]

Freedom of association is protected, since, you know, it is listed in the First Amendment. In fact, it has been used by civil rights groups. The NAACP used it to protect anonymous speech to prevent retaliation in NAACP v Alabama. Read that case next time you think Microsoft shouldn't be able to exercise anonymous speech. You see, not only people or organizations you agree with get rights. Even the Klan has this right.

And private clubs still can be all male, just as colleges can be all female. You really think the government should tell people who they should associate with in private clubs? How about churches? Where does it end? Who you have to date?

This case is NOT about freedom

[unassimilatible]

The First Amendment only protects speakers from GOVERNMENT overreach. The NLRB has encroached the freedom of employers to exercise the at will employment doctrine. This is a terrible decision. Again, you're for the little guy, since you are likely an employee, not an employer.

Small government for you, big government for people or organizations you don't like. Typical Slashdotter.

Re:This case is NOT about freedom

[JasterBobaMereel]

I like medium size government, for everyone ....

I want a government that gives me and everyone else sensible rights and responsibilities and then enforces them

I don't want a government that protects employers but not employees (or vice versa), I don't want a government that protects free speech but only for some people ....

Who cares?

[Anonymous Coward]

Employers should be able to hire or fire anyone they want, for any reason they want, on any terms that are contractually agreed to. I don't care if they fire her over facebook, because she was Jewish, because she was ugly, etc. It's their God damn money and their right to do with it as they please.

free to post on facebook ANYTIME about ANYTHING

[marinegrandma7]

I understand their are instances where confidentiality are priority when working as health care providers. Keeping your residents/patients names, whatever off facebook without consent, no problem. But if I want to air my grievances about working conditions, or unfair treatment, I think it's my right and my freedom to do so. I don't think my boss should be able to tell me what I can post or not post. I think it's an invasion of my privacy for them to want to be my friend on facebook, but other than that it's all business. As long as people have respect for others, and you don't cross the line by defamation of character, we should be able to get on facebook and post -if we absolutely can't tolerate another day in this madness, without fear of retribution. I have been told on more than one occasion to remove things from facebook, & there was absolutely no threat of consequence....it was just to protect them from a possible infraction with the State if they ever get caught allowing certain things to continue. Corrupt & all about money.....for myself, I am an American, and I exercise my right to freedom of speech. Sorry boss, that's life. Fire me at will, but don't come to me in the Name of Jesus, and show me the face of the devil. I am not stupid.