Feds Settle Case of Woman Fired Over Facebook Posts

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Feds Settle Case of Woman Fired Over Facebook Posts

Posted by Roblimo on Tuesday February 8, 2011 @04:30PM from the keep-your-yap-shut-about-keeping-your-employees'-yaps-shut dept.

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."

63 of 316 comments (clear)

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

Ruling doesn't affect Internet blocking by ThreePhones · 2011-02-08 16:38 · Score: 2, Interesting

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.
1. Re:Ruling doesn't affect Internet blocking by schnikies79 · 2011-02-08 16:41 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  Nor should it. A company should be able to block, or not block, anything they want on company property.
  
  --
  Gone!
2. Re:Ruling doesn't affect Internet blocking by iammani · 2011-02-08 16:50 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  Agreed! But they should not be able fire people for criticizing their bosses or their employer.
3. Re:Ruling doesn't affect Internet blocking by TWX · 2011-02-08 16:55 · Score: 2
  
  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.
  
  --
  Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
4. Re:Ruling doesn't affect Internet blocking by MightyMartian · 2011-02-08 16:56 · Score: 2
  
  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)
  
  --
  The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
5. Re:Ruling doesn't affect Internet blocking by mc6809e · 2011-02-08 17:24 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  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.
6. Re:Ruling doesn't affect Internet blocking by NiceGeek · 2011-02-08 17:31 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  Welcome to freedom of speech, don't want someone to call you a moron? Don't act like one.
7. Re:Ruling doesn't affect Internet blocking by _KiTA_ · 2011-02-08 17:32 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  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.
8. Re:Ruling doesn't affect Internet blocking by jeff4747 · 2011-02-08 17:35 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  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.
9. Re:Ruling doesn't affect Internet blocking by DarwinSurvivor · 2011-02-08 18:06 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  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.
10. Re:Ruling doesn't affect Internet blocking by RightSaidFred99 · 2011-02-08 18:17 · Score: 2, Informative
  
  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.
11. Re:Ruling doesn't affect Internet blocking by RightSaidFred99 · 2011-02-08 18:18 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  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.
12. Re:Ruling doesn't affect Internet blocking by darth+dickinson · 2011-02-08 18:30 · Score: 2, Informative
  
  Freedom of speech also implies dealing with the consequences of said free speech.
13. Re:Ruling doesn't affect Internet blocking by mikael_j · 2011-02-08 19:13 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  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.
  
  --
  Greylisting is to SMTP as NAT is to IPv4
14. Re:Ruling doesn't affect Internet blocking by 91degrees · 2011-02-08 19:42 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  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.
15. Re:Ruling doesn't affect Internet blocking by Xaositecte · 2011-02-08 19:42 · Score: 2
  
  Continuing to employ someone who calls you a moron is moronic.
16. Re:Ruling doesn't affect Internet blocking by Xaositecte · 2011-02-08 19:48 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  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.
17. Re:Ruling doesn't affect Internet blocking by 91degrees · 2011-02-08 20:17 · Score: 2
  
  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?
18. Re:Ruling doesn't affect Internet blocking by RyuuzakiTetsuya · 2011-02-08 20:32 · Score: 4, Funny
  
  If your boss being an asshole is a trade secret, that's a big red flag.
  
  --
  Non impediti ratione cogitationus.
19. Re:Ruling doesn't affect Internet blocking by Opportunist · 2011-02-08 20:59 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  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.
  
  --
  We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
20. Re:Ruling doesn't affect Internet blocking by sumdumass · 2011-02-08 23:31 · Score: 2
  
  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.
21. Re:Ruling doesn't affect Internet blocking by 91degrees · 2011-02-09 00:00 · Score: 2
  
  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.
22. Re:Ruling doesn't affect Internet blocking by Dcnjoe60 · 2011-02-09 00:45 · Score: 2
  
  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.
23. Re:Ruling doesn't affect Internet blocking by xelah · 2011-02-09 01:09 · Score: 2
  
  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.
24. Re:Ruling doesn't affect Internet blocking by bwintx · 2011-02-09 01:51 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  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.
  
  --
  Discussion System prefs link: http://slashdot.org/users.pl?op=editcomm
25. Re:Ruling doesn't affect Internet blocking by TWX · 2011-02-09 02:45 · Score: 2
  
  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.
  
  --
  Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
26. Re:Ruling doesn't affect Internet blocking by overlordofmu · 2011-02-09 03:28 · Score: 2
  
  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.
27. Re:Ruling doesn't affect Internet blocking by stewbacca · 2011-02-09 03:37 · Score: 2
  
  Criticizing your boss is protected speech. Hitting on your employees is not. Yes, it really is that simple.
28. Re:Ruling doesn't affect Internet blocking by shentino · 2011-02-09 03:39 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  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.
29. Re:Ruling doesn't affect Internet blocking by xelah · 2011-02-09 03:44 · Score: 2
  
  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.
Well in that case... by mfh · 2011-02-08 16:44 · Score: 5, Insightful

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.

--
The dangers of knowledge trigger emotional distress in human beings.
1. Re:Well in that case... by TWX · 2011-02-08 16:59 · Score: 2
  
  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.
  
  --
  Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
2. Re:Well in that case... by Anonymous Coward · 2011-02-08 17:18 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  I came when I saw your userid.
3. Re:Well in that case... by Libertarian001 · 2011-02-08 18:29 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  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.
4. Re:Well in that case... by IAN · 2011-02-08 20:24 · Score: 4, Funny
  
  I came when I saw your userid.
  Multiple orgasms ahoy.
5. Re:Well in that case... by Opportunist · 2011-02-08 21:08 · Score: 2
  
  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.
  
  --
  We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
6. Re:Well in that case... by Ed+Peepers · 2011-02-09 00:14 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  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... :)
7. Re:Well in that case... by Delarth799 · 2011-02-09 00:17 · Score: 2
  
  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.
8. Re:Well in that case... by w_dragon · 2011-02-09 01:16 · Score: 2
  
  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.
9. Re:Well in that case... by shentino · 2011-02-09 04:06 · Score: 2
  
  Employment contracts are a lot like EULAs. Forced on the weaker party by a stronger party with all the bargaining chips.
10. Re:Well in that case... by stewbacca · 2011-02-09 04:10 · Score: 2
  
  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.
Correct rulling by delirium+of+disorder · 2011-02-08 16:52 · Score: 4, Insightful

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.

--
------ Take away the right to say fuck and you take away the right to say fuck the government.
1. Re:Correct rulling by Lord_of_the_nerf · 2011-02-08 17:51 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  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.
If I'm the one compensating them... by Just+Another+Poster · 2011-02-08 16:59 · Score: 3, Interesting

...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.
1. Re:If I'm the one compensating them... by the_womble · 2011-02-08 17:17 · Score: 2
  
  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.
2. Re:If I'm the one compensating them... by sjames · 2011-02-08 17:20 · Score: 2
  
  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.
3. Re:If I'm the one compensating them... by crafty.munchkin · 2011-02-08 17:25 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  following your line of thinking... so if the really hot secretary you hired won't blow you, you can fire her?
  
  --
  ... wait, what?
4. Re:If I'm the one compensating them... by JumperCable · 2011-02-08 18:21 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  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.
5. Re:If I'm the one compensating them... by Required+Snark · 2011-02-08 20:16 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  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.
  
  --
  Why is Snark Required?
6. Re:If I'm the one compensating them... by roman_mir · 2011-02-08 23:14 · Score: 2
  
  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.)
  
  --
  You can't handle the truth.
7. Re:If I'm the one compensating them... by Just+Another+Poster · 2011-02-09 05:15 · Score: 2
  
  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:Pretty Obvious. by Mr+Z · 2011-02-08 17:01 · Score: 2

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

--
Program Intellivision!
Goes both ways? by Weirsbaski · 2011-02-08 17:09 · Score: 2

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.

--

I am not a sig.
1. Re:Goes both ways? by Wyatt+Earp · 2011-02-08 17:16 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  Of course they do. The problem was they always had that freedom while the underlings didn't.
2. Re:Goes both ways? by timeOday · 2011-02-08 17:58 · Score: 3, Funny
  
  That's right. Due to this oppressive legal ruling, you can no longer fire your boss for sharing their negative opinion of you online.
Beer companies will fire you by rsilvergun · 2011-02-08 17:29 · Score: 3, Interesting

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.

--
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
1. Re:Beer companies will fire you by prichardson · 2011-02-08 20:30 · Score: 4, Funny
  
  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.
  
  --
  Help I'm a rock.
2. Re:Beer companies will fire you by drinkypoo · 2011-02-09 00:39 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  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.
  
  --
  "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
3. Re:Beer companies will fire you by rsilvergun · 2011-02-09 02:21 · Score: 2
  
  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.
  
  --
  Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
Re:What are we allowed to say in "Work at Will" St by nedlohs · 2011-02-08 19:00 · Score: 2

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 by mr100percent · 2011-02-08 19:09 · Score: 3, Funny

Behold, Lamebook captured it all so well in one post
Here is an idea by Evtim · 2011-02-09 02:57 · Score: 2

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:way to not make a point by suomynonAyletamitlU · 2011-02-09 03:54 · Score: 2

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."