Slashdot Mirror
US Labor Board: It's OK To Discuss Work and Pay with Coworkers On Social Sites
itwbennett writes "Your employer won't like it, but they can't stop you from discussing working conditions and compensation with your coworkers on social media. In his most recent social media memo, National Labor Relations Board General Counsel Lafe Solomon said that in 6 of the 7 employers' social media policies he reviewed, he found violations of Section 7 of the National Labor Relations Act, which allows employees to join labor unions and to discuss working conditions with each other."
no kidding? who'da thunk?
why is this an issue to begin with?
If the employees learn that we're skewing the pay-scale, they might somehow demand equitable treatment.
This will ruin our ability to manipulate them into dividing against themselves!
--Signed, the Corporate Oligarchy.
PS: Maybe if put larger cookies on smaller plates in the breakroom, we'll get them thinking about their diets.
But still, some things are a matter of good taste. Sure, you can do it on your own time, but I know I wouldn't want to know what my co-workers make. Not that I think I'm under paid or anything, but it's information that simply doesn't affect me. How is discussing it with anyone going to help me?
This signature intentionally left blank.
So glad to have your permission to exercise my right to free speech on a social network NOT owned/controlled by my employer
Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not entirely sure about the universe - Einstein
The employer can not include in their policy:
"Don't release confidential guest, team member, or company information on social media...."
"Offensive, demeaning, abusive, or inappropriate remarks are as out of place online as they are offline."
"Think carefully about friending coworkers online."
"Employees should report any unusual or inappropriate internet social media activity."
And on and on.
My AC stalker: " I personally agree with your posts most of the time, but that won't keep me from modding you troll"
If you are ever in a position to negotiate a raise for yourself then it will be useful.
Such as if you are interviewing for a new job.
Or during performance evaluations.
One of the messages of the latest NLRB memo is to avoid ambiguous language in social media policies and spell out situations to avoid, said Mayer Brown's Goodman...The NLRB seems to be on a "journey" to address social media in the workplace, Goodman said. The three memos, which don't lay out specific rules, may be confusing to many companies, she added.
NLRB kinda sorta said what companies might should do; e.g. Don't be ambiguous. but they didn't exactly say how. Good work guys.
Barring employees from disclosing their pay to anyone is illegal in many states (Michigan I am sure of).
I mean, it's my understanding that an employer can terminate an employee for almost any reason imaginable, or no reason at all... and if none is given, wouldn't the onus fall on the employee to prove that the actual reason was one that is illegal?
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
by most of the comments that attempts to dumb down the American worker are working.
Divided we stand = not.
This message brought to you by the not 1%.
But if they find out they can make your work life rough on you.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
Are people showing tax forms and paychecks to each other? If not, how can anybody tell if modesty or bragging happens? There are lots of reasons to lie. Got a co-worker you hate? You could get him negotiating, quitting, or even starting a lawsuit based on bad info.
Who was there to see this, hmm?
Hands in the air... come on. Anyone? Anyone?
No? Hmmm... then I suppose it's really just speculation... a best guess based entirely on how we interpret the data that we have available.
They say those who don't learn from history will repeat it, but we're talking about *PRE* history here... I don't think there's much chance of that. So, what difference does it make?
I mean, if you wanna get people riled up. Don't make fun of their religion. Don't make fun of their kids. Don't rape their mother. No, we can deal with these things. But talk about his/her money? Shit!
A corporation exists to make money, specifically profit. It wants to control all things that impact that result. Controlling information about employees, from employees, gives them an edge in the making of profit. Some of the thing a corporation might want to do, or assumes it can do to or with employees, is in fact illegal and they can't actually do those things. However, most large corporations also know that they can induce their employees to tow their corporate line with sanctions that while are perhaps illegal, would be either difficult to prosecute, or nearly impossible to prove. This leaves most employees in the situation that they can either put up with the "problem" or they can seek legal remedy, knowing full well they may lose, or simply be waited out until their funds run out.
This isn't to say that people haven't won substantial settlements from large corporations, it is to say pick your battles carefully, you have a lot at stake and the deck has been stacked against you.
Why is it that people are always sure their misfortune is someone else's fault?
Is roman_mir that idiot who talks about HOSTS FILES? It's so stupid. HOSTS FILES ARE NOT BETTER THAN AN AD BLOCKER AND ARE A WASTE OF TIME. Only a stupid cunt would use a HOSTS FILE.
The restrictions companies wanted actually seem reasonable. I quote
"A policy prohibiting employees from releasing "confidential guest, team member and company information" on social media was overly broad because it could be interpreted to mean that employees can't discuss the employment conditions of coworkers, he wrote. A prohibition on discussing confidential information in public was illegal for the same reason, he wrote."
It actually seems pretty reasonable that companies might want to restrict employees from releasing confidential company information. Likewise a policy to not post pictures of the company logo, because it "might" be used to prevent pictures of picketers. It is totally reasonable that a company not want you to post their logo to prevent an employee from taking the air of having official company endorsement.
It actually seems that the NRLB is the one being overly broad in their interpretation. A more reasonable approach would be simply to say something like "Companies have the right to restrict release of confidential company information or restrict the use of company names and logos so far as that restriction is not used to limit employees from communicating working conditions, compensation, or other labor related issues." or something like that.
I also recall an article where an employee was essentially defaming his employer in public (rather nastily) and hiding behind these type of provisions.
But I only make $40. Damn you! I used to like this job.
The thing that concerns me about proposals such as this is that they are usually a smokescreen for a "new" form of government that is actually worse than existing government. Either that, or they are the hopelessly naive rantings of someone who doesn't really know what's wrong but has some big ideas about how to fix it.
Ultimately the problem comes down to a lack of ownership, accountability, and responsibility. In society today, most of what's out there is owned by a relatively small number of people who are supposed to be in charge of and responsible for their property. In reality, people who own property typically rely on tricks to avoid liability while living a lavish lifestyle that is supposedly their reward for a job well done. The rest of society are likewise unwilling to take responsibility for the situation, but are happy to let others be in charge so that they can blame their problems on someone else. The two parties play this off as a conflict, but in reality they both accept the arrangement due to what can only be described as a mental disorder characterized by a delusional world view and dysfunctional/addictive personal habits.
That's where these kind of rantings come from. The haves imagine a world where they can be fee from being hassled by the have-nots who will mindlessly do their bidding. The have-nots imagine a world where the things are taken from the haves and given to the have-nots, or some wise committee of smart people who will surely do a better job of managing them. It's all a ridiculous fantasy, of course, but it keeps people stuck in their various ruts by feeding into their existing delusions about how the world works.
I am sure all the "job creator" corporate executives who constantly bemoan any and all government regulations claiming they interfere with the "free market" will certainly oppose this kind of transparency. However, a common knowledge of market prices forms the very basis of free markets!!! I personally wish the IRS would publish personal income data for all US citizens. Then we would see real market competition, people striving to find where the money is going and attempting to compete for those positions. If an employer is over or under compensating an employee they should certainly be able to market a rational reason for their action. As the saying goes, "Knowledge is Power" and those in the labor consumer role will do whatever they are legally allowed to do enhance their bargaining power.
If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be-T J
doesn't mean you 'should'.....
it'd be relatively safe discussing compensation with coworkers when employees work under the same contract (e.g. union shop) or the wage scales are public knowledge (e.g. public sector jobs) and are adhered to.. BUT in other instances, it can be a very dangerous topic of discussion... you don't really want to be on either end of it where there is a significant discrepancy in pay, as it will rarely end well.
and regardless of the legality of employers retaliating or discriminating against union proponents and organizers, you probably don't want them catching wind of efforts to unionize until it's all but a done deal and you're set to vote and move forward to create the union.
Of course workers are not allowed to use free speech! It would lead to a slippery slope where soon where workers would expect to be treated like humans by corporations.
We all agreed remember, that after the 1% ruling class crashed the economy that the only solution is for the 99% losers to give up more of their rights and benefits.
--- guns don't kill people, people with guns kill people ---
Section 7 of the National Labor Relations Act [...] allows employees to join labor unions and to discuss working conditions with each other."
No, actually that's a God given right, which the U.S. Constitution explicitly reserves to the People.
I think many companies should set fair, clear and objective metrics for employees - and then base pay off of it. That way, management could easily defuse any situation by sharing data with employees.
Free Speech is a right, and not subject to a policy,
Where I worked for over 30 years every single employee's annual compensation was published and publicly available information. I was the Information Security Officer for the organization and met with sales people from lots of vendors for everything from Firewalls to Encryption tools. The standard example they always used was the need to keep salary information secret. I could see their head go into cognitive disconnect when I told them that everyone's salary was published and available on line. Watching their heads spin was one of the high points of any meeting.
Unions are formed so that workers can demand wages higher than the labor market would actually provide. This is supposedly a good thing. If I own a business and I form a sales union with my competitors to keep prices higher the market demand provides I would be charged with price fixing and conclusion. Why should I have to pay artificial high prices for my workers but can't charge artificial high prices for my product?
jobs are hard to find. shut up, slave!
Remember kids, if you're not paying for the service, YOU ARE THE PRODUCT THAT IS BEING SOLD.
Wen I joined a software company several years ago they made it very clear both in writing and verbally that anyone caught talking about their salary will be fired on the spot..
Employers are damned if they do, damned if they don't.
If they allow you to share salaries, people who just aren't very in demand think they "should" earn more. Why, Larry who is the go-to programmer on our team "only" has a bachelor's degree and Sally (who can more or less do her job, often with Larry's help) has a master's and has been here 2 more years. By golly, Sally is being discriminated against! She won't stand for that, no-sir-ee!
So really what you need is a system where you're free to share salaries, but you can't sue because of "discrimination". If you feel you're being underpaid for _any_ reason, demand more money or leave. It's a zero sum game anyway, only so many jobs to go around so _someone_ will benefit from that job and I don't give a fuck who it is.
I'd happily fight against "letting someone else be in charge", but I can't afford a gun, you insensitive clod!