Slashdot Mirror
Feds: Your Employer Can't Stop You From Recording Conversations At Work (huffingtonpost.com)
schwit1 writes with news about a ruling by the National Labor Relations Board about your right to record conversations at work. The Huffington Post reports: "If you're looking to catch your boss breaking labor law, that smartphone in your pocket might be your best friend, thanks to a new ruling from federal officials. On Thursday, the National Labor Relations Board ruled that upscale grocer Whole Foods cannot forbid employees from recording conversations or taking photographs at work without a supervisor's permission. (Local laws, however, could still come into play in certain situations, as several states require the consent of two parties in order for a conversation to be recorded legally.) At the center of the case were stipulations in Whole Foods' 'General Information Guide,' an employee manual laying out worker do's and don'ts. The guide prohibited workers from taking photos or recording conversations inside a store 'unless prior approval is received' from a manager or executive, or 'unless all parties to the conversation give their consent.'"
They can't "blanket" stop all circumstances where someone would be filming, that doesn't make all filming at work legitimate or legal though.
Headline summary is misleading and wrong.
More socialism from the administration of the Glorious Leader Obummer to ruin this once great Christian nation.
I will personally rip that mic out of your pocket.
There are certain things we need to admit are signs that you are not just a dick, but a criminal dick.
Any company attempting to prevent employees from recording them should by law, instantly trigger a full regulatory audit - everything from the IRS to OSHA.
If you try to stop your employees from telling on you, something's major league wrong with the way you run your company.
Don't do it in Maryland. Unless all parties agree to being recorded it's a felony offense.
Only exception is recording the police who have no reasonable expectation of privacy when out in public performing their official duty.
This one line from the summary shouldn't be ignored: "(Local laws, however, could still come into play in certain situations, as several states require the consent of two parties in order for a conversation to be recorded legally.)"
Here's a map of 'eavesdropping' (recording) laws by state:
http://www.vegress.com/can-i-r...
Washington, California, Nevada, Montana, Michigan, Pennsylvania, New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Connecticut, Delaware, Maryland, and Florida all seem to require two-party notification before recording conversations, otherwise it's deemed as 'eavesdropping' and illegal.
Addition:
I have no idea what happens if you're recording a phone call from a state that DOES allow only one party being notified to a state that does NOT.
[...] ruling by the National Labor Relations Board about your right to record conversations at work.
Can anyone remember when laws were made by elected officials?
It seems like nowadays some federal agency steps in and declares that they're the governing authority on something, that their decisions are law, and everyone should obey.
That doesn't seem to mesh with what we were taught in school.
Aren't our lawmakers elected?
They're a big thing here in Nawth Ca'lina where we have literally thousands of poultry and hog factories. And a hell of a lot of animal abuse too, by the way.
http://www.theatlantic.com/hea...
But then I would probably be on the hook too, for knowingly working for a criminal.
My manager used to have his Windows notebook recording all the conversations in his office, and some conversations in meetings. He said it was better than taking notes....
Even if you're employed by the government?
Just checkin'...
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Interestingly, while recording audio may require two-party consent, recording video without audio does not require two-party consent in most if not all jurisdictions. This is why security cameras are usually video only.
It's sort of a gray area with conflicting state rulings.
Since I'm in Michigan's Upper Peninsula, and it is shaded neither red nor green, I guess that means I can do whatever the hell I want...
I have no idea what happens if you're recording a phone call from a state that DOES allow only one party being notified to a state that does NOT.
Depends which end of the phone you're on. If you're at the end that only requires one party to be notified, then you're OK. If you're at the other end, then you're not OK.
According to the link you posted, federal law applies when the call crosses state boundaries. That would make sense because federal law usually does apply to interstate transactions.
Can anyone remember when laws were made by elected officials? It seems like nowadays some federal agency steps in and declares that they're the governing authority on something, that their decisions are law, and everyone should obey.
That is how it has been since the signing of the Constitution. The legislature makes laws, the executive branch makes regulations, and the judicial branch makes case law. All three are types of law. Some are done by elected officials others aren't. All three are necessary components of a functioning legal system. Congress does not and never has passed laws that are fully fleshed out to every detail. And that's a good thing because Congress is clearly not filled with domain experts for most subjects. The legislature sets the framework and the executive branch makes it work. They delegate this authority to federal agencies who then issue regulations filling in the details. It has ALWAYS worked like this. ALWAYS.
That doesn't seem to mesh with what we were taught in school. Aren't our lawmakers elected?
Sounds like you got some bad schooling. Many lawmakers are elected in all three branches of government. Others are appointed. It's been that way since the dawn of the republic in the US.
That map is off. There own site states Illinois is two party.
In Illinois, an eavesdropping device cannot be used to record or overhear a conversation without the consent of all parties to the conversation.
A conversation recorded by one of its participants is never "eavesdropping". If that is the rationale used by those promoting two-party consent laws, then they either don't know what words mean, or they're deliberately trying to confuse people.
As an employer, I can kinda understand Whole Foods' situation here. If you prohibit photos and recordings in the workplace, the workers' rights folks claim you're trying to hide abuses in the workplace. If you don't prohibit photos and recordings in the workplace, the privacy rights folks claim you're not doing enough to protect your employees' privacy in the workplace (essentially extending the corporate shield to also protect your employees from liability, not just the owners).
By letting the government make the ruling, the matter is settled and the company doesn't have to worry about liability either way.
This sort of thing is a good lesson for those who erroneously believe in absolutes (the tone of TFA is that there is a "right" and "wrong" answer to this). It is exceptionally rare for a single principle on any issue to always be correct. There is almost always a situation where that principle will be wrong because some other principle will overrule it. In this case, you have the right to privacy in the workplace butting heads with the right to publicize workplace abuses. I'm not sure what the correct balance is, and I'm not sure the government does either. But at least this way the company doesn't get caught in the crossfire. All a company has to do is comply with the government ruling, and the fight over the correct balance will bypass them and go straight to the courts. So even though Whole Foods lost the case, they still won.
Is that the NLRB can overturn judicial precedence determined by real judges.
There is nothing preventing the employer from not continuing to employ the person.
So he's going to be exonerated retroactively now, right, because Obama is going to do the right thing?
(LOL. Firefox spellchecker Obama = Osama).
No it's not. The party in the one-party state is free to record the conversation as the laws in their juridiction are single-party consent. The party in the all-party state must receive consent from all involved parties though this can be as simple as clearly informing all parties that the call is being recorded. Any party remaining on the call after is generally considered to have given consent as they were free to terminate the call IIRC.
If you don't prohibit photos and recordings in the workplace, the privacy rights folks claim you're not doing enough to protect your employees' privacy in the workplace (essentially extending the corporate shield to also protect your employees from liability, not just the owners).
Businesses have always had the right to put employees on camera (except bathrooms), watch everything they do on their computers and even listen in on their phone calls. People complain but businesses don't give a shit because they don't have to. Don't like it, well hit the bricks.
Employers can also coerce medical tests on their employees - like drug tests.
And I wish I recorded what my bosses said and had a recording of what I said and did. Because it's inevitable that come review time, you're in a crunch and the boss wants you to write down everything to achieved and contributed in the last year - all the while trying to get your shit done on time.
And it always happens that after you turn in your review, you remember more of the things you did, but too late! It's cast in stone and you gotta produce this year!
Any boss that doesn't know the value of his employees is incompetent. Those reviews are idiotic. If an employee does a good job, tell them immediately. If they're not, tell them immediately.
Perhaps they mean that the recording device is a "third", undisclosed (and therefor eavesdropping) listener.
My eyes reflect the stars and a smile lights up my face.
This is important. It is also important to remember that in almost every workplace there is video surveillance and everyone has consented to be recorded. Once you've consented to be on candid camera you've waived your personal right to refuse. It could also then be argued that every employer in the United States has agreed to the terms of labor regulations and therefore, under this interpretation of those regulations, by employing others has given explicit consent to be recorded.
So it could be argued that if the employer has surveillance/recording the consent requirements of many states have already been met. Pictures would also mean video since video is nothing but a sequence of pictures.
I'm curious how this plays out in other things like trade secret disputes, law suits and stolen documents arguments. What if I routinely record all my workplace activities for labor protection purposes with a pen cam and that video recorded the content of documents. Since I legally recorded the material does that bypass stolen documents inadmissibility? I'd sure love to live in that world.
Why do you even answer questions when you obviously don't know what you are talking about? And you wonder why you get troll mods ...
Troll here. Michigan's laws are apparently unclear and have never been tested fully in court. All the information I read says that Michigan is probably and all party consent state, but a court could potentially interpret that law as single-party in the future. To be safe, you should assume that Michigan is an all-party consent state.
Most stores have cameras in place to record employees and customers anyways, so FCC had a ruling about this (IIRC) stating that since you're being recorded, you have a right to your own recording for your own records.
This decision follows along.
Companies have to make every effort to keep a trade secret in confidence in order to protect it - I am not just talking teh obvious stuff like the Kentucky Colonels chicken resipe or the Cocacola formula - I mean everything from pricing, materials sourcing, R and D, private sales arangmets etc that are the heart of business.
I cant say "No Bill you cant video tape the R and D lab!" or "No Jane, you cant record the internal materials sourcing conference call." For real??? wtf???
Michigan Law states that only a single party to the conversation must give consent. It is illegal to record "other peoples" conversations, but a conversation that you are involved in (party to), can legally be recorded.
Source: MCL 28.807
We think it is a texas county
Incomplete map. Missing two states.
Play really loud background music over the PA system. In the bathroom turn on the faucets and flush the toilets. Or maybe they can use EMP to zap your phone at the entrance. How are you going to prove they did it?
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
Just live in a "one party state". This means you can record your personal conversations in most any setting, work included. Kentucky is a one party state.
My former employer had written in its employment agreement that they may record audio and video of... telephones, hidden cameras and microphones, computer activity, etc. They required you to sign an NDA that you can not discuss any aspect of your employment even after leaving the company, and you can't record audio or video on the premises. That's pretty fucked up even for being a major tire dealer/manufacturer/repair center that had major tire recalls, that I can't name because of the NDA. Major customer and employee screwing went on there.
Unfortunately for him, he lives in the UP. As a matter of case-law, neither bears nor loons can give affirmative consent and his ability to record any conversations he may have is very limited.
I imagine this works similarly to how audio and video recording work when it comes to the police.
If the police have something to gain from the recording, or they can use it against you in court, it's perfectly legal.
If the police will be damaged by the recording, like in the case of submitting video evidence of police misbehavior, it's completely illegal and you deserve all the consequences of your evil actions, you lowlife shitbag.
The ruling does not say employers cannot ban recording. It says that they can't ban recording which falls under certain legal activities related to employer misconduct or safety issues, AND only when there is not a compelling business interest.
So for example if they ban recording to protect trade secrets, customer information, and things like that, this ruling doesn't apply. Anything they can argue as being a "compelling business interest". It also does not address the policy of banning the recording devices themselves. So for example Whole Foods could simply ban cell phones from the workplace entirely.
I had actually posted the exact quote from the ruling, and it was on the first comment thread and one of the first ten posts. But I guess Dice thought it might derail the ensuing flame war so they deleted it. Multiple times. Let's see if this one sticks around more than an hour.
but they can stop you from bringing your phone to work. A lot of companies do not allow cell phones in the workplace.
Just because president Obama's NLRB says you can do it, that does not mean you won't go to prison. The NLRB cannot write laws and has no ability to change state laws.
Many states, like California, make this a very serious FELONY with severe penalties. This is NOT a Republican/Democrat "thing" - the states which prosecute for recording cannot be predicted by seeing which party rules there. It seems more of a corrupt state thing. The more evil and corrupt a state government is, the more likely it is to prosecute people for recording conversations (while allowing the government itself to record whatever it wants, of course) - corruption is best done when you know nobody is recording what's said behind closed doors and where recordings that could prove whistle blowers right are illegal.