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.
And yet the neither the summary nor the title said or implied any such thing. The summary even explicitly says in the fourth sentence:
(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.)
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...
I can't tell if you're joking or so propagandized that you're retarded. Poe's law and all.
But then I would probably be on the hook too, for knowingly working for a criminal.
What does the UK have to do with this story? The NLRB is a US federal agency.
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
I will personally rip that mic out of your pocket.
Your arms must get tired from confiscating cellphones from everyone around.
Who the hell actually wears a "wire" these days? You just start a new voice memo, lock the phone, and stick it back in your pocket.
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.
More socialism from the administration of the Glorious Leader Obummer to ruin this once great Christian nation.
Sociallism, really. Can you please elaborate how this ruling has anything to do with Socialism?
Oh never mind you are one of those AC's that equate anything that strengthens worker's rights as Socialism, even though you have no clue what socialism is.
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...
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.
I just love how you immediately convey this to a type of socialism and have to make some kind of "Obummer is the anti-christ; GOD BLUS MERKIA!" thing.
I fail to see what's socialistic about this. They are basically saying the employer cannot infringe on employee rights. If your boss is doing something that violates law; like making you work unpaid overtime....then you should have the right to gather proof. What? You think employer's should be able to abuse employees? You; a person who probably believes in the idology of personal liberty and freedom....are mocking a win for liberty as socialism?
You're not just some kind of right-wing idiot; you are a speical kind of right wing idiot...the worst kind. You don't even know what your party principals are.
No wonder you posted as an anonymous coward.
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.
I'm not seeing the issue. The summary only says that your employer can't stop you. It doesn't say or imply that state law can't stop you.
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.
There is nothing preventing the employer from not continuing to employ the person.
The very headline implies just such a thing. The specific thing at issue in this case was the WF handbook banned recording of 'Team Meetings'. The NLRB found that PARTICULAR thing illegal, because 'team meetings' could include union organizing activities, and by law, the company can not interfere with those. This ruling in NO WAY bans ALL company prohibitions on recording, only ones that interfere with origanization activities. And that has nothing to do with any local laws.
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.
I'm usually inclined to rapid fire a troll mod at you myself but it would not be appropriate here. If I had mod points right now this would be informative. Someone please mod appropriately. The title and summary is accurate.
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.
No it doesn't. It explicitly says "your employer".
Nah because they've played the great semantics game of sayin he didn't act like a whistleblower while simultaneously saying whistleblower laws didn't apply because he was a contractor. They rigged the rules where he loses either way.
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.
Agreed. But I know several businesses that don't allow any sort of phones or recording devices in their buildings due to someone stealing their secret sauce. Does this apply to them?
Also, regarding the drug tests and such, it's not mandatory, you can always just quit.
Chance favors the prepared mind.
Perfect is the enemy of good.
Do you have a reading comprehension problem? The headline is WRONG. The ruling does NOT say your employer can not prohibit you from recording. The ruling says your employer can't issue a recording ban in such a way that would interfere with things protected by section 7 of the NLRA (unionization). It does NOT say they can't prevent you from recording ANYTHING ELSE.
Slashdot has been logging lots of users out so not your ISP. Some have suggested deleting all cookies related to slashdot as a fix.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
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!”
Indeed, the actual decision itself references "protected Section 7 activities" and "unprotected activities". They make a very distinct difference between what is protected and what still isn't protected.
I'm not seeing the issue. The summary only says that your employer can't stop you. It doesn't say or imply that state law can't stop you.
And that is wrong, but in this case I'll give them a pass since the rest of the media also seems to be reading this ruling entirely wrong.
Here's the KEY phrase which nobody is paying attention to, from the actual ruling:
if employees are acting in concert for their mutual aid and protection and no overriding employer interest is present.
What the ruling was about was situations where the employees were recording potential misdeeds or illegal activity (related to unions, etc.) There are MANY situations where the employer has an obvious interest, such as protecting trade secrets or customer information.
And more to the point, it only addresses rules which prohibit actual recording. It does not at all address rules which say things like "no cell phones or cameras are allowed on the property".
or that your employer is legally liable if certain customer information is compromised and banning recordings, photos, and videos is one way to secure that information.
In the course of video recording what you believe is corporate misconduct you could easily open yourself to liability and criminal charges if you captured the wrong thing and released it on facebook and youtube.
Because this is about Section 7 activities, which is about unions. Unions are a form of socialistic governance. Even actual Marxist socialist claim this. I personally see that unions are needed to push back against corporate worker rights violations, and without them there would be no overtime, we'd still have child labor, and a whole host of what amounts to corporate slavery. No union in the USA is advocating any socialistic overthrow of the government anymore; my citation is from 1936. And of course not all socialism is Marxist in nature, nor is it authoritarianism automatically. I'm a Sanders supporter, and I know his ideas are not in any way Marxist. But still, there is a very real historical joining here.
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.
It might apply to employee reviews, but only in the context if your recording them getting evidence of unfair labor practices. This ruling is all about labor relations, unionization, etc. From page 3 of the actual decision: " Such protected conduct may include, for example, recording images of protected picketing, documenting unsafe workplace equipment or hazardous working conditions, documenting and publicizing discussions about terms and conditions of employment, documenting inconsistent application of employer rules, or recording evidence to preserve it for later use in administrative or judicial forums in employment-related actions"
Unions are not socialism. Unions do not advocate community control of production. The tie between socialism and Unions has been made by the Employers to discredit unions. Granted many union leaders have socialist tendencies but Unions do not have any explicit tie to socialism.
Socialism: a political and economic theory of social organization that advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.
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.
You are posting as an AC, name away.
but they can stop you from bringing your phone to work. A lot of companies do not allow cell phones in the workplace.
That makes more sense, thanks. I'd read it and I wasn't sure how they'd reached the conclusions they'd reached. My initial reading was that someone had concluded that you, an employee, could go right ahead and record inbound customer calls without it being company protocol to do so and without warning the customer that the call was being recorded.
A loser reading implied that the employee, in those circumstances, would be able to record proprietary things like that inbound telephone conversation and then be able to retain that recording as if it is personal property. It made no sense.
It seems rather generic to say "no overriding employer interest is present." Whole Foods could probably say something like, "In order to protect our assets, employee privacy, proprietary layout information, and guest privacy - all recordings are prohibited unless expressly granted." They just have to, from what I'm getting, demonstrate that there's some sort of overriding employer interest which is a rather vague concept and probably easily bypassed by providing some quasi-plausible reason for the policy.
"So long and thanks for all the fish."
For the sake of argument, it might be plausible to assert that a union is a small community and that their work is to give the employees some control of things like production numbers, pay rates, employee rights, and similar things. That could be stretched, probably not beyond the breaking point, to say that the unions are advocating community control of production.
Granted, it's a rather limited subset of the community but community has several definitions and size isn't a requirement. It's also not hard to say that they're striving to control production - by means of unifying as said community. That's hardly a stretch at all.
You might say that you're part of the GLBT community, open source community, Linux community, etc... The workers uniting, as a community, is very much an attempt to control production - that's certainly advocacy.
So, well... I'm pointing these out just for the sake of argument and to play Devil's Advocate. I don't actually have a problem with unions and I'm probably best labeled as a Socialist Libertarian. None of those terms are, combined or alone, a pejorative.
Them: "Unions are socialists!"
Me: "Yeah, so? Is the idea of having someone fight to protect you from abuses as the hands of an employer considered a bad thing to you? If so, why?"
"So long and thanks for all the fish."
I never said they are socialism. I said they are a form of socialistic governance. I'm guessing you didn't even read the link; it's from the UK in 1936; and they flat-out echo my statement...so the people who originally pushed for unions did in fact say they are socialist. There's nothing wrong with that; I think your confusing socialism with communism. Unions do indeed advocate community control; it's just that their "community" is only the workers and the "control" is over the working conditions of said community.
I've had the union at AT&T save my butt when I worked there, so I too am an advocate of most union activities. They should be transparent with what happens with the dues of course...but without unions we'd all be working 90+ hours a week, renting a bunk in the "Company boarding house", and buying food with "company script" from the "company store" too.