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.)
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.
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'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.
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.
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.