NLRB allows employers to ban off-duty fraternizing

[donsu]

http://www.americanrightsatwork.org/workersrights/eye7_2005.cfm


Big Brother Nixes Happy Hour

It is a regular pastime for co-workers to chat during a coffee break, at a union hall, or over a beer about workplace issues, good grilling recipes, and celebrity gossip. Yet a recent ruling by the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) allows employers to ban off-duty fraternizing among co-workers, severely weakening the rights of free association and speech, and violating basic standards of privacy for America's workers.

So how did the NLRB decide to weaken fundamental workplace protections? Security firm Guardsmark instituted a rule directing employees not to "fraternize on duty or off duty, date, or become overly friendly with the client's employees or with co-employees." In September 2003, the Service Employees International Union filed unfair labor practice charges with the NLRB against Guardsmark, claiming that the company's work rules inhibited its employees' Section 7 rights.

-snip-

America's workers need more opportunities to come together to discuss vexing workplace issues, or just to make personal connections with those we spend most of our waking hours with. But the NLRB gives employers the green light to invade our privacy and chip away at our most basic rights in the workplace.
----------------------------------------


another of our rights that is gone is honest elections.

america is dead

[HockeyMom]

1. Going to end a lot of

after work beers at the bar and golf weekends.

[ironman202]

2. yeah good luck with that

history is repleat with examples of successful campaigns to keep people from fucking....

[Redleg]

3. The NLRB is stacked with Bush minions who hate labor.

I don't see how this ruling can stand- at least in how it prohibits co-workers from fraternizing.

[elehhhhna]

4. Send the NLRB a copy of the Constitution, quick!

[jojo54]

5. 1984, here we come!! eom

[Norquist Nemesis]

6. I guess they'll have to cancel the golf outings and bar-b-ques

then. If it's good for the goose, it's good for the gander too. And everytime management 'gets together', the workers should be filing grievances.

[carnie_sf]

7. Correct me if I'm wrong

but doesn't that fly in the face of the bill of rights?

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

8. Help me out here. In what country do I live?

So if my wife and I work for the same company, do we have to sleep in separate beds like Ricky and Lucy?

[blindpig]

9. got feudalism?

Think this is bad, wait until the boss invites himself to the wedding and wants first shot at the bride.

[JohnnyBoots]

10. Yet another penny in the bank for a down payment on

revolution.

[AngryAmish]

11. In Cali an employer can be sued for this sort of thing

Recently the California Supreme Court said it is sexual harassment if supervisor A is sleeping with employee B and favors employee B over employees c, d and e.

So what is an employer to do? Try to institute policies that forbid any sort of fraternization. Or else, it gets sued.

[Dulcinea]

12. How exactly do they plan to stop this? eom

[AngryAmish]

13. The workers here are screwed (no pun intended)

This ruke is a term and condition of employment which should be bargained with the union before implimentation. If the employer proposes this rule and the union negociates to an impass then the employer can unilaterally impose this rule. However, the union has a right to strike.

But this is a security company. Rent-a-cops. These workers are easily replaced. So a strike happens, permanent replacements are hired and the company gets a new, pliant and cheap workforce.

[SemperEadem]

14. sounds unconstitutional to me

[Viking12]

15. Sounds like it, but it is probably not

When you voluntarily enter into an employment contract you may forgo your rights. See Snepp v. US

[livinginphotographs]

16. How the hell can they enforce this?

Obviously, happy-hour is gone, but what if two people who happen to work together show up at the same bar?

What a stupid rule...