Slashdot reports that the National Labor Relations Board recently ruled a security company's ban on employee fraternization -- on or off duty -- was lawful. So don't worry about having to choose between a competent jerk or a nice moron for a coworker, since you might not be allowed to talk to them anyway.
Prosecutors Ending Lawsuit Against Lori Drew (6)
School Can't Handle Critical Community Message Board; Sends Legal Nastygram (10)
Liberian Laws Are A Secret Due To Copyright; Even The Gov't Doesn't Have Them (40)
EFF Looks To Bust Bogus Podcasting Patent; Needs Prior Art (31)
If Google's Book Scanning Violates Copyright Law, What About The AP's Book Scanning? (20)
Brought to you by Floor64
About Techdirt | Contact Us | Advertise On Techdirt | Submit a Story | Twitter | Facebook
RSS
Twitter
Reader Comments
(Flattened / Threaded)
Huh?
Wait till the supreme court gets ahold of that one. I for one say enough with this rampant corporatism!
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
No Subject Given
If one looks into this issue more carefully and checks other sources, it is clear that the issue is not at all that simple and relates to behavior while in uniform. Companies have been dismissing people for things done in uniform but off duty for a long time.
Silly, draconian policy by the company that prompted the ruling? Yes. Sensationalist self-serving 'news' item linked without any balance or alternate point-of-view? Also yes.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: No Subject Given
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: No Subject Given
To follow up on my own post, I have now read all the news articles I could find on the subject through Google and none of them state that the NLRB ruling was limited to employees in uniform. Just the opposite, some dissent on the board was afraid the ruling might keep employees from organizing unions.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Read the Damn Ruling
Hero, don't read articles, or postings on the boards. Read the damn ruling. It's posted in PDF on the NLRB web site.
If you bother to read the ruling, it has to do with security guards at a hotel. The "fraternization" has to do with "personal engtanglements" at the hotel. It other words, the guards were not allowed to screw each other at their client's place of business.
As the ruling noted, such a rule is (and I quote):
"a proper means for preventing the "apperance of favortism, claims of sexual harassment, and employee dissention created by romantic relationships in the workplace".
So this ruling is brought on by sexual harassment claims, is a special case of security guards working at a hotel, does not refer to having beers with co-workers after work, or have anything to do with collective bargaining.
Pretty pathetic that this site is stooping to lying sensationalism. But what do you expect when you post an article third hand without checking the source?
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Read the Damn Ruling
Actually, you're talking about a previous ruling, not the one at hand.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Read the Damn Ruling
Talk about lying. I have have read the ruling, here's the URL: http://www.nlrb.gov/nlrb/shared_files/decisions/344/344-97.pdf
and it it is not limited to fraternization while in uniform. While the ruling mentions a previous case that was about guards at a hotel, this one is not. And yes, it does apply to having a few beers after work. Pretty pathetic the way some posters think no one will check up on them. But what do you expect from turf trolls.
The NLRB is a federal agency charged with investigating and remedying unfair labor practices. As such, their rulings are backed by and have the effect of law. Their rulings create precedence and so this ruling is NOT limited to Guardsmark. It's easy to see why unions, among others, would object to a ruling like this.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
RE:your own time no longer yours
I have read the entire ruling and this NRLB act is only effective for Gaurdsmark LLC. They simply allowed that part of the Employee handbook rules to stand, there was no law passed thaqt allows your employers to add this rule to their own handbook. The whole story was started by a pro-union website to incite anger, nothing elase to report
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: RE:your own time no longer yours
I have read the entire ruling and this NRLB act is only effective for Gaurdsmark LLC. They simply allowed that part of the Employee handbook rules to stand, there was no law passed thaqt allows your employers to add this rule to their own handbook. The whole story was started by a pro-union website to incite anger, nothing elase to report
No one was saying that this was required, but the problem is that any employer can now add the same language to the rules, and it's perfectly legal. That's where the problem comes from.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
This NLRB ruling has been overturned by a Federal court. As a
result, Guardsmark had to rewrite part of their employee handbook. I work for them; the new language is quite different than what they tried to pull before.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Add Your Comment