Reader Comments (rss)

(Flattened / Threaded)

1.  

   Huh?

   

   ElectricKarl, Aug 3rd, 2005 @ 3:54pm

   
   

   Wait till the supreme court gets ahold of that one. I for one say enough with this rampant corporatism!

   [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

2.  

   No Subject Given

   

   TJ, Aug 3rd, 2005 @ 6:25pm

   
   

   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 | link to this | view in thread ]

3.  

   Re: No Subject Given

   

   Anonymous Hero, Aug 3rd, 2005 @ 8:04pm

   
   

   If one looks into this issue more carefully and checks other sources...

   Please identify these unnamed sources. I would like to read more.

   [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

4.  

   Re: No Subject Given

   

   Anonymous Hero, Aug 3rd, 2005 @ 8:20pm

   
   

   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 | link to this | view in thread ]

5.  

   Read the Damn Ruling

   

   Director Mitch, Aug 3rd, 2005 @ 9:12pm

   
   

   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 | link to this | view in thread ]

6.  

   Re: Read the Damn Ruling

   

   Carlo, Aug 3rd, 2005 @ 9:52pm

   
   

   Actually, you're talking about a previous ruling, not the one at hand.

   [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

7.  

   RE:your own time no longer yours

   

   Sean, Aug 4th, 2005 @ 7:27am

   
   

   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 | link to this | view in thread ]

8.  

   Re: Read the Damn Ruling

   

   Anonymous Hero, Aug 4th, 2005 @ 9:31am

   
   

   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 | link to this | view in thread ]

9.  

   Re: RE:your own time no longer yours

   

   Mike (profile), Aug 4th, 2005 @ 10:17am

   
   

   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 | link to this | view in thread ]

10.  

    

    Anonymous Coward, Jan 9th, 2008 @ 9:23pm

    
    

    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 | link to this | view in thread ]

Add Your Comment