2005/08/03

In Corporation America, "Employee" Now Trumps "Citizen"

Take a look at this nonsense from the National Labor Relations Board. Forget that the NLRB's does away with Section 7 of the National Labor Relation's Act (basically says that employees can freely associate for the purpose of discussing unions and the like). Now we've got a new brain-dead ruling saying that employers can ban you from associating with your co-workers when you're not at work.

Bush Co. packs the board with Republican idealogues and look at the crap that comes out! I guess the Federal level test case--based on the 1st Amendment right to peacably assemble?--can't come fast enough.

Unbelievable.

5 Comments:

Maybe instead of getting your "facts" from a left-wing organization, you ought to seek out the actual decision itself and understand what it says.

http://www.nlrb.gov/nlrb/shared_files/decisions/344/344-97.htm

The judge also concluded that the Respondent did not violate the Act by maintaining a work rule that directs employees not to “fraternize on duty or off duty, date[,] or become overly friendly with the client’s employees or with co-employees.” The judge reasoned that such a rule “does not on its face, or by reasonable implication, preclude activities protected by the Act.” The General Counsel excepts, arguing that employees reasonably would understand the rule to prohibit activity protected by Section 7.

We find no merit to this exception. The Respondent’s rule is somewhat similar to a work rule we reviewed in Lafayette Park Hotel, supra, and found lawful. There, the employer’s rule mandated that “[e]mployees are not allowed to fraternize with hotel guests anywhere on hotel property.” 326 NLRB at 825. We concluded that the rule was lawful because employees would not reasonably read “this rule as prohibiting protected employee communications . . . about terms and conditions of employment.” Id. at 827. Although the Respondent’s rule is not identical to the one in Lafayette Park Hotel, we find that any differences between the rules are not material and do not warrant a different outcome here.

Contrary to our dissenting colleague, we do not believe that the Respondent’s rule would reasonably tend to chill protected employee activity. The Respondent’s proscription against fraternization appears alongside proscriptions on “dat[ing,] or becom[ing] overly friendly with the client’s employees or with co-employees.” That being so, we believe that employees would reasonably understand the rule to prohibit only personal entanglements, rather than activity protected by the Act. In our view, it would be an unreasonable stretch for an employee to infer that speaking to others about terms and conditions of employment is a “fraternization” that is condemned by the rule. As in Lutheran Heritage Village, our dissenting colleague continues to advocate finding a violation where an employee could possibly perceive a conflict between a rule and protected activity. We, instead, limit the Board’s reach to rules, unlike this one, where an employee would reasonably perceive such a conflict.

We recognize that the rule in Lafayette Park Hotel prohibited fraternization with guests, while the rule here prohibits fraternization with client employees or coemployees. However, in context, the rule here is reasonably understood as prohibiting personal entanglements, rather than activity protected by the Act.

Moreover, as the judge noted and our dissenting colleague ignores, the Respondent’s rule is designed “to provide safeguards so that security will not be compromised by interpersonal relationships either between Respondent’s fellow security guards or between Respondent’s security guards and clients’ employees.” Given those heightened security concerns, we think the Respondent’s justification for its fraternization rule is even stronger than that of the employer in Lafayette Park Hotel, where we concluded that a fraternization rule was a proper means for preventing the “appearance of favoritism, claims of sexual harassment, and employee dissension created by romantic relationships in the workplace.” 326 NLRB at 827 fn. 14.


Trying to make this about Bush or some big corporate conspiracy without knowing the facts really hurts your credibility and shows you to just be all about hating and blaming Bush for anything under the sun.
Seek out the text by the very members who issued this brain-dead decision? You're kidding right? A bunch of interpretation comparing the Guardmark ruling to the Lafayette Park Hotel ruling as a method of defense is irrelevant, as far as I'm concerned. It's like defending the Supreme's decision to hand the 2000 election to Bush by interfering, unconstitutionally, in Florida's electoral process. No matter how many wing-nut bloggers rise to defend it, it's still the wrong decision.

But hey...opine all you want. As you are so apt to point out on your own blog: Nobody here gives a shit what you think.
Actually, I was just pointing out your frothing hatred of Bush and total ignorance of the decision. To top it off you cite an article crafted by the likes of Baghdad Bonier, Kwaze the Racist and other idiotic liberals who create controversy to keep themselves rich, and then act as if it somehow justifies your irrational hatred.

You said, "Now we've got a new brain-dead ruling saying that employers can ban you from associating with your co-workers when you're not at work.

Bush Co. packs the board with Republican idealogues and look at the crap that comes out!
"

First, the ruling didn't say that, it simply said employers can prevent employees from fraternizing with clients, whether off-duty or on. As the decision clearly states, a reasonable reading (which is why you fail to get it) shows that the Section 7 activities are still protected while employers are trying to protect themselves from the appearance of "overly friendly employees" who, by virtue of the employment relationship, could bring liability upon the company. Blame the over eager plaintiff's lawyers (again, mostly liberals) who convince every mediocre employee that they can sue for the slightest bullshit reason... putting companies in a tough position, regulate or litigate.

I know you don't give a shit what I think and I love the way you prove it by always having to respond to me.

I just stop in and respond so your comments won't all show "zero". But keep ranting into your vaccuum and maybe someday you'll see the light.
I just stop in and respond so your comments won't all show "zero". But keep ranting into your vaccuum and maybe someday you'll see the light.

Ahhh...another cheap shot.

Exactly the kind of response we've all come to expect from you. Tell me Jason, how many months of blogging did you do before you got your first responses? Wait, we can look...Sherman set the wayback machine...

March 2003? Wow! One whole comment. April 2003? Didly, bupkis, nothing. May 2003, again...nothing! Seems Generation Why had all the popularity of watching paint dry in its infancy. At least Blognonymous has you (and a few others). We'll talk again in a year. Until then you'll just continue to sound like a schmuck.
Lol. I used to have a bulletin board-type comment system and switched to trackbacks/comments via haloscan in July, 2004.

Because of a glitch in haloscan, they still show (0).

Just go back and look at the post on July 14, 2004 (http://texasrainmaker.blogspot.com/2004_07_01_texasrainmaker_archive.html) and you'll see I kept receiving comments with the new feature.

Again, you fail to look below the surface and end up looking stupid. Not a real surprise.

Add a comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link