NRLB Redefines 'Your Own Time' 871
Doc Ruby writes "The U.S. National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) has ruled to ban off-duty worker 'fraternization,' at the employer's discretion. So getting together for a beer after work can now be prohibited by the boss. With IT workers so commonly producing some of our best work 'after hours,' even at home or in restaurants/bars, will this ruling come back to bite employers in the IT industry? Can they really stop you from talking with your cubicle neighbor on the bus home, if they can't even stop you from reading Slashdot while on the clock?"
Why are we allowing work to control us? (Score:5, Insightful)
What American workers need to do is not allow their personal lives to intermingle with their daily work grind. Yes, plenty of people are required to do that and some employees even thrive on it, yet it is negatively impacting our mental, physical, and family health. Why are we allowing our employers to control more and more of our lives by requiring more than 40 hours a week w/o proper compensation and *requiring* us not to have outside of work relationships with any co-workers? While *I* refuse to have any out of work relationships with any of my co-workers I don't believe that employers should have the right to mandate and legally enforce that behavior.
I do everything I can to not even mention work to friends and family. When I am outside the office walls my brain is on everything but. It's healthy to have time to yourself, your family, and your hobbies.
Please, if you believe that you can successfully collectively bargain against your employer, do so to the best of your ability, but remember that work is just something you should do for 40 hours a week - anything over that should be properly compensated and documented hourly. Try and separate your family/personal life from it as best you can. For most of you the results will be more rewarding than your paycheck.
Your mind and your personal life outside of work are your own. Don't let your paycheck fool you into thinking otherwise.
No big deal (Score:3, Insightful)
Stupid. (Score:5, Insightful)
If a company wants to tell me what I can and can't do with my free time, then I will be billing them for my free time. Since my free time is worth a lot to me, I will be expecting a raise. $20 an hour 24/7 will be just fine.
Otherwise, I reserve the right to date, have sex with, go out with, hang out with, etc, with any of my co-workers when we are off the clock.
This falls under 'human rights'. Which you cannot sign away.
Re:No big deal (Score:4, Insightful)
Eh... (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:Stupid. (Score:3, Insightful)
*ANY* action (legal or not), if it doesn't affect you on work time and doesn't use work resources shouldn't matter.
"Gee, you were speeding to get to work on time. That's illegal. You're fired"
Re:Remind me... (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't find that interesting. (Score:3, Insightful)
two points leap to mind- (Score:3, Insightful)
second, it's not unheard of. i was subject to a similar ban when i taught in japan. that ban was a little different, it prohibited fraternizing with students, but a similar idea. interestingly, a japanese court ruled that it wasn't legal, because employers couldn't regulate what employees do when they are off the clock
Re:Yeah, right. (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Why are we allowing work to control us? (Score:5, Insightful)
Trying to keep your work life completely separate from your home life is like trying to have two separate families. It's possible to do, but more difficulty than it's worth. It's hard for people at work to really trust you when they don't know a thing about you.
A man who's work is both his vocation and his advocation is truly blessed.
Re:Why are we allowing work to control us? (Score:3, Insightful)
Why don't *you* talk to your boss then? It's not *my* responsibility to explain the way things ought to be to him.
People are so obsessed with the numbers that show on their paycheck that they forget that their work habbits are creeping into their personal lives and causing serious issues.
It's your choice to work for a company that mandates "included" overtime as a salaried employee and it's also your choice to remember that your mental, physical, and family health depend on your not overtaxing your life with work.
Re:The actual ruling... (Score:5, Insightful)
Sure.
When you're still in your employer's uniform, especially that of a security company wishing to maintain its reputation as a professional organization, you shouldn't be going on dates with your clients.
That help?
I have no problem with some things (Score:2, Insightful)
Also, companies that push this will feel the pinch, because any employee worth his salt will find somewhere else to work. That will only leave the bad employer with bad employees, and that is a recipe for disaster. The only other option I see for them is to raise their wages so high that people are willing to put up with it, but then they raise their operating cost and allow their competitors to undercut them.
Misdirected rationalisation? (Score:4, Insightful)
With IT workers so commonly producing some of our best work 'after hours'...
Please don't read this as a flame, but what the hell is meant by this? Maybe its because I don't buy into this work-till-you-drop mentality that so many people in capitalist economies seem to have, but why on earth is this being used as a rationalisation for maintaining outside-office freedom of assembly?
This reads as akin to "How dare they stop us meeting outside work! Don't they know that we do more work for them when we meet?", and is from my viewpoint pretty disgusting.
What about "How dare they stop us meeting outside work! Its none of their god damn business what we do outside of the time that we are payed by them!"
Why the seeming sycophancy? Are people so brainwashed by capitalism that they think they have a moral duty to comply with their employers, and no right to stand up and say "Hey, go screw yourself. My personal time is mine and mine alone"? That's all the "rationalisation" that should be required!
Re:Remind me... (Score:3, Insightful)
Still, just wearing a work uniform should not be a pretext for an employer to control his/her employees' behavior. If they employer does not like what his/her employees do in their uniforms, they have to right to take the uniforms away (i.e. require that they are stored on sight) or to fire the employees. Employers should not have any control over their employees' behavior off the clock.
Re:Yeah, right. (Score:2, Insightful)
freedom of speech... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Board makeup (Score:2, Insightful)
Since, you know, that was the crux of the entire ruling [slashdot.org]: not that employees couldn't fraternize on their own time, but that employees couldn't do whatever the fuck they wanted while still in their Guardsmark uniform, implying that they are official representatives of Guardsmark.
Of course, since President Clinton himself had no problem with that sort of thing, I imagine it is "interesting".
New Slashdot Code (Score:3, Insightful)
* for dispensing with a pedestrian "summary" of the facts in TFA in favor of hyperboic and hysterical misreading according to one's own personal filters, or as an attempt to induce such hysterics in others.
The only question, for
Not a problem (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Why are we allowing work to control us? (Score:3, Insightful)
For the rest of us, whose friends all moved away after college, the only people we really know of who share the same interests that I can meet face to face are our coworkers. This isn't something limited to geeks either, you can just about ask anyone for whom school is a fond memory, and the friends they meet in person will consist mostly of coworkers, neighbors, and fellow churchgoers (if any). (In fact, geeks might be able to claim more friends... their fellow D&D gamers, LAN parties, etc.)
I myself go out and have a drink after work on a regular basis, blow off steam, shoot the breeze, and generally have fun. Then I go home and do what I do all the other evenings: tinker with my LAN, play some video games, eat dinner, and go to sleep, all of which are also fun.
As for the rest of your post, what the fuck?
Re:Why are we allowing work to control us? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Remind me... (Score:4, Insightful)
[Emphasis added by previous poster]
In other words, naked fraternization or dating of clients and co-workers is now officially sanctioned!
Re:Why are we allowing work to control us? (Score:2, Insightful)
I still think this ruling is competely wrong to attempt to allow an empolyer try and say what you can and cannot do outside the workplace and outside office hours (some exceptions excluded (general common sense stuff))
Re:Why are we allowing work to control us? (Score:3, Insightful)
You're in the wrong line of work.
There are some of us that have trouble tearing ourselves away from ours. I can't help but talking about it outside of work, and I certainly couldn't solve nearly as many problems if I didn't think about it when I am not working. Also, I don't think I'd do nearly as well if I wasn't taking little breaks like the one I'm taking now...the intermingling is so very important.
I couldn't stand to be a cog in the machine for 8 hours a day, and a man the rest of the day. I need to be human all of the time. My mind and personal life are my own and I choose to spend them working on what I'm working on.
Natch (Score:3, Insightful)
But folks, it wouldn't be the first time an employer has pulled a stunt like this, making demands of your off time, and there are even some cases I could envision where it would be justified. Off the top of my head would be a lot of highly classified work splits things up so that no worker bee sees the whole picture. Often they don't even know what the end product will even resemble. They often have rules in place to keep it that way.
But the proper response when an employer does something stupid isn't to go running for the Nanny State to some in and make that bad ol boss play nice. Are we not Free Men, the inheritors of the blessings of liberty bought at such horrific prices of blood and treasure by our mighty forefathers? Are their descendants such pussies that they can't handle such an easy problem themselves? Nay, the correct response would be for a dozen or so key employees to have banded together and marked riht into that pointy haired boss (probably in terror of liability from the sexual harrassment nazies) and made him an offer he couldn't refuse.
Demand he front the money to start a company softball team. In one swoop you accomplish several things:
1. His PHB manual says he has to agree so you win.
2. Putting his name on the purchase approval form pretty much voids his "no after work association rule" in writing.
3. Makes him may a token but real monatary penalty.
And if the employyes are such sheep they won't stand up for themselves then I judge that as sheep it is the boss's duty to shear their pathetic asses.
Re:Stupid. (Score:0, Insightful)
Is corporate espionage legal? Hint: where are you... who you stole from...
Re:Yeah, right. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Why are we allowing work to control us? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Why are we allowing work to control us? (Score:3, Insightful)
No... they'll find some other reason shortly thereafter.
Re:Remind me... (Score:1, Insightful)
Let me put it this way, and I'm assuming you're a fan of Linux, but if you aren't, just pretend you are for a sec. How would you feel if you were attending a computer conference, and after it ended for the day, you went out to grab some dinner, and you saw some guys wearing Tux t-shirts and acting like total jackasses? You'd be pretty upset, I bet, because you'd think they were hurting Linux's reputation by wearing those shirts and acting like they did. Doesn't matter a whole lot that they may or may not be developers or associated in any official way with Linux, the damage will be the same.
Just an analogy, FWIW.
Re:Why are we allowing work to control us? (Score:5, Insightful)
i work with some extremely devoted co-workers. During review time, when they brought up their constant 60+ hours per week... management said "we never asked you to do that, you did that on your own".
Just because you cant stand up to your boss, doesnt mean that the rest of us cant.
Disregard misinformation here - read the ruling (Score:3, Insightful)
Since there is no law protecting the right of workers to socialize outside of work, the court allowed the rule that they couldn't to stand. There is a law, thanks to union lobbying, saying workers can meet outside of work to discuss unions or union business - so this is the ONLY reason workers are allowed to meet each other outside of work. As far as uniforms, the court further put the restriction that workers can not wear their work uniforms at these meetings.
People are trying to spread disinformation and FUD about this. If it was a ruling only applying to some little rule about uniforms or some obscure union regulation, it would not be a big deal. Anyone who reads the ruling can see what it says.
Re:Why are we allowing work to control us? (Score:2, Insightful)
If you are happy letting your employer control what you do outside of work, I suggest you get some therapy real fast. Personally, I think that what I do outside of work is none of my employer's business. If I want to moonlight for the competition, I should be allowed to.
Considering that I've had sex with some of my co-workers in the past and (gasp!) even married one, I think the idea of my employer telling me that I can't form relationships with coworkers outside of the workplace is total and utter crap. My life is just that, MY life. As I stated in another post, I'd rather get less pay and prestige at a job that respects my personal space than make lots of money at a company that thinks they own me.
Re:Why are we allowing work to control us? (Score:3, Insightful)
If someone offers you a job and states that you'll have to work more than 40 hours a week, tell them you're not interested or ask for more money in compensation. Companies that want salaried positions to work far more than 40 hours a week are either bleeding money, cutting costs so badly they are understaffed or have no real concern for their employees. These are not places you should want to work anyways. Avoid them at all costs since they will only make you miserable and ruin other portions of your life. Pull an "Office Space" and dig ditches if you have to but don't work for people like that.
You should really only have to work shitty jobs like that when you have no experience. Out of college, you should expect to get a shit job because you don't know shit generally. While there are exceptions, most college grads need the blow to the nads that a crap job gives them so they mature and stop doing stupid crap.
But I digress...
Keep 2 months salary socked away and your resume updated. Really. It is amazing how fast a good job can go downhill or disappear.
Re:Why are we allowing work to control us? (Score:3, Insightful)
In which case you say "sayonara, good luck finding a replacement".
I've yet to work at a company that could find enough good workers, or that was willing to alienate the ones it had.
And I really don't want to work for an employer who's going to take me for granted like that.
I mean, I've worked at big companies and small, private and government. I've found them all to be pretty flexible as long as your requests are reasonable--even negotiating points in the employment agreement and signing off on small modifications hasn't been a problem in my experience (I've yet to sign one as written). Even big legal departments can be reasonable if your requests are reasonable.
And it is not about being brave - it is about realizing you need a paycheck and the market may not be so hot (presently it takes about six months to find a new job, and that is not gauranteeing it will be any better)
Then you gotta suck it up while you job hunt. But you should be job hunting pronto, as soon as you realize your employer doesn't value you.
Re:Coworkers in your circle of friends is harmful. (Score:3, Insightful)
It's always interesting when we make broad comments--the natural tendency is always to place ourselves into the majority, even if it's unconciously.
I'm a leading-class introvert. My wife has trouble understanding me, and she's spent a mind-boggling ammount of time trying. I drink only very rarey, I don't watch sports, and I don't go to church--
but I make a good friend, because I take people as they come and present myself as I am. Some of my friends are as introverted as I am, but most of them are like most people--extroverts who like to hang out in groups.
You are placing FAR too much burden on other people. Introverts can get along just fine with extroverts--you just need to change "despise extroverts" to "aren't an extrovert", and let the social chips fall where they may.
I read the ruling from the NLRB site. (Score:4, Insightful)
I read this from the NLRB's web site. The ruling only states that you can't fraternize with others while you are on duty whether they are off duty or not.
Seems overly controlling to me, but within the employer's rights. Two off-duty employees would still be able to communicate, organize, etc.
This administration seems to be trying to erode the rights of workers but if we're going to make accusations against them, we need to have the facts on our side. Exaggerating our case makes it easier for them not to be held accountable by the American people.
Re:Why are we allowing work to control us? (Score:2, Insightful)
I'm so glad that I don't work with folks like you.
Leave your work at the door? Absolutely. Leave the relationships with other people at the door? Absolutely not.
Re:Misdirected rationalisation? (Score:3, Insightful)
You might have a coworker who sits six cubes away, who you'd never have a chance to talk to during the course of a business day. Let's call him Bob. Maybe Bob's in your department, maybe not, but you barely know him and don't realize he shares your skillset. Then one night you and some others meet at the bar for a few beers. You get to talking to Bob, and realize you share competencies. You make a remark about a problem you've been working on, and after a few seconds of thought, Bob shoots back a solution you'd never thought of.
Whether you like it (or care about it) or not, you've just done "work" after hours, and you've just solved a problem that you'd have probably spent the next couple of days working on at the office. Over the next few months, you and Bob make great friends, sharing tips and tricks, and helping each other unofficially with coding problems, both work-related and personal.
In other words, after-hours socializing can benefit all parties. You and Bob and your other coworkers get some friendly face time in a relaxed environment. You get to know your coworkers better and develop productive relationships with them. Bob saves you a couple of hours worth of work now and then by offering a solution to something you're stuck on, and you do the same for him. And the company is better off for it - unless, of course, their policies made this entire scenario impossible to begin with.
Re:Why are we allowing work to control us? (Score:3, Insightful)
That you've had a relatively great experience with this doesn't mean that it's directly applicable to others, and it doesn't (necessarily) mean that people who don't bounce back into a new job in a month are doing something wrong in their job search. It may mean that you're exceptionally good at what you do and thus highly sought after. It may mean that you're really good at playing the job hunting game. It may mean that you're in a part of the country which has a good ratio of open jobs to job seekers. And, honestly, it may mean you had awfully good luck.
The standard advice in job hunting is that you should expect to take about a month searching for each $10-15K of salary that you're seeking. I can't say my experience has directly matched that, since I haven't had permanent, full-time employment since mid-2002... just contract work. I've had *interviews* a lot, but I'm in Silicon Valley. At least through 2003, there were actually still a lot of open jobs out here (compared to where I'd lived before, Tampa Bay), but that's tempered by the fact that there are a lot of other desperate unemployed techs here. Positions that were $70-100K in 2000 are being advertised for $40-50K now and they'll get hundreds of applications.
As for the "40 hour a week or walk away" thing, while I generally agree with the sentiment, it's very uncommon in the tech industry from what I've seen. At one of the contracts I was at, a canonical Silicon Valley startup company, I was getting definite vibes of being looked at as a slacker because I was only there nine hours a day. (My contract called for a per-week payment, prorated daily, so I didn't get overtime.) Again, if you're really good you can make a demand like that, but you'd better be so good that the employer isn't going to think, "Well, there's this other guy who's good enough for what we need and says he'll work 60 hours a week as long as we buy him pizza each night."
I'm hoping to have about six months' of living expenses socked away if I can, which is closer to three months' salary on my current contract... which I'm not sure will last past three more months.
Re:Why are we allowing work to control us? (Score:3, Insightful)
If they have this right, they could just as easily require 100% attendance at the thursday night bowling league and 9am sunday services in order to "foster the spirit of teamwork." I can see it now.
Re:Why are we allowing work to control us? (Score:3, Insightful)
Indeed. Employees do that by:
Being motivated, giving their all, working hard and excelling at what they do.
Unfortunately employers do that by:
Downsizing and laying off staff, hiring "consultants" and instituting petty rules like the number of toilet-breaks allowed each day or banning cigarette breaks, treating their employees as faceless commodity-level drones and shipping off as much of the work as possible to third-world countries.
Can you blame the younger generation for not wanting to sign up for that deal?
You're coming (presumably) from a number of years ago, when there was the expectation of a single career arc, reward for your loyalty and a job for life.
Kids in IT these days know they'll have to re-learn all their skills every couple of years just to stay ahead, they'll be treated like commodity units instead of valued team-members (like they're told they are), and they can be sacked in a heartbeat along with a thousand of their co-workers, just to preserve a few points on the company stock or to pay for the CEO's new solid-gold toilet seat in the executive washroom.
The implied social contract is breaking down, and I don't think the kids started it.
"The US is in an economic war that, given most of the attitudes I see today towards education and work, we're going to lose."
Yeah. Unfortunately in your metaphor the companies and corporations are the arms manufacturers - they started it by playing off the US job market against the rest of the world, and they're the only ones to profit.
The US economy goes down the tubes, and the workers themselves have no power to change shitty conditions. Meanwhile the companies (and the select few who run them) get slightly richer. Again, are you really surprised?
Re:Why are we allowing work to control us? (Score:3, Insightful)
IT won't ever unionize because at least at the lower tiers, anyone can learn to do most of our jobs.
The only thing keeping many people away from my job is me telling them stories of late night maintenance windows done while they sleep and the every so often poor planning by middle managers who are in many ways even more replaceable by "anyone" as I am in a technical worker role.
We know a little, and with a few years under our belts, we have some experience others simply can't get.
Most managers literally know nothing that wasn't already taught to the graduates of any business school.
The trick is, if you have to work for a boss, and you happen to stumble into one that is actually using their skills to get obstacles out of your way and is making your life better in some way -- get behind 'em and push... they'll take you for a better overall experience than the dime-a-dozen bozos that make up the majority of their peers.
Re:Why are we allowing work to control us? (Score:3, Insightful)
Hardly. And I'm not talking about loyalty, but enlightened self-interest.
It's in your best interests to go that extra mile. If you don't stay competitive, then your job will fall to someone who does. If your company fails to stay competitive, then it, and your job, again will again fall to someone that does.
GM just closed a plant in NJ and laid off 8,000 workers who were "suprised" at the move. Officials, however, were quoted as saying, "It was not a suprise. We told the workers again and again that the plant wasn't competitive, that it was losing money, and that they could not keep demanding wage increases and more benefits for less work. No company can continually operate at a loss."
As India and China come into the mainsteam, the number of people who want to do and can do your job is increasing almost geometrically. The internet is giving them the access to do so. And unfortunately, their cost-of-living lets them do it for less money. Should you be worried?
And personally, I think the consumer is as much to blame as the corps. Consumers demand and flock towards cheaper goods. Company "A" opens a plant in China and can now sell the same goods 30% cheaper. People buy them. What really, when you think about it, does company "B" do now when they start losing sales? Go out of business? Or do the same and reduce their costs to match?