Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Privacy United States Your Rights Online

NRLB Redefines 'Your Own Time' 871

Posted by timothy from the can't-possibly-pass-muster dept.
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?"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

NRLB Redefines 'Your Own Time' More

NRLB Redefines 'Your Own Time'

Comments Filter:

  • Why are we allowing work to control us? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by garcia ( 6573 ) * on Wednesday August 03, 2005 @02:28PM (#13233319)
    While I completely agree that this could be made out to imply that workers are not permitted to assemble outside of work hours to collectively unite against their employer, I'm far more disturbed by the quote at the end of the article that reads, "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."

    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.
    • It's healthy to have time to yourself, your family, and your hobbies.

      Ahh, I'm going to have to go ahead and ask you to come in on Sunday, too...

    • I don't believe it specifically stated that you cannot fraternize with workers of a competitor.

      I'm sure that would open up some eyes at your employers.

      If you can't be friends with some of your co-workers, is your work environment really all that good anymore?

    • Re:Why are we allowing work to control us? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by v3rb ( 239648 ) on Wednesday August 03, 2005 @02:38PM (#13233475) Homepage
      I don't understand people who refuse to socialize with co-workers. I can understand not wanting to talk shop, but I have had the pleasure to work with some great people that I enjoy seeing at and outside of work. Knowing these people from a social standpoint has helped us work together better.

      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.
      • A man who's work is both his vocation and his advocation is truly blessed.

        To some, I suppose this is true. To me, it's not. Getting paid to do what I love to do makes it work and they didn't call work "work" and not "vacation" for a reason. YMMV.

        Knowing these people from a social standpoint has helped us work together better.

        People I work with gossip, a lot, and I want no part of my personal life being needless gossiped about around the office. The further I distance myself from loud mouthed co-workers

    • Desperate Unions (Score:3, Informative)

      by malakai ( 136531 ) *
      Far as I understand, the NLRB is for relations between labor management (Unions) and companies. This rulling is directed at union solictiation/events after work and in company uniform.

      There are well defined procedures for starting a pro-union vote. Strict rules, and lots of foul play. This group is around to rule which side screwed up that delicate dance.

      This has no affect on individual employees after ours and out of uniform. Unless they are having drinks at a bar with the local union rep and their entire

      • Oh come on (Score:5, Funny)

        by winkydink ( 650484 ) * <sv.dude@gmail.com> on Wednesday August 03, 2005 @02:50PM (#13233661) Homepage Journal
        Why dampen sensationalism with the facts? :)

      • Re:Desperate Unions (Score:5, Informative)

        by teromajusa ( 445906 ) on Wednesday August 03, 2005 @03:35PM (#13234343)
        Did you read the article?


        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."


        That doesn't sound like it has anything to do with union organizing, does it?


        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.

        Section 7 of the National Labor Relations Act grants workers the right to "self-organization, to form, join, or assist labor organizations...and to engage in other concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection..."


        So the union protested the ruling precisely because it did interfere with the ability to recruit for unions, which is a protected right.


        On June 7, 2005, the Board ruled 2 to 1 that Guardsmark's fraternization rule was lawful.1 The Board majority argued that workers would likely interpret the fraternization rule as merely a ban on dating, and not a prohibition of the association among co-workers protected by Section


        So in other words, they upheld the rule because they felt workers would know it didn't apply to union activities. What occured is exactly the opposite of what you stated in your post. Now how do you feel about the ruling?
      • Parent does not know what he is talking about.

        The NLRB rules on a wide variety of workplace rights issues. Section 7 of the NLRA specifies you have the right to "concerted activity" which includes ANYTHING you do as a group (or on behalf of a group) and not necessarily just in a union context. Workers in unions use these rules more than anyone else because they have a structure that knows how to use them.

        The actual decision (pdf) [nlrb.gov] doesn't say a damn thing about this being just about unions. It says
    • Congratulations on forming a network of friends outside of your office.

      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 m
    • You don't want to even think about your job when you're not on duty?

      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

  • Wife, please read this article! (Score:5, Funny)

    by bigwavejas ( 678602 ) * on Wednesday August 03, 2005 @02:28PM (#13233322) Journal
    My wife and I are employed at the same company... Does that mean I don't have to talk to her anymore afterwork? Thank you NLRB!!! I'm soooo shot-gunning two beers tonight and watching ESPN.

  • WHAT! (Score:5, Funny)

    by hoka ( 880785 ) on Wednesday August 03, 2005 @02:29PM (#13233340)
    So wait, they are going to ban my drinking! What next, no more vodka shots during breaks? Then what, they are going to replace the coke and rum dispenser with WATER!? THEY CAN'T TAKE THAT AWAY FROM ME!

    Oh wait, what was TFA about again?

  • Board makeup (Score:3, Interesting)

    by lastchance_000 ( 847415 ) * on Wednesday August 03, 2005 @02:29PM (#13233343)
    Interesting that the dissenting board member was the one appointed by Clinton. The others were appointed by the current president.
    • I find it sickening.

    • Re:Board makeup (Score:2, Insightful)

      by daveschroeder ( 516195 ) *
      Yeah, it is interesting (since you're the one politicizing it) that the Clinton appointee thought it was just fine for Guardsmark employees to date and/or get "overly friendly with" clients and co-workers while in their work uniform.

      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.

      • Trolling Clinton Kicker (Score:5, Informative)

        by beacher ( 82033 ) on Wednesday August 03, 2005 @03:11PM (#13233971) Homepage
        Just WHERE does the fraternization section say "in uniform"? Please correct me. I thought I was off the hook when I read your "in uniform" bit, but I always double check for this exact reason.

        FYFL-
        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, pre-clude 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 com-munications . . . about terms and conditions of employ-ment." 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 proscrip-tion against fraternization appears alongside proscrip-tions 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 under-stand 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 em-ployee 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 coem-ployees. 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 col-league ignores, the Respondent's rule is designed "to provide safeguards so that security will not be compro-mised by interpersonal relationships either between Re-spondent's fellow security guards or between Respon-dent's security guards and clients' employees." Given those heightened security concerns, we think the Re-spondent's justification for its fraternization rule is even stronger than that of the employer in Lafayette Park Ho-tel, where we concluded that a fraternization rule was a proper means for preventing the "appearance of favorit-ism, claims of sexual harassment, and employee dissen-sion created by romantic relationships in the workplace." 326 NLRB at 827 fn.

        • Since the parent is highly moderated and will be seen, I'll respond here, duplicating one of my other responses:

          The ORDER of this ruling, which is the only substantive piece of the ruling, relates to in-uniform provisions. The NLRB took NO ACTION with regard to the fraternization decision, already made by a judge, noting simply that such provisions are not prohibited and that precedence exists for employers to maintain anti-fratnernization laws. In other words, the only positive, definable action taken by t

  • No big deal (Score:3, Insightful)

    by pete6677 ( 681676 ) on Wednesday August 03, 2005 @02:30PM (#13233355)
    I really don't think too many employers will take the time and trouble to regulate friendships outside the office, or even inside in most cases. Most managers want to get stuff done and call it a day, not snoop around area restaurants and bars to keep tabs on employee social lives.

    • Re:No big deal (Score:4, Insightful)

      by FattMattP ( 86246 ) on Wednesday August 03, 2005 @02:32PM (#13233384) Homepage
      I really don't think too many employers will take the time and trouble to regulate friendships outside the office, or even inside in most cases.
      It's not that they'll follow you around. Like so many laws that are on the books, it's just another hammer to hit you with if they've thought you've done something wrong.
    • No, management isn't going to care if you and 2 coworkers meet up after your shifts to drink some beer and shoot the shit.

      Yes, management IS going to care if you and 200 coworkers meet up after your shifts to plan a collective bargaining strategy.

      This ruling says that they can now fire you with impunity for the latter. A blanche-er carte blanche to engage in union-busting practices couldn't have been given to Industry.

      It makes me a little bit sick.

  • Stupid. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Renraku ( 518261 ) on Wednesday August 03, 2005 @02:31PM (#13233363) Homepage
    With the exception of substance abuse or crime..

    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:Stupid. (Score:3, Insightful)

      by sqlrob ( 173498 )
      With the exception of substance abuse or crime..

      *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:Stupid. (Score:4, Funny)

      by gr8_phk ( 621180 ) on Wednesday August 03, 2005 @02:42PM (#13233532)
      "Otherwise, I reserve the right to date, have sex with... ...any of my co-workers when we are off the clock."

      You read slashdot and are concerned about having sex with a co-worker? I'm confused on so many levels.

    • Otherwise, I reserve the right to date, have sex with... any of my co-workers when we are off the clock.

      Maybe your coworkers ought to have some input in that, too...
    • Maybe you should reserve the right to read the article so you know what it's about before making an irrelevant comment.

    • Re:Stupid. (Score:4, Funny)

      by thomasa ( 17495 ) on Wednesday August 03, 2005 @02:50PM (#13233660)

      This falls under 'human rights'. Which you cannot sign away.

      Sorry, someone's working on that too.

  • The actual ruling... (Score:5, Informative)

    by daveschroeder ( 516195 ) * on Wednesday August 03, 2005 @02:33PM (#13233393)
    ...since the submission is extremely misleading and melodramatic, as usual.

    NLRB ruling [nlrb.gov]

    The ruling does not universally allow employers to ban any and all off-duty interaction. It made a specific ruling, in its capacity of administering the National Labor Relations Act [nlrb.gov], that Guardsmark's ban on in-uniform, but off duty, fraternization ("dating or becoming overly friendly with") with clients and coworkers. The critical and key aspect of the ruling was that it allowed for the prevention of such inappropriate fraternization while in Guardsmark uniform. The NLRB ruling further stated that care must be taken such that this ruling is not misapplied as to have a "chilling" effect on employee's rights under Section 7 of the the Act.

    The actual order is:

    ORDER
    The Respondent, Guardsmark, LLC, its officers, agents, suc-cessors, and assigns, shall
    1. Cease and desist from
    (a) Maintaining or enforcing a handbook provision prohibit-ing employees from registering complaints regarding their wages, hours, or conditions of employment with Guardsmarks' clients.
    (b) In any like or related manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed them by Section 7 of the Act.
    2. Take the following affirmative action which is necessary to effectuate the purposes of the Act.
    (a) Within 21 days after receipt of this decision advise its employees, nationwide, that the handbook provision regarding registering complaints with clients is not to be understood as limiting the right of employees to engage in activities protected by the National Labor Relations Act.
    (b) At a time when the employee handbook is to be revised or reissued, either delete the handbook provision prohibiting employees from registering complaints with clients, or modify the said language so that it does not prohibit activities protected by the National Labor Relations Act.
    (c) Within 14 days after service by the Region, post at its San Francisco, California office copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix."6 Copies of the notice, on forms provided by the Regional Director for Region 20, after being duly signed by Respondent's representative, shall be posted immediately upon receipt thereof, and shall remain posted by Respondent for 60 consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous places, in-cluding all places where notices to employees are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by the Respondent to ensure that the notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
    (d) Within 21 days after service by the Regional Office, file with the Regional Director for Region 20 a sworn certification of a responsible official on a form provided by the Region at-testing to the steps that the Respondent has taken to comply.
    • Mod parent up, and thank parent for actually reading the ruling.
    • Can the slashdot editors replace the original post with this one? What about super-modding up to about 12? It's so typically slashdot to have a misleading news posting (it's pretty bad when original poster hasn't RTFA) and a plethora of totally irrelevant and indignant comments to follow.

      It's such a waste of time to find the one comment that has anything to do with anything.

    • Natch (Score:3, Insightful)

      by jmorris42 ( 1458 ) *
      Should have known it was bogus, the ruling as hyped by that crappy little website would have been SO controversial that we would have all been seeing wall to wall coverage on every news net on every part of the political spectrum from NPR to FoxNews. Good to know this is just hysterical Democrats doing thier fundraising thing.

      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 ju
  • With one ruling, the NLRB has made labor unions illegal. This puts an incredible weapon in the hands of management. It will only be enforced when fraternization becomes a problem for the employer, as in the case of union orginizing. I don't expect it to have much of an impact in IT, though, as this industry is one of the least unionized, at least in the US. However, in companies where employement is not at-will, meaning they have to have cause to fire you, a policy like this could certainly be instituted an

  • Praise bossman morning workbells chime
    Praise him for bits of overtime
    Praise him whose wars we love to fight
    Praise him fat leach and parasite
    A-men

  • Double edged sword (Score:4, Interesting)

    by www.sorehands.com ( 142825 ) on Wednesday August 03, 2005 @02:35PM (#13233433) Homepage
    This can work both ways. If your employer controls your time outside of work, injuries outside of work may become work related. I made this argument, that since my computer work at home was subject to their possession (standard inventions/non-disclosure agreement said it is their unless they didn't want it). Then my tendinitis, even off duty, was compensatible under workers comp.
    BTW. I believe in California, an employer cannot punish you for legal off duty conduct.
  • Fuck you. I will socialize with whomever I please. The more you try to force me otherwise, the worse it will be for you.

    Yes, that was a threat. And yes, I am willing to back that up.

  • Fraternazation in the military (Score:3, Interesting)

    by FuzzyDaddy ( 584528 ) on Wednesday August 03, 2005 @02:36PM (#13233445) Journal
    When I was working for a military contractor, I spent a lot of time on military bases. There is, of course, a strict rule against dating between officers and subordinates. However, marriage between officers and subordinates is allowed. So you end up with cases of people getting married who "never dated".

  • two points leap to mind- (Score:3, Insightful)

    by conJunk ( 779958 ) on Wednesday August 03, 2005 @02:37PM (#13233461)
    first, how isn't this a violation of the first amendment garantee of freedom of assembly?

    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
  • say it: "Slashdot Redefines acronym for National Labor Relations Board"
  • kinda does away with "leaving work at work" doesn't it? I think anyone under these rules would up and quit... Of course i wouldnt put it past walmart to try and implement it for some reason or another...
  • but this is a little excessive. I can understand that employers don't want to hire people they know are doing illegal things outside of work (see drug testing), but outside of that, if they aren't paying me for that time, I'll do what I want. I am actually having a little trouble figuring out how this is legal. Company policies that prevent two relatives from working in the same place, etc I can understand, and if two people in the workplace get married, then one has to go. But to tell them they can't d

  • Disturbing (Score:2, Informative)

    by Oostertoaster ( 808578 )
    Google cache, since article is already going slow:
    http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:mO-w2Me3Sy4J: www.americanrightsatwork.org/workersrights/eye7_20 05.cfm+&hl=en [64.233.167.104]

    This sounds like a very disturbing ruling. IANAL, so I'm not sure how any of this will stand to to serious scrutiny, but would this give employers the power to "ban" employee unions it doesn't like? And yet workers have the right to associate (at least I believe they do, its been a while since I researched workers rights at all, correct me

  • 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?

    If your employer "bans" you from meeting up with your colleagues after work, then complains about how no work is getting done outside of the workplace, doesn't (s)he deserve it?

    Can they really stop you from talking with your cubicle neighbor on the bus home?

    They can try, but I imagine that a lawsuit or two will quickly change their

  • Misdirected rationalisation? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by dbolger ( 161340 ) on Wednesday August 03, 2005 @02:44PM (#13233558) Homepage

    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!

    • 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?

      I think you're reading way too much into the original quote. Seems to me the comment was referring to the laid-back atmosphere t

  • wait a minute, there's an off-duty now? I thought there was just work-in-office, work-at-home, work-in-bar, and work-in-sleep (yes i've actually drempt about programming)
  • My guess is that employers' main motives for banning after-hours employee "fraternization" are to a) inhibit forming unions and b) if sexual harassment occurs after-hours, the employer could have legal risks from it. Employers might not see any up-side to after-hours "fraternization" and there are some clearly-visible down-sides (for the employer).

    Workers in IT (esp. programmers) spend long and irregular hours, socialize with eachother, and exchange ideas. That's just the culture of it. I somehow doubt

  • freedom of speech... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by DualG5GUNZ ( 762655 ) * on Wednesday August 03, 2005 @02:45PM (#13233584)
    It seems to me that if any employer (especially if federal) actually tries to enforce this ruling--provided the victims are competent--there will be a court battle. In my unexpert opinion, this clearly impinges upon our constitutionally protected right to free speech. Plus, unless our government deems us property of those we work for (I'm not saying it doesn't), there's just too much gray area to enforce this.

  • New Slashdot Code (Score:3, Insightful)

    by argStyopa ( 232550 ) on Wednesday August 03, 2005 @02:47PM (#13233601) Journal
    1 point Hysterical*

    * 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 /., would this be a '+' or '-' rating?

  • Not a problem (Score:5, Insightful)

    by yamla ( 136560 ) <chris@@@hypocrite...org> on Wednesday August 03, 2005 @02:49PM (#13233640)
    I don't really see this being a big problem. I am assuming, of course, that your employer pays you for all 24 hours in the day, of course. Let's see, where I live, the government mandates overtime at time-and-a-half past eight hours in a day. Or double-time past twelve hours in a day. That works out to 6.65 times my base pay. So yes, I'd happily not socialise with my coworkers, provided I get AT LEAST a 565% raise. Heck, I'll even carry a pager for that.

  • Disregard misinformation here - read the ruling (Score:3, Insightful)

    by br00tus ( 528477 ) on Wednesday August 03, 2005 @03:30PM (#13234260)
    Some people here have said that normal socialization is allowed, and that this is just a rule about uniforms, or applying to unions. This is incorrect. This is a ruling against workers socializing outside of work, wearing their uniform or something else, period. That is why it is a big deal, and anyone reading the ruling can see this.

    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.

  • I read the ruling from the NLRB site. (Score:4, Insightful)

    by srobert ( 4099 ) on Wednesday August 03, 2005 @05:06PM (#13235316)
    First that's NLRB, not NRLB. Consult the National Council to Combat Dyslexia in Abreviations, (NDCAC).
      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.

Slashdot Top Deals

panic: can't find /

Close