Wow, We'd Lose
Originally from this page, posted here for your convenience. :p
Big Brother Nixes Happy Hour
NLRB Green Lights Ban on Off-Duty Fraternizing Among Co-Workers
It is a regular pastime for co-workers to chat during a coffee break, at a union hall, or over a beer about workplace issues, good grilling recipes, and celebrity gossip. Yet a recent ruling by the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) allows employers to ban off-duty fraternizing among co-workers, severely weakening the rights of free association and speech, and violating basic standards of privacy for America's workers.
So how did the NLRB decide to weaken fundamental workplace protections? 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." 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..." While the law allows employers to ban association among co-workers during work hours, Guardsmark's rule was broader in that it applied to the off-duty association of co-workers.
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 7. But the dissenting member of the Board pointed out that since the rule already mentions dating, workers would understand fraternization to mean something else. She noted, "the primary meaning of the term 'fraternize…[is] to associate in a brotherly manner'…and that kind of association is the essence of workplace solidarity."
Growing Workforce, Shrinking Protection
Number of U.S. workers for every employee of the NLRB:In 1980: 30,1762In 2003: 69,4073
While there are reasons for employers to ban dating among co-workers (namely to prevent sexual harassment), prohibiting off-duty fraternization is something quite different. Such a ban inevitably chills collective action of any sort—be it on a purely social basis or related to employees discussing whether to form a union or not.
Since employers are not obligated to inform employees of their legally-protected right to associate with their co-workers, how can we expect any employee to assume that a rule banning fraternization doesn't interfere with these rights? And why would someone risk violating a no-fraternization rule, given that most employees work 'at will'—meaning they can be fired for no reason?
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. But the NLRB gives employers the green light to invade our privacy and chip away at our most basic rights in the workplace.
*******
I can't even imagine a rule like that being enacted at Brooks. Even though we rarely get together outside of work anymore (most of the old group's gone! :/ ), there's still a number of us that are friendly. Lora doesn't *like* us standing around chatting, but she's not insane enough to try and stop us. Not like we'd listen anyway.
Just found it interesting.
Big Brother Nixes Happy Hour
NLRB Green Lights Ban on Off-Duty Fraternizing Among Co-Workers
It is a regular pastime for co-workers to chat during a coffee break, at a union hall, or over a beer about workplace issues, good grilling recipes, and celebrity gossip. Yet a recent ruling by the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) allows employers to ban off-duty fraternizing among co-workers, severely weakening the rights of free association and speech, and violating basic standards of privacy for America's workers.
So how did the NLRB decide to weaken fundamental workplace protections? 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." 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..." While the law allows employers to ban association among co-workers during work hours, Guardsmark's rule was broader in that it applied to the off-duty association of co-workers.
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 7. But the dissenting member of the Board pointed out that since the rule already mentions dating, workers would understand fraternization to mean something else. She noted, "the primary meaning of the term 'fraternize…[is] to associate in a brotherly manner'…and that kind of association is the essence of workplace solidarity."
Growing Workforce, Shrinking Protection
Number of U.S. workers for every employee of the NLRB:In 1980: 30,1762In 2003: 69,4073
While there are reasons for employers to ban dating among co-workers (namely to prevent sexual harassment), prohibiting off-duty fraternization is something quite different. Such a ban inevitably chills collective action of any sort—be it on a purely social basis or related to employees discussing whether to form a union or not.
Since employers are not obligated to inform employees of their legally-protected right to associate with their co-workers, how can we expect any employee to assume that a rule banning fraternization doesn't interfere with these rights? And why would someone risk violating a no-fraternization rule, given that most employees work 'at will'—meaning they can be fired for no reason?
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. But the NLRB gives employers the green light to invade our privacy and chip away at our most basic rights in the workplace.
*******
I can't even imagine a rule like that being enacted at Brooks. Even though we rarely get together outside of work anymore (most of the old group's gone! :/ ), there's still a number of us that are friendly. Lora doesn't *like* us standing around chatting, but she's not insane enough to try and stop us. Not like we'd listen anyway.
Just found it interesting.
posted by Erica at 10:26 PM
2 Comments:
That's terrible.
What right have work got to say how I spend my free time?
They only pay me eight hours a day. What makes them think they can have access to the other 16!!
I hate work places.
---
Also on the last post:
"I'm the type of person who needs plenty of free time or I go a bit crazy."
Well done on recognising that you need free time to yourself. Took my years to accept that in myself.
---
On your parents, I've never met them, so I'm only guessing... Is your mum scared for you - or is she scared for herself.
Does she feel like she failed you as a parent and is trying to express that (my mum does that - it may not be universal).
Or is she wanting to control you, to take over from you in making your decisions.
Or is she trying to tell you that she is there for you (in her way).
There can be so many, many different interactions. The communication between parents and children is also fraught with difficulties, because everyone is learning as they go.
The children are learning about life as they grow up. The parents are learning about being parents as their children grow. Everyone is working it out as they go along.
As I said I've never met your parents, and I've only read a few of your posts. You sound like a very intelligent and thoughtful person.
Hope this comment gives you something to help structure your thoughts around.
Welcome, Pax!
Yeah, free time-- particularly time spent alone-- is not something I'll compromise on. Over the past few years I've had to learn how to balance alone time along with time spent with others. Social anxiety used to be a problem for me and having *too much* free time later became unhealthy. But as I said, I've acheived some kind of balance in that part of my life now, so it's all good.
As for my Mom, there's too much for me to say in a comment, so I think I'll just write about it in an entry. ;)
Thanks for your comments, they're always appreciated!
Post a Comment
<< Home