Discussion on:
View:
Show:
Employers have trampled workers' rights for far too long. It's about time someone slapped them down for it. There must be a balanced approach, and we've not had one in the US in recent decades. Many thanks to the NLRB.
Is it that said system gave workers a win in this case?
How about a relevant discussion on 29 USC 157 the right to organize (not just unionize). Of course knee-jerk political one liners get more attention. (See I've fallen into the trap!)
any legislation is open to interpretation by the current judge. So what is important about deciding how much of a political decision this is you need to know when the judge or judges were appointed and who put them there.
the vagaries of judges have no bearing on my attempt to focus on the law at hand rather than political idiocy.
in the hands of the judges involved. Judges, especially the senior ones, are often making judgements based on politics and not the laws involved. This sub-thread started with a political call which you said was rubbish due to the age of the law - an answer that's either totally irrelevant to the original claim or an attempt at a political answer contrary to the original claim.
prior precedent on the social media issue. He didn't even have to think on that one.
And BTW don't put words in my mouth. The OP tried to link a sitting US president with a law that is 60 years old. I believe the term used was idiocy not rubbish.
And BTW don't put words in my mouth. The OP tried to link a sitting US president with a law that is 60 years old. I believe the term used was idiocy not rubbish.
to the judge and who appointed them, not the age of the law.
The ruling is, in my view, idiotic rubbish as the precedent the judge used on the media is NOT relevant to the case when looked at sanely.
The policy as quoted does NOT restrict what a person can say about the company on their own time, but does tell them not to make statements to the media rubbishing the company on company time - a very valid policy. Then the judge goes on to say the policy is wrong as it violates discussions about the union on company time. The policy does NOT limit talks with the union or talks with other staff in any way, just saying bad things to the media without prior approval.
The ruling is, in my view, idiotic rubbish as the precedent the judge used on the media is NOT relevant to the case when looked at sanely.
The policy as quoted does NOT restrict what a person can say about the company on their own time, but does tell them not to make statements to the media rubbishing the company on company time - a very valid policy. Then the judge goes on to say the policy is wrong as it violates discussions about the union on company time. The policy does NOT limit talks with the union or talks with other staff in any way, just saying bad things to the media without prior approval.
In the UK, the Unions have in the past, brought the country to its knees over the most puerile of arguments. Their power was smashed in the 1980's by the evil Mrs Thatcher, but even she could not obliterate them. This is a good thing. I am not in a union, due to a falling out many years ago, but this does not mean that I am anti-union. I am definitely against unions being capable of causing nationwide chaos, but equally I feel that some restraints need to be in place to curb management abuse of people. In a capitalist country, the unions are often the only organisations with the clout to stop virtual slavery, employee intimidation and downright cruelty by management bent on 'bonus at any cost'.
People have the capacity to be evil. Management have the power. Some form of restraint is necessary. There are always two sides and circumstance determines which side you're on. From a management perspective, unions can be evil, and from a worker's perspective, management can be evil. For any semblance of fairness, we need both.
People have the capacity to be evil. Management have the power. Some form of restraint is necessary. There are always two sides and circumstance determines which side you're on. From a management perspective, unions can be evil, and from a worker's perspective, management can be evil. For any semblance of fairness, we need both.
company equipment and / or working on company paid time. Since when does anyone have a right to use company time to go to web sites that have nothing to do with their work or the company to make adverse comments about the company.
The company had allowed access as an extra benefit to staff. All this does is now force the company to remove that access and benefit because one person decided to be a rectum about it.
There is nothing that requires the company to give you Internet access for personal use. Since they now aren't allowed to set in place policies to see such use is not abused on company time, then they now need to stop providing this extra access to protect themselves against future law suits.
Back in the mid 1990s there were a couple of serious court cases where staff used corporate emails to make comments about other companies in what they thought were private discussion. They were not senior staff who set policy, but the courts still found the companies liable for the abusive comments because they were on the corporate equipment. Thus it's clear a company should NOT be allowing anyone to use their equipment to make negative comments about anyone. Now we have the US NLRB saying policies limiting their free speech aren't allowed. Simple answer, as I said before, don't allow ANY corporate equipment to be used for non work activities - no other policy is then needed.
The company had allowed access as an extra benefit to staff. All this does is now force the company to remove that access and benefit because one person decided to be a rectum about it.
There is nothing that requires the company to give you Internet access for personal use. Since they now aren't allowed to set in place policies to see such use is not abused on company time, then they now need to stop providing this extra access to protect themselves against future law suits.
Back in the mid 1990s there were a couple of serious court cases where staff used corporate emails to make comments about other companies in what they thought were private discussion. They were not senior staff who set policy, but the courts still found the companies liable for the abusive comments because they were on the corporate equipment. Thus it's clear a company should NOT be allowing anyone to use their equipment to make negative comments about anyone. Now we have the US NLRB saying policies limiting their free speech aren't allowed. Simple answer, as I said before, don't allow ANY corporate equipment to be used for non work activities - no other policy is then needed.
use of company assets for non-company activities as they aren't allowed to put in policies to allow the safe use of such equipment.
Today many companies allow staff access to the Internet and other stuff as an amenity to staff. well, this ruling really says that companies are not allowed to set rules about how staff use social media while at work. So the answer is to deny the access to such services at work. limit the use of the Internet to only those staff who have a need to use it for work activities, and then block sites that don't relate to work activities. If people can't get to the social media sites with work equipment there's little chance they will make any adverse comments during working hours. Thus no need for a policy.
Today many companies allow staff access to the Internet and other stuff as an amenity to staff. well, this ruling really says that companies are not allowed to set rules about how staff use social media while at work. So the answer is to deny the access to such services at work. limit the use of the Internet to only those staff who have a need to use it for work activities, and then block sites that don't relate to work activities. If people can't get to the social media sites with work equipment there's little chance they will make any adverse comments during working hours. Thus no need for a policy.
The proliferation of mobile devices that run on their own data services pretty much kills the idea of companies restricting access to social media or other sites. This genie is out of the bottle. It's a management issue, and as such, it's also incumbent upon management to provide a working environment that wouldn't spur negative commentary in the first place.
the company equipment. The only thing that comes into play then is the misuse of company time for personal purposes which has a well established set of precedents to allow them to come down on you about it.
However, I do know of one organisation that has a few special items of equipment set up around their building that ensure no usable wi-fi signal is received inside the building. It's one of their security measures to ensure people don't use wi-fi to send out restricted access corporate data. If you want to use a mobile phone you have to leave the building and walk about twenty-five feet away from it, and that's noticeable.
However, I do know of one organisation that has a few special items of equipment set up around their building that ensure no usable wi-fi signal is received inside the building. It's one of their security measures to ensure people don't use wi-fi to send out restricted access corporate data. If you want to use a mobile phone you have to leave the building and walk about twenty-five feet away from it, and that's noticeable.
It is a federal crime to jam communications. I don't know all the specifics, but a Faraday cage built into the walls and ceiling of the building is legal, but any technology to jam a signal is illegal. (Unless one has to walk 25 feet away to get a signal not blocked by the size of the building itself.) If this company is broadcasting a jamming signal, they could be in very big legal trouble. I would love to know more about this.
This is the same problem the prisons are having right now. Cell phones are being smuggled in and the prisons want to jam the signals, but aren't allowed to by law. They could drape a giant Faraday netting over the entire prison, but it would be costly, difficult, and would probably violate some rule against blocking access to sunlight and fresh air.
This is the same problem the prisons are having right now. Cell phones are being smuggled in and the prisons want to jam the signals, but aren't allowed to by law. They could drape a giant Faraday netting over the entire prison, but it would be costly, difficult, and would probably violate some rule against blocking access to sunlight and fresh air.
1. The buildings concerned are all fifty feet or more inside the boundary fence and on private property.
2. The place involved is here in Australia and we have laws about interfering with the communications systems themselves. However, jamming them to stop access to private property is seen as a privacy issue and no interference with the communications system as they work perfectly once you're off the property or near it's edge.
The matter hasn't been tested in court yet, but one legal opinion I saw made it clear it was legal as the laws here require either owner approval or a court order to establish any communications equipment on private property, this has usually been seen as towers or cables in the past. But the argument can be made a radio signal is no different to a signal on a cable and as long as the signal isn't totally blocked from reaching the other properties beyond yours, then it's not being interfered with, just being refused access to your property.
It's based on that opinion that they have transmitters that mess up the signal for only thirty feet as the units are installed partway up the building so they can't be got at undetected, and the interference extends to several feet above the roof. Thus someone on the far side of the building can get a signal from the tower, but not in the building or close to it.
2. The place involved is here in Australia and we have laws about interfering with the communications systems themselves. However, jamming them to stop access to private property is seen as a privacy issue and no interference with the communications system as they work perfectly once you're off the property or near it's edge.
The matter hasn't been tested in court yet, but one legal opinion I saw made it clear it was legal as the laws here require either owner approval or a court order to establish any communications equipment on private property, this has usually been seen as towers or cables in the past. But the argument can be made a radio signal is no different to a signal on a cable and as long as the signal isn't totally blocked from reaching the other properties beyond yours, then it's not being interfered with, just being refused access to your property.
It's based on that opinion that they have transmitters that mess up the signal for only thirty feet as the units are installed partway up the building so they can't be got at undetected, and the interference extends to several feet above the roof. Thus someone on the far side of the building can get a signal from the tower, but not in the building or close to it.
Hey, Thanks for the great answers! I didn't realize Ernest was in AU, so all my legal rambling is not relevant. (Typical American, forgets the world extends beyond the USA. HA HA. I would love to visit AU sometime! Amazing place with great people. It is on my bucket list.)
This is what the forums are for, not for those clowns that always rant about which company is more evil, M$ or A$$pl.
This is what the forums are for, not for those clowns that always rant about which company is more evil, M$ or A$$pl.
Thus his surety is of no consequence to us in the US of A. Here it is a violation to operate radio equipment for the express use of jamming signals. Hell it's illegal to operate equipment within certain power/bands w/o license even if your intent isn't to impede transmission!
as any radio signal can be affected by any powerful electromagnetic motor. Ever seen a TV lose reception because the guy next door was using a powerful electric drill or the like? Or lose the car radio signal near major power lines? Yet that sort of short range interference is NOT seen as signal jamming.
I know in a military sense a signal is usually not seen as jammed unless it can not be received beyond the jamming device at all. Thus I wonder how a small localised effect would be seen under the law.
I know in a military sense a signal is usually not seen as jammed unless it can not be received beyond the jamming device at all. Thus I wonder how a small localised effect would be seen under the law.
comment about anything, especially if their ideas aren't the ones carried out by the company.
policy? Or the device in question is one with the corporate WiFi?
@Earnst: Employees often opt to access social media through their phones while at work, not their PCs, so to circumvent any possible Internet surf "issues" tied to agreements with their company. Phones offer plenty of convenience and access to use, without the easy traceability of using a company's network. And while many workplaces have phone-use policies in place, phones are a less-salient and more difficult for management to track. (If not witnessed first-hand or on camera by supervision, work productivity report compilation is required--work lazy or over-worked managers don't do).
While I've implied that some at work are using company time for Social Media (regardless of what they're posting), that's not a completely fair treatment: Some comply and save posts for breaks or lunch.
At that point, the issue falls back to First Amendment rights. As individuals or employees, we have the right to say what we wish--but we also face costs for our actions.
Companies don't take kindly to dissenters, and have the leverage to take--and get away with--various actions (including quick disposal of employees) to protect their PR image.
Translated: Tweeters beware!
While I've implied that some at work are using company time for Social Media (regardless of what they're posting), that's not a completely fair treatment: Some comply and save posts for breaks or lunch.
At that point, the issue falls back to First Amendment rights. As individuals or employees, we have the right to say what we wish--but we also face costs for our actions.
Companies don't take kindly to dissenters, and have the leverage to take--and get away with--various actions (including quick disposal of employees) to protect their PR image.
Translated: Tweeters beware!
The First Amendment only says that the Gov't cannot censor you. Your arrangement with your employer is a private agreement. You bad mouth him, he can fire you for it. He cannot stop you from stating your opinions, but he doesn't have to continue employing you either.
But, as I understand it, discussing anything union related is allowable on company time. (IMHO, if an employee is spending so much time debating union rules and griping about the boss that they don't get their work done, that isn't right either. I want things to be fair on both sides. I am pro-union, but sometimes unions take things too far, and every job has that one or two guys that always gripe and never work. That isn't good for the employer, the other workers, or the customers.)
But, as I understand it, discussing anything union related is allowable on company time. (IMHO, if an employee is spending so much time debating union rules and griping about the boss that they don't get their work done, that isn't right either. I want things to be fair on both sides. I am pro-union, but sometimes unions take things too far, and every job has that one or two guys that always gripe and never work. That isn't good for the employer, the other workers, or the customers.)
A company should operate within the laws and beliefs of the country it resides in and benefits from.
Especially if the government gives it taxpayer-funded subsidy, tax breaks, or tax cuts.
If there is a line between private and public venues, then no company should be given any entitlements, and given how long most companies have been given entitlements, there are any number of conclusions or possibilities that can be fathomed.
Having said that, I agree with you - I want things to be fair on both sides as well. Unfortunately, they never are - thank both sides...
Especially if the government gives it taxpayer-funded subsidy, tax breaks, or tax cuts.
If there is a line between private and public venues, then no company should be given any entitlements, and given how long most companies have been given entitlements, there are any number of conclusions or possibilities that can be fathomed.
Having said that, I agree with you - I want things to be fair on both sides as well. Unfortunately, they never are - thank both sides...
Personally I am against any government subsidy of private industry as it causes more problems than it solves. However, providing tax-breaks, subsidies, contracts, entitlements, etc. does not make a private organization, regardless of size, a part of the government or subject to restrictions specifically placed upon the government.
The government is not allowed to censor private individuals from speaking their minds. Private organizations are not subject to that though and may fire or discipline employees that speak or act in ways that are detrimental to the organization.
The government is not allowed to censor private individuals from speaking their minds. Private organizations are not subject to that though and may fire or discipline employees that speak or act in ways that are detrimental to the organization.
- Keyboard Shortcuts:
- Prev
- Next
- Toggle
