You May Not Be Friends With Your Colleagues
lolfighter
Snark, Dire Join Date: 2003-04-20 Member: 15693Members
Snark, Dire Join Date: 2003-04-20 Member: 15693Members
in Discussions
<div class="IPBDescription">As The Law Goes</div> I think this has been on slashdot too. Whatever.
So, a recent ruling by the National Labor Relations Board <a href='http://www.americanrightsatwork.org/workersrights/eye7_2005.cfm' target='_blank'>allows employers to ban off-duty fraternizing among co-workers.</a> The two main questions I am asking are 'how' and 'why.'
As for the how, this is a tricky one. After all, how will your boss prevent you from speaking to Bob from the neighbouring cubicle on the bus on your way home?
Same thing for the why, really. What does your boss care that you are speaking to Bob from the neighbouring cubicle on the bus on your way home?
The crucial point is mentioned by the article itself: Labour unions. If your boss makes use of his new-found privilege, you are now incapable of joining a labour union that any of your co-workers is a member of. And since a labour union works out in the open, the law could very well be enforced in this way.
Tell me, am I getting something wrong, or could this make everything immensely hard for labour unions? Am I over-reacting, or is somebody else rather spooked by this? Tell us your thoughts.
So, a recent ruling by the National Labor Relations Board <a href='http://www.americanrightsatwork.org/workersrights/eye7_2005.cfm' target='_blank'>allows employers to ban off-duty fraternizing among co-workers.</a> The two main questions I am asking are 'how' and 'why.'
As for the how, this is a tricky one. After all, how will your boss prevent you from speaking to Bob from the neighbouring cubicle on the bus on your way home?
Same thing for the why, really. What does your boss care that you are speaking to Bob from the neighbouring cubicle on the bus on your way home?
The crucial point is mentioned by the article itself: Labour unions. If your boss makes use of his new-found privilege, you are now incapable of joining a labour union that any of your co-workers is a member of. And since a labour union works out in the open, the law could very well be enforced in this way.
Tell me, am I getting something wrong, or could this make everything immensely hard for labour unions? Am I over-reacting, or is somebody else rather spooked by this? Tell us your thoughts.
Comments
--Scythe--
Umm, I don't think it is possible to pass a law like that, then again I don't know how the UK works things.
I agree with Scythe.
Some people need a good slap in the back of the head...with a cinder block.
Umm, I don't think it is possible to pass a law like that, then again I don't know how the UK works things.
I agree with Scythe. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
I've probably just missed something, but I thought this was a US thing? The site is "American Rights At Work", after all, and it doesn't mention the UK in the article.
No, it's to prevent complicated personal relationships from screwing with the work environment. As in, you date someone, you're lovey every day at work (possibly annoying prude-ish customers), break up, she dates someone else at work, cue massive emotional tension.
Not saying I agree with it, just saying that's why I think it's there.
One section of that decision reads:
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->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. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
By the same logic, sharing a beer after work and talking sports would also be an "unreasonable stretch" in the eyes of the board, so the topic is being grossly blown out of proportion by the article. The NLRB is not authorizing a ban on meeting people outside of work--to do so would be 180 degrees from its purpose.
The NLRB was mandated to protect the right to form unions and demand fair labor treatment. The article posted here was written by a special interest group that is trying to expand its reach through being alarmist. The slashdot article is a link to the article posted here. In spite of what the hype says, the board itself feels that the rule was just a different wording of an anti-dating policy, and if it were actually enforced as anti-union or anti-socializing in general they'd be able to lodge another protest with the board.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->The crucial point is mentioned by the article itself: Labour unions. If your boss makes use of his new-found privilege, you are now incapable of joining a labour union that any of your co-workers is a member of. And since a labour union works out in the open, the law could very well be enforced in this way.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
That's hot air being blown by a professional lobby--the board's decision makes it explicit they do not intend to allow enforcement of what you are talking about here. The subtitle of this topic is also misleading--the NLRB is a governing body that sets national policy--they are not legistlative and do not make laws.
<a href='http://www.nlrb.gov/nlrb/legal/manuals/rules/act.asp' target='_blank'>http://www.nlrb.gov/nlrb/legal/manuals/rules/act.asp</a>
Yeah, how dare that woman get uppity at you staring at her breasts and making lewd jokes.
I've actually been sexually harrassed. When your co-workers are referring to you as the "boy toy" of the boss, it makes getting things done awkward and difficult. This wasn't some 25 year old hottie calling me cute or anything. These were women, older than my mother, insinuating that I was having sex with my boss in return for preferential treatment. Fortunately they stopped when I told them to.
Me, I'm the overly polite type who only even thought about trying to go out with her because she gave a pretty strong impression she already liked me. I'm cautious enough to kill most of my dating-prospects on my own, without any outside help--so its just annoying that the one time I seem to be doing ok and not screwing things up, now its against company policy. =(