Isn't this sort of .. hmmm what's the term .... unconstitutional ?

[moof]

http://www.americanrightsatwork.org/workersrights/eye7_2005.cfm

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.

[Stephanie]

1. Really! And would that apply to union meetings?

What about union organizing?

[WildClarySage]

5. Precisely what this ruling is aimed at preventing, I would imagine.

[SteppingRazor]

2. Wow.

Words fail me... and that don't happen often.


Then again, I do have one thing to say. In the end, almost every Republican goal leads to one direction -- cheap labor. That is the be all and end all of most Republican views. This just fits the bill.

[JDPriestly]

3. I don't see how that ruling can hold up

unless they define fraternizing as sexual harassment.

[Theres-a]

4. Ban offduty fraternizing?

I would say that's unconstitutional,yes.:scared:

[BlueEyedSon]

6. Call the ACLU

[Fovea]

7. cutting off your nose...

it will also apply to political meetings, church, and fund raiser dinners.

[havocmom]

8. Corporations won't be happy until every American worker has an off switch

and can be shut down when not in use.

[kevsand]

9. Actually, the legal concept of stipulations by an employer

as a "condition of employment" gives them a huge latitude in dictating their employees' personal lives. The case last year(?) concerning an employers' ban on employee smoking, even at home while off-duty, has so far been upheld, as far as I know. Drug testing and other restrictions on employee behavior have also been held constitutional.

It is important to note that this unfettered freedom only exists for private employers, and especially those who receive no federal funding. Such employers are under very few constitutional restraints.

It also can be precluded by specific statutes to the contrary, and this is where the NLRB went wrong. The National Labor Relations Act specifically protects workers' right to organize and their rights of assembly in doing so. The NLRB has ignored those statutes, and this ruling probably could and should be overturned in court for that reason.

[Geoff R. Casavant]

10. I don't think it's unconstitutional

The Constitution applies to governments, not private actors.

Still, reprehensible.

[Freddie Stubbs]

11. Read the First Amendment

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

This is a restriction on the goverment, not private businesses

[moof]

12. " the right of the people peaceably to assemble " can be nullified ...

by a private business and this rule would not be in conflict with the employee's constitutional right, is that what you are saying ?

[Viking12]

13. When people voluntarily enter into a contract...

the may forgo some of their "rights" as a condition of employment. As stated above, the Constitution is designed as a restraint on govet power. There are some laws restricting which "rights" upon which employers may infringe.

[Freddie Stubbs]

14. Ever hear of the Hatch Act?

It prohibits certain federal employees from participating in certain political activities.

Although it is not officially in my contract, my employer and I have an understanding that I have to keep my name out of the newspapers regarding politics due to the nature of our industry and my position.

[moof]

16. Freddie Stubbs, was that an answer to the question ?

Not wanting to complicate the issue.

You seem to claim that a private employer can impose a rule on an employee
even if it violates that employee's constitutional rights.

Is that your position ?

[Freddie Stubbs]

17. It does not violate constitutional rights

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Note the word Congress. It say nothing about private individuals entering into contracts which infringe on free speech or assembly.

[moof]

20. not sure what page you are on but there seems little point in asking again

Suffice it to say that if an employer had a rule telling employees
that they were not allowed to go to church the employer would very likely be sued for having violated the civil rights of the employees.

[Freddie Stubbs]

21. And Congress has passed laws saying what employers can and can't do

with regards to things like that. It isn't the constitution that prohibits those things, it's the laws which Congress has passed.

[wli]

15. more unionbusting, no big surprise

[nookiemonster]

18. I always believed that fraternization

was to prevent conflicts of interests between bosses and subordinates.

But with your contemporaries? That's utter bullshit.

[mtnester]

19. The constitution is being used as toilet paper in the WH

that is how stupid shit like this happens. When people who do not love America, who do not live in the real world, and who do not respect and cherish and BELIEVE in the constitution run this country like they do now, and all their buddies are heads of corporate UnAmerica and run the courts, we can count on more and WORSE than this to come.

They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.
--Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania, 1759


And I tell you here and now, WHEN the next attack comes on American soil, the constitution will be flushed down that toilet in a blink of an eye, and most of the sheeple will stand and applaud when it happens, without really knowing what it means. Those that resist will be risking their very lives, and you KNOW that.

WAKE UP! (I am not yelling at everyone here, you all are wide awake)...I am yelling at the people who voted in yesterday's MSNBC poll "Does security trump privacy?" The fact that his poll (when I looked at it late in the afternoon) was NOT at NO 100% and YES 0% says it all. I am yelling at the 40+ something percent of people that still support this asshat, the 30+ percent that still support this war and the MURDER of innocents (Iraqis and coalition troops alike) and to the NAYSAYERS on here who came out recently in droves beginning with OH-2 & Paul Hackett's race who have been nothing but a discouragement on ANYTHING we try to do (oh don't it might upset someone, oh don't, it would look bad) cause when that shit is posted, all I see is the word DON'T.


First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win.
--Mahatma Gandhi

He that would make his own liberty secure, must guard even his enemy from opposition; for if he violates this duty he establishes a precedent that will reach himself.
--Thomas Paine

I firmly believe that many of us are going to have to make some painful and hard decisions LONG before 2008..ones maybe we never dreamed we would ever have to make.