Although it most likely remains a questionable decision to vent your workplace frustrations on Facebook, score one for those wishing to express their problems via social media.

Should employers have the right to discipline employees based on social media posts? Or do you think that an employee has a right to post what they want on their own time? Let us know in the comments.

The National Labor Relations Board has ruled in the favor of 5 New York workers that were fired because of comments they made on Facebook. The judge in the case decided that the social media communications of the workers were protected by the National Labor Relations Act, which allows for employees to freely discuss the terms and conditions of their employment.

The employees in question work for Hispanics United of Buffalo, a non-profit that provides social services for the poor in the area. They coordinate housing, deal with domestic violence victims and operate a food pantry.

In October 2010, one employee posted the following status on Facebook -

LC, a coworker, feels that we don’t help our clients enough at HUB I about had it! My fellow coworkers how do u feel?

She posted it from her home computer, on her own time.

That one post triggered a flurry of comments, in which many of her fellow employees joined in the fray. According to court documents, one employee commented -

Tell her to come do mt [my] fucking job n c if I don’t do enough, this is just dum

Another posted a more in depth response -

Lol. I know! I think it is difficult for someone that its not at HUB 24-7 to really grasp
and understand what we do ..I will give her that. Clients will complain especially when they ask for services we don’t provide, like washer, dryers stove and refrigerators, I’m
proud to work at HUB and you are all my family and I see what you do and yes, some things may fall thru the cracks, but we are all human love ya guys

The woman at the heart of the post, LC, eventually joined in the Facebook conversation herself. After commenting, she complained to her boss, the HUB executive director. Text messages indicate that LC told the executive director that the Facebook discussion participants should be fired or at least disciplined.

A couple of days later, the executive director did decide to terminate all of the people who participated in the Facebook discussion (except for her personal secretary). The fired employees eventually took their complaint to the NLRB.

The official ruling states that their criticisms of an employee’s performance are protected by law -

Employees have a protected right to discuss matters affecting their employment amongst themselves. Explicit or implicit criticism by a co-worker of the manner in which they are performing their jobs is a subject about which employee discussion is protected by Section 7. That is particularly true in this case, where at least some of the discriminatees had an expectation that LC might take her criticisms to management. By terminating the five discriminatees for discussing LC’s criticisms of HUB employees’ work, Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1)

The Judge ordered HUB to rehire the 5 employees and to give them back pay, as their original termination had been unlawful.

It’s unclear just how important this decision really is when it comes to free speech and social media. But one thing is for sure – there is now an official precedent stating that employees can discuss their working conditions on Facebook and other social media sites.

That still doesn’t mean that it’s always the wisest of actions, however. Employees and Employers that feel miffed can definitely find ways other than termination to enact retribution for certain social media posts. Maybe the best thing you can do is double-check those privacy settings.

Do you think that Facebook or Twitter is a proper place to vent workplace frustrations? Let us know what you think.

1. Where do we draw the line?

It seems we can barely agree on how to define a blogger, so how do we decided who gets to join the union?

2. What about other citizen journalists?

Blogging is more of a platform for publishing than the actual profession. Do we include those that publish video online or record audio podcasts?

3. Not all bloggers are created equal.

There are some bloggers that only really put in minimum effort while others are geniuses at the keyboard. Shouldn’t we just let the market decide which bloggers are worthy of better pay and benefits?

4. Do we want blogging pickets?

Are bloggers really going to set up a picket line and stop blogging until some guy gets the ergonomic keyboard he’s requested?

5. Blogging isn’t large enough yet.

Good grief, we’ve barely gotten to the point where blogs are making money, and now we want to unionize the workforce? There aren’t that many blog networks that make more than six figures annually and paid bloggers are few and far between. Shouldn’t we wait until we’ve actually built a workforce before we look at a union for it?

What do you think? Did I miss anything or perhaps you have your own list of why blogging does need a union.

Comments

Do Bloggers Need To Unionize?

The burning question: Is there a need for a blogger’s labor union?

And your first thought, like mine, is quite likely, "huh?"

Labor unions are for steel workers and teachers, underpaid, over-skilled and overworked, who need collective bargaining power just to avoid a return to the 19th Century sweat-shop economy – that, and the ability to feed their kids.

(Note: I chose steel workers and teachers as examples only because the two make up about two-thirds of my own family. So that means, in general, I am pro-union, and by default, pro-American-made automobile.)

In the past two years, blogging, as a profession, has grown from geeky obscurity into a direct challenge to the journalism industry, even with bloggers’ reputation for being unruly, unvetted, grammatically and syntactically insufficient, and above all, a disorganized mess. 

But that is sort of what (okay, completely what) made the medium so appealing. They answered to no one and therefore were accountable to no one; the individualist, populist, no-truth-barred approach both what propelled it and what held it back. Abused, sometimes inaccurate, sometimes out and out wrong, but for the most part, a development for the greater good, for freedom of speech, for information exchange, for the free market of ideas.

But organized? Isn’t that a kind of bloggers’ code sacrilege? Wouldn’t this be the same disorganized collective that railed against the idea of a Blogger’s Code of Conduct?

Don’t answer that. It’s too restrictive. Bloggers are all creeds, all different kinds of people.

So back to the real question:

With whom are bloggers bargaining, and why is there a need for them to bargain collectively?

The winning answer to that is blog publishers and blog network owners, who pay on a percentage basis rather than a per-post basis. Entrants to the "profession," and yes we must call it that now, claim to make pennies for hours of work, without health insurance and other benefits afforded to other workers.

I’m not taking sides here, just stating the crux of the matter. The issue was billed as a "liberal" movement, as you might imagine, as no business-minded, robber-baron conservative type would support unionization. I might have taken a side there, though. Again, I am generally pro-union, as it seems to me it’s either that or indentured servitude and tenant farming.

It’s billed as a liberal cause because it was "left-leaning bloggers" that brought it up, according to the Associated Press, but that might have been a disingenuous way to characterize it, by invoking the spirit of Norma Rae. It may have been better to hearken back to freelance writers unions and actors guilds, which isn’t mentioned until the second paragraph, thus producing the desired gut reaction from the anti-camp.

But let’s move away from the writer’s opinion, as he already has health insurance (much appreciated, boss). We should consult the blogosphere, where the stakeholders are, instead.

"The idea of a blogger labor union seems to make as much sense as having a union for people who sing in the shower," says Mike Pechar of the Jawa Report. "Typically, a labor union has some leverage by threatening to strike against management. Bloggers threatening to strike would probably be greeted with a ho-hum or maybe even applause."

That’s the cynic’s viewpoint, and a witty one. But there are pro bloggers out there the world (and publishers) would miss.

Marketing Pilgrim’s Andy Beal weighs in, numerically. The short and skinny of his argument is that the blogosphere is still too ill-defined, bloggers difficult to identify, difficult to assess on a quality basis. And again, the idea of a blogger picket line might be one that is not easy to get behind.

Ryan Caldwell though, at the Performancing blog, is more open to the idea, saying the blogosphere (and the real world) can make room for an organized blogging collective:

I don’t think that the goal should be to improve the quality of life for *all* bloggers who want to join a labor union.

Rather, I do think that the free markets could willingly support and encourage the development of a "Premium Blogger Collective" that organized the very best bloggers on the internet into a union-like collective and then served as an authoritative central location for businesses and high quality publishing firms to find quality bloggers at premium rates.

Not only do I think that a free-market would support such an endeavor, but Google itself has now put in place the infrastructure to encourage the economics of quality. As a friend of mine put it, they’ve turned the "authority" and "quality" buttons way, way, way up on their search algorithms.

My opinion? Thanks for asking. I think it will happen and some won’t like it. I think it will be necessary in some instances and some won’t like it. I think not everybody will be admitted and many won’t like that, either.

IBM agreed upon a $65 million settlement to former technical support employees in a class action lawsuit on November 22.

The lawsuit, filed by the former IBM employees in January of 2006, is titled Rosenburg et al. v. IBM and was filed in the federal court of the Northern District of California, located in San Francisco.

Charges brought by the plaintiffs alleged that IBM unlawfully classified its Technical Service and Information Technology specialists, to avoid paying the employees overtime, by categorizing them as “exempt” from provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Fair Labor Standards Act, according to the Department of Labor, “establishes minimum wage, overtime pay, recordkeeping, and child labor standards affecting full-time and part-time workers in the private sector and in Federal, State, and local governments.”

Former employees filing the lawsuit claimed that, while there are provisions for being exempt under the Act, they did not meet the qualifications for them.

Therefore, according to the Department of Labor, “Overtime pay at a rate of not less than one and one-half times their regular rates of pay is required after 40 hours of work in a workweek.”

On March 13, the counsel for the plaintiffs amended the charges, adding state law claims to the suit.

Amended charges. filed on behalf of IBM technical support workers across the nation, claimed that the company violated federal laws. The amended complaint also alleged that IBM violated labor laws in California, Colorado, Minnesota, Illinois, New Jersey and New York on behalf of workers from each state.

If the court finds the $65 million settlement adequate, as IBM hopes, each plaintiff will be paid an undisclosed portion of the agreed upon amount.

“Litigation of this case would have been lengthy, burdensome and expensive, and IBM chose to resolve it, without admitting any wrongdoing or liability, for a total of $65 million. IBM had established a provision for the probable settlement of this case in the third quarter of this year,” said IBM in a statement to eWeek.

The plaintiffs also requested that IBM compensate them for previous overtime they had worked, as well as compensate all employees presently working overtime.

Add to Del.icio.us | Digg | Reddit | Furl

Autmn Davis is a staff writer for WebProNews covering ebusiness and technology.

In a forthcoming study, Rutgers University School of Business professor Gayle Porter warns that the fast pace of technology-enhanced work environments creates a source of stimulation that could be addictive.

If so, employers who encourage non-stop Blackberry use could face liability for contributing to their staff’s addiction.

“There are costs attached to excessive work due to technology,” said Porter. “Information and communication technology (ICT) addiction has been treated by policy makers as a kind of elephant in the room — everyone sees it, but no one wants to acknowledge it directly. Owing to vested interests of the employers and the ICT industry, signs of possible addiction — excess use of ICT and related stress illnesses — are often ignored.”

Technology addiction is potentially “devastating,” she says, equating the mental health impact to the damage caused by chemical or substance addictions. Corrective actions stop short of legislation, however.

“It may be unfeasible to regulate how much people use technology,” said Porter. “However, it is reasonable to imagine a time when policy-makers recognize the powerful influence of employers that sometimes results in harmful excess among the workforce. The pressure for using technology to stay connected 24/7 may carry employer responsibility for detrimental outcomes to the employees.”

According to the researchers, the key to determining liability is finding the line between employee choice and employer manipulation.

“If people work longer hours for personal enrichment, they assume the risk,” she said. “However, if an employer manipulates an individual’s propensity toward workaholism or technology addiction for the employer’s benefit, the legal perspective shifts. When professional advancement (or even survival) seems to depend on 24/7 connectivity, it becomes increasingly difficult to distinguish between choice and manipulation.”

Porter is unaware of current court cases regarding the issue, but admonishes that employers with concerns for the health of their employees should encourage them to “walk away” from the Blackberries, email, and cell phones while on vacation.

Add to Del.icio.us | Digg | Yahoo! My Web | Furl

Bookmark WebProNews:

A non-union machinery company violated the National Labor Relations Act because it asked employees to report pro-union activity they found harassing, but not to report anti-union activity that was also possibly harassing. The company’s policy was listed in its handbook under the title “Employee Relations Philosophy”, and referred to the company’s desire to remain union-free. It specifically told employees that if any other employee tried to interfere or coerce them into signing a union authorization card, management would make sure that the harassment was stopped.

After several pro-union employees badgered co-workers about joining the union, the co-workers complained to management. The pro-union workers were counseled to leave their co-workers alone, and the union brought an unfair labor practices charge against the company. The National Labor Relations Board, and then the court, agreed that the company interfered with employees’ right to solicit on behalf of a union organizing campaign. In fact, employees have the right to “engage in persistent solicitation even when it annoys or disturbs the employees who are being solicited.” Citation omitted.

In this case, the company policy singled out union harassment only and discussed it in the part of its handbook dealing with employee relations, not its section prohibiting other types of harassment. There was no previous evidence of threats or other problems at the company concerning the union; employees were given the policy as soon as they were hired. Therefore, the policy served to chill employees’ right to solicit on behalf of a union, because it implied that solicitation could lead to discipline. Yet, anti-union activity was not similarly limited.

There are very specific rules about what an employer may and may not say to employees about unions, and employers should not implement union policies or statements about unions without first consulting an experienced labor attorney.

–Paul E. Freehling, Labor and Employment attorney, Seyfarth Shaw LLP, with assistance from Melanie H. Berkowitz, Esq., Seyfarth Shaw LLP.

[For more information, see Brandeis Machinery & Supply v. NLRB, 412 F.3d 822 (7th Cir. 2005)].

Employer could not bar off-site employees from soliciting for a union in non-working areas of another worksite of the employer.

An automotive company had three plants located close to each other in Northern Michigan. Employees at the three plants were considered a single unit for purposes of bargaining with the union, and employees from one plant sometimes transferred to another. When employees from one of the plants attempted to distribute union materials in the parking lot of one of the other plant locations, management officials asked them to leave, and the union brought charges of unfair labor practices against the company.

The National Labor Relations Board and the court explained that off-site employees have an interest and a right to try to unionize co-workers at another worksite, because if successful, the union would represent employees at all three locations. This is different from non-employee union organizers, who have no personal interest in seeing a union elected, and very limited rights to access worksites. Further, in this case, the employees at all three worksites were similarly situated. They held the same types of jobs, worked at plants close to each other, and were members of a single bargaining unit. Thus, the employer could only prevent off-site employees from soliciting in non-work areas of another plant if there was a compelling business reason to do so. In this case, the company had no such reason.

Like the Brandeis case in the first article, this case highlights another part of the National Labor Relations Act, and further explains the rights held by all employees, whether they are members of a union or not. An employer’s solicitation policy must be carefully drafted to avoid violating the Act.

–Paul E. Freehling, Labor and Employment attorney, Seyfarth Shaw LLP, with assistance from Melanie H. Berkowitz, Esq., Seyfarth Shaw LLP.

[For more information, see ITT Industries v. NLRB, 413 F.3d 64 (D.C. Cir. 2005)].

Casino allowed to bar employees from discussing work on casino floor, but no where else.

After two groups of casino employees got into a disagreement about the casino’s tip-sharing policy, the casino instituted a rule prohibiting employees from discussing the tip policy. The casino also had a written rule barring employees from talking about company issues, other employees and personal problems to or around casino guests. The employees argued that these ruled violated the National Labor Relations Act and the National Labor Relations Board (Board) and a federal appeals court agreed.

The court explained that employees are allowed to talk about working conditions in much the same way as they have the right to solicit for or against union representation at work. However in retail establishments that have customers, including casinos, the employer can limit or prohibit work discussions or solicitations in areas frequented by customers. In the casino, this included the gambling floor, restaurants and bars, and hallways next to the gaming areas. The court disagreed with the casino that it could limit work discussions in other public areas, such as parking lots and bathrooms. Because the casino’s original policy referred to “public areas” it was overbroad and invalid. Finally, the court explained that any employee disciplined under the previous rule had to have the discipline overturned because the entire policy had been too broad. This even included employees disciplined for talking about the tip policy on the casino floor – action that was lawfully prohibited under the new, narrower policy.

This case explains the distinction between “public areas” and “customer service areas” in retail establishments and shows that policies meant to limit work discussions must be narrowly drafted.

–Paul E. Freehling, Labor and Employment attorney, Seyfarth Shaw LLP, with assistance from Melanie H. Berkowitz, Esq., Seyfarth Shaw LLP.

[For more information, see Double Eagle Hotel & Casino v. NLRB, 2005 U.S. App. LEXIS 14106 (10th Cir., July 13, 2005)].

Can clothing stores require employees to buy their clothes to wear at work?

Recently, several large retail clothing stores have been sued over what is a fairly common practice in the industry: requiring employees to wear the store’s clothing while at work. Employees in the lawsuits have reported being required to buy new items every time the store’s inventory changed, and that at times, they were spending their entire paycheck on new clothes for work. Some states, such as California, require the employer to pay for any uniform of “apparel and accessories of distinctive design or color” that workers must wear, and the lawsuits argue that this rule includes clothing worn by salespeople. Another argument is that by requiring employees to spend so much of their paychecks on clothing, the workers’ hourly rate is falling below the minimum wage.

So far, few of the lawsuits have made it all the way to trial. Instead, companies such as Abercrombie & Fitch, J. Jill and Express have paid out millions of dollars to settle large class actions, with individual employees getting anything from $50 or $100, to several thousand dollars for the named plaintiffs in a particular lawsuit. Most legal experts predict that retailers will probably begin either allowing employees to wear any clothing they want, or else providing workers certain items for free that must be worn at work.

Laws about uniform policies cover more than traditional safety gear or other clothing that is only worn on the job. Requiring workers to buy and wear any particular item can get a company in trouble, even if the clothing at issue can also be worn outside of work.

–Paul E. Freehling, Labor and Employment attorney, Seyfarth Shaw LLP, with assistance from Melanie H. Berkowitz, Esq., Seyfarth Shaw LLP.

Article By Seyfarth Shaw LLP, from Monster.com

This article originally appeared on Monster.com. Copyright 2005 Monster.com

Over roughly the past half century, working people have bought up a huge chunk of big business. And union-sponsored pension plans rank among the biggest institutional investors. Working people, both union and non-union, now own a piece – and often a big piece – of just about everything in business, from multinational corporations to mini-malls down the street.

If you’re a working person who contributes to a pension fund, mutual fund, or life insurance policy with a savings component, you’re one of the new owners of big business (and many small businesses), too.

That may come as a surprise, since most working people contribute only modest amounts to their retirement plans. But they more than make up for that in the number of active contributors. If you’re still not sure, try this on your calculator: Multiply a contribution of $1,000 per person per year by one million working people. Answer: $1 billion dollars per year. Now note the existence of literally hundreds of millions of working people here and in other countries. And they’re contributing new money every year.

This shift of business ownership from rich people to working people may be the greatest economic transformation since the Industrial Revolution. Management guru Peter Drucker has called it “The Pension Fund Revolution;” however, now that mutual funds and insurance companies have also become major investors on behalf of working people, I prefer to call it the “Ownership Revolution.”

So what does all this mean? Well, for starters, it should lead to an end of complaints about the profits of corporations and allegations about ‘greedy corporations.’ After all, much of that profit now goes toward the current and future retirement incomes of working people.

What’s more complicated, though, is the relationship between working people who own a big company and other working people employed by that same company. How to share corporate profits — through continuing employment and higher wages, or through higher returns to shareholders — remains a difficult issue. Especially for those working people who lose their jobs.

On the other side of the coin, working people have bought enough stocks and shares to become bosses of the bosses. And some pension funds have begun making that clear. CalPERS, the California Public Employees’ Retirement System, has led the way in telling Chief Executive Officers (CEOs) and boards of directors that they’d better manage effectively or else. And, CEOs and directors listen; after all CalPERS runs the country’s biggest pension fund, with assets of $189 billion on June 30th, 2005.

What’s this all mean? Well, if you go shopping for Labor Day weekend sales, there’s a chance you’ll buy from a business owned by yourself, your friends, or your neighbors. What’s more, the clerks who take your credit card with a smile may work for you. Or, maybe the clerks own the company for which you work. Smile at them, too, just to be on the safe side!

Download three free chapters from Robert Abbott’s book, A Manager’s Guide to Newsletters: Communicating for Results; it\s the first step toward creating a powerful and sustainable newsletter: http://www.managersguide.com/free-sample.html (and it will help you develop a strong newsletter name, too!)

They have refused to pay back millions of dollars in back dues to the AFL-CIO. These two unions made up 3 million out of the 13 million members of the labor federation.

“When you are going down the road, and the road you are going down is the wrong road and you know where the road ends, you have to get off the road and go where there is hope,” said SEIU President Andy Stern on Monday. “Today there is hope for American workers.”

UFCW and UNITE HERE, who boycotted the AFL-CIO convention, and are part of the Change to Win Coalition, are expected to leave the labor federation as well. Stephen Franklin and Barbara Rose of the Chicago Tribune write:

The dissidents say they want unions to put more money into organizing, more controls over union squabbles and organizing efforts, and more mergers to concentrate unions’ strengths. They also call for up to half of unions’ dues to be returned to unions for their own organizing drives.

Rather than a celebration of the federation’s 50th anniversary and its 56 unions, the AFL-CIO gathering now seems more likely to be remembered for the first steps of the rival group set up by the dissidents and an unprecedented outpouring of acrimony and blame.

“We have to leave the federation,” said Connie Leyva, president of the United Food and Commercial Workers Local 1428 in Claremont. “We have to start down a new road. Change is healthy. Change is going to help.”

The four boycotting unions together make up nearly a third of the labor federation’s 13 million members. If the other two choose to leave, the AFL-CIO will lose about $35 million in all.

Chris is a staff writer for WebProNews. Visit WebProNews for the latest ebusiness news.

These two groups made up 3 million out of the 13 million members of the labor federation. They have refused to pay back millions of dollars in back dues to the AFL-CIO.

“When you are going down the road, and the road you are going down is the wrong road and you know where the road ends, you have to get off the road and go where there is hope,” said SEIU President Andy Stern on Monday. “Today there is hope for American workers.”

UFCW and UNITE HERE, who boycotted the AFL-CIO convention, and are part of the Change to Win Coalition, are expected to leave the labor federation as well. Stephen Franklin and Barbara Rose of the Chicago Tribune write:

The dissidents say they want unions to put more money into organizing, more controls over union squabbles and organizing efforts, and more mergers to concentrate unions’ strengths. They also call for up to half of unions’ dues to be returned to unions for their own organizing drives.

Rather than a celebration of the federation’s 50th anniversary and its 56 unions, the AFL-CIO gathering now seems more likely to be remembered for the first steps of the rival group set up by the dissidents and an unprecedented outpouring of acrimony and blame.

“We have to leave the federation,” said Connie Leyva, president of the United Food and Commercial Workers Local 1428 in Claremont. “We have to start down a new road. Change is healthy. Change is going to help.”

The four boycotting unions together make up nearly a third of the labor federation’s 13 million members. If the other two choose to leave, the AFL-CIO will lose about $35 million in all.

Chris is a staff writer for WebProNews. Visit WebProNews for the latest ebusiness news.

“Our members are ready to go if they mess with the pension or terminate our contract,” said Carl Finamore of the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers. “We will shut their airline down. Our members are fed up.”

United Airlines and the two labor unions are supposed to meet this weekend for negotiation in hopes of preventing a strike from occurring. George Raine of the San Francisco Chronicle writes:

The two sides are proceeding on parallel tracks in Chicago. One is in federal Bankruptcy Court where United is making a case to a judge that it cannot survive without deeper cuts in wages and benefits. The other is in hotel meeting rooms where negotiators are wrestling with the same issues.

It is expected that Judge Eugene Wedoff will resume Monday taking testimony that could last into mid-week. He will then decide whether the contracts between United and members of the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers and the Aircraft Mechanics Fraternal Association should be rewritten. United has said that in an era of spiraling costs and tumbling revenue, it needs the new contracts so it can emerge from bankruptcy protection.

If United goes through with the cuts, pressure will be increased on other airlines such as Delta, Northwest, and American to cut costs on their retirement plans.

If the strike happens, United might find itself in a long legal dispute. United says that under the terms of its labor contracts, a strike would not be legal. They would be forced to take legal action.

Chris is a staff writer for WebProNews. Visit WebProNews for the latest ebusiness news.