1. #1
    Forum Member
    Skwerl530's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    TN
    Posts
    232

    Angry Another right lost

    The NLRB (National Labor Relations Board) has stated that employers can prohibit their employees from gathering after work.

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

    Another one bites the dust...
    We struck down evil with the mighty sword of teamwork and the hammer of not bickering.

  2. #2
    Forum Member
    DeputyChiefGonzo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2000
    Location
    Somewhere between genius and insanity!
    Posts
    13,584

    Default

    Good luck trying to enforce it. It's impossible.
    ‎"The education of a firefighter and the continued education of a firefighter is what makes "real" firefighters. Continuous skill development is the core of progressive firefighting. We learn by doing and doing it again and again, both on the training ground and the fireground."
    Lt. Ray McCormack, FDNY

  3. #3
    Forum Member
    Skwerl530's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    TN
    Posts
    232

    Default

    It's already been enforced by Guardsmark.

    From the article:
    "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."
    We struck down evil with the mighty sword of teamwork and the hammer of not bickering.

  4. #4
    Forum Member
    DeputyChiefGonzo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2000
    Location
    Somewhere between genius and insanity!
    Posts
    13,584

    Default

    What are they doing? Following everyone home? Doing surveillance 24/7/365 now?

    Gee, I hope that Guardsmark executives don't hang out after work... that would be a violation of company policy.
    ‎"The education of a firefighter and the continued education of a firefighter is what makes "real" firefighters. Continuous skill development is the core of progressive firefighting. We learn by doing and doing it again and again, both on the training ground and the fireground."
    Lt. Ray McCormack, FDNY

  5. #5
    Forum Member
    Skwerl530's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    TN
    Posts
    232

    Default

    The troubling thing is that these things seem to start small. What's next?
    We struck down evil with the mighty sword of teamwork and the hammer of not bickering.

  6. #6
    MembersZone Subscriber

    Join Date
    Jul 1999
    Location
    Flanders, NJ
    Posts
    13,537

    Default

    You guys missed the true intent of this rule put in place by Guardsmark.
    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."

    The "...client's employees...".

    From what I can see, this is an attempt by Guardsmark to stop their employees from socializing with the client's employees. This is paranoia at its finest. What you traditionally have is a $7.00 an hour security guard getting riensly with someone from the HR Dept. of the client and then getting a real job there. Happens all the time.

    All of these square badge outfits are the same.

  7. #7
    MembersZone Subscriber
    Emberxx's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    326

    Default

    I don't know...in the case of Guardsmark they were - possibly - trying to stop socializing between employees and the clients. That said, however, when you have a ruling like this it definately opens a door for other employers to do the same and not necessarily for the best reasons.

    Doesn't the First Ammendment allow for the rights of free speech, as well as the right to assemble?

    My question would be this - if someone decided to sue a major corporation who tried to impose this type of a rule, could they win the case? I would have to think that based on our Constitutional rights the courts would have to throw it out.
    "When you throw dirt, you lose ground."

    IACOJ

  8. #8
    MembersZone Subscriber

    Join Date
    Jul 1999
    Location
    Flanders, NJ
    Posts
    13,537

    Default

    I wasn't trying to say that this ruling was not important. It is VERY important.

    I could not imagine, regardless of what the NLRB says, that a corporation could defnd a policy like this in a court of law.

  9. #9
    MembersZone Subscriber
    Emberxx's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    326

    Default

    George,

    I agree with you. My first instinct is to say that employers should have the right to ban relationships between employees...I've seen first hand the damage to morale that this type of involvement can have.

    But then again...it's no worse than having two employees who are best freinds off-duty or out of the workplace. If one is made a supervisor...well then you have the same result. So...where would the line be drawn?

    I couldn't imagine not being allowed to form a relationship of any kind myself with my fellow employees because it would be against the rules. I couldn't say exactly how that would make me feel, but I would tend to think I wouldn't like it.
    "When you throw dirt, you lose ground."

    IACOJ

  10. #10
    MembersZone Subscriber

    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    1,167

    Default

    I worked for Guardsmark from '91 to '93 as an EMT/Officer. It was at the BCP plant in Geismer, La. We had 7 guards that were related. Mother, daughters, and cousins. It did not seem to effect the day to day operations. I wonder when they thought this was a bad idea. I cannot imagine family not frat'n because they work together.
    I guess we will hear about this as the next crusade from the ACLU.

  11. #11
    MembersZone Subscriber
    jaybird210's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2000
    Location
    911 N. Sycamore St. Yep, that's really our address.
    Posts
    2,604

    Default

    I'm with George on this one. I don't see how they could possible stand up in court on this, regardless of what the NLRB says. Pretty stupid ruling in my opinion. Not paying right now? Up yours, I'm on my own time. Actually, I think a Civil Rights suit would have the most teeth here.
    Omnis Cedo Domus

    www.hinckleyfd.org

  12. #12
    Forum Member
    adamkhalil's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    251

    Default

    ** deleted **
    Last edited by adamkhalil; 08-28-2007 at 12:15 AM.

  13. #13
    MembersZone Subscriber

    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    1,167

    Default

    I agree, but the only people to be hurt will be the ones that can afford it least. Like was pointed out the "$7/hour gaurd" will be without a job. The lawyers on both sides will get their money, proabily before hand. Guardsmark can afford it. Yep, the rent-a-cop will be the only one hurt.

  14. #14
    Forum Member
    Skwerl530's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    TN
    Posts
    232

    Default

    It is indeed stupid. Anyone that is affected by this should IMMEDIATELY file a class action suit. There is no way this should be allowed to stand on the books...
    We struck down evil with the mighty sword of teamwork and the hammer of not bickering.

  15. #15
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Memphis Tn,USA-now
    Posts
    5,436

    Default

    Never mind that it violates the Constitutional Right to peaceably assemble,just rule that employees cannot meet after work even to hoist a few cold ones.
    That oughta be simple to enforce.Just get the same snitches that inform whenever a paper clip is used to hold someone's vacation pictures together for this job.

  16. #16
    MembersZone Subscriber

    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Posts
    1,098

    Default

    Just what we need, more lawsuits.
    Proud Right-Wing Extremist since 1992

    "Extreme Liberalism is a Mental Disorder"- Michael Savage

  17. #17
    MembersZone Subscriber
    dmleblanc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2001
    Location
    Not the end of the earth but I can see it from here...
    Posts
    2,318

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by GeorgeWendtCFI
    You guys missed the true intent of this rule put in place by Guardsmark.
    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."

    The "...client's employees...".

    From what I can see, this is an attempt by Guardsmark to stop their employees from socializing with the client's employees. This is paranoia at its finest. What you traditionally have is a $7.00 an hour security guard getting riensly with someone from the HR Dept. of the client and then getting a real job there. Happens all the time.

    All of these square badge outfits are the same.
    I don't see the intent here as being to prevent losing employees to the client company. I think I see their point here, and that is this...if you are providing a security service to a client, and all your security personnel get all chummy with the client's personnel, it opens the door for poor security practices.

    Say for example your job is to control access to the client's facility. Every employee must present an I.D. badge to gain access. It's pretty easy to imagine that the security personnel might get a bit lax with enforcing entry requirements, or make exceptions, if the client's employee is a personal friend. Likewise if the security firm's employee is involved in an investigation and it involves a friend. Consider also that a client's employee with malicious intent may befriend a security officer to facilitate a theft or other illegal activity.

    Security personnel cannot make exceptions for certain people and not others nor enforce regulations inconsistently. For these and various other reasons, it is in the security firm's best interest if its officers are not personal friends with the client's employees.

    Now, having said that, is it really feasible? Probably not. Difficult if not impossible to enforce. In reality I don't think they can really dictate who you socialize with in your off-duty hours, but I think the reasons why they would prefer you don't, are valid.

    And yes, I am in the security business...my department provides both emergency and security services for our facility, although we are company employees, not contractors.

    We do have some contract security here as well, mainly in access control roles at entry points (those $7.00 an hour employees George mentioned). And we recently had one who got in hot water when the ATF came out to arrest a contract employee...she was a personal friend of his, see, and he tipped her off that they were looking for her. Not good security practice. The Fed boys had a long talk with him. The only thing that saved him was that once he realized the seriousness of what he had done, he got scared and admitted to it, and even helped the ATF guys to locate their subject. He's lucky they didn't haul him in, too, and even luckier that he's still got a job.
    Chief Dwayne LeBlanc
    Paincourtville Volunteer Fire Department
    Paincourtville, LA

    "I have a dream. It's not a big dream, it's just a little dream. My dream — and I hope you don't find this too crazy — is that I would like the people of this community to feel that if, God forbid, there were a fire, calling the fire department would actually be a wise thing to do. You can't have people, if their houses are burning down, saying, 'Whatever you do, don't call the fire department!' That would be bad."
    — C.D. Bales, "Roxanne"

  18. #18
    Disillusioned Subscriber
    Steamer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 1999
    Location
    Ohio
    Posts
    1,475

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by GeorgeWendtCFI
    I wasn't trying to say that this ruling was not important. It is VERY important.

    I could not imagine, regardless of what the NLRB says, that a corporation could defnd a policy like this in a court of law.
    I never thought I'd see the Supreme Court rule the way they did regarding imminent domain either. As long as there are activist judges, I wouldn't bet against anything anymore.
    Steve Gallagher
    IACOJ BOT
    ----------------------------
    "I don't apologize for anything. When I make a mistake, I take the blame and go on from there." - Woody Hayes

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts

Log in

Click here to log in or register