Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

(CA) Press-Enterprise: Parting company

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU
 
question everything Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-18-05 01:37 PM
Original message
(CA) Press-Enterprise: Parting company
Parting company

Ruling allows employers to ban fraternizing away from job

Thursday, August 18, 2005

By JACK KATZANEK / The Press-Enterprise

Employers can forbid their workers from going to lunch together, attending each other's weddings, or doing anything else they might want to do with each other outside of work. And there's nothing in federal labor laws to prevent it.

Federal regulators were recently asked to strike down a company's rule that prohibits employees from getting together away from work. The National Labor Relations Board, which enforces labor laws, refused to do that in the case involving an employee of a security company.

(snip)

Those who insist their right to free assembly is guaranteed by the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution should note that the Constitution guarantees Congress will not limit "the right of the people peaceably to assemble." However, an employer doesn't have to make that guarantee.

(snip)

The federal case involves Daniel Higgins, who was a security dispatcher employed by Guardsmark LLC, a New York-based company that contracts with a San Francisco hotel. Higgins was told he was being switched to a less favorable shift after the hotel complained about his performance. Higgins claimed he was moved to a night shift because he discussed his working conditions with other employees. He eventually quit rather than accept night work and filed a labor-board complaint through the Service Employees International Union, which represents Bay Area security guards. The labor board, a panel of presidential appointees, ruled in a split decision in June that Guardsmark's regulation prohibiting conversations among employees at work violated the National Labor Relations Act, the 70-year-old law that guarantees workers the right to unionize.


(snip)

Employees have the right to talk about union activity -- something most bosses would prefer not be discussed -- after work. But federal law does not protect conversations about sports or the grandchildren... Some policies demand employees sign statements saying the dating is consensual. Supervisors also may require workers to report back if the relationship ends, Hansen said.

(snip)

Reach Jack Katzanek at (951) 368-9553 or at [email protected]

Online at: http://www.pe.com/localnews/inland/stories/PE_News_Local_D_frat18.185c7043.html
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Walt Starr Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-18-05 01:40 PM
Response to Original message
1. Now we've gone to the far end of the spectrum. where public government is
limited, private government no longer has limits.

First we gave teh corporations the rights of human beings.

Now the corporations ahve the rights of slave-masters.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Eloriel Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-18-05 01:41 PM
Response to Original message
2. Unbelievable. Anyone else noticed corps now have more power
than government?

Hello, fascism!

Nominated, btw.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
question everything Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-18-05 04:15 PM
Response to Reply #2
3. Thanks. And the sad reality is that most of us are tied
to the corporations. We need the job and we need the benefits. For example, whatever we contribute to our employer-provided health insurance is deducted from our taxable income. But try to purchase one yourself, and you can deduct only the excess of 7.5% of your income. And too many cannot afford quiting their jobs because there are "pre-existing" medical conditions in the family. And the employer knows this and too often exploit it. Or, alternatively, we've all heard about employees being forced out because their medical bills push up the premiums for everyone in the organization.

And, of course, not many people realize that employers who pay for health insurance can demand to have access to the employees' claim. No, they cannot have the medical file but if, say, a female member visited a gynecologist known to be the only one in town to still offer abortions, or if a family member visited an oncologist, or any other doctor other than a general practitioner - the employer knows.

Saving for retirement. You have to work for an employer who provide 401K and the maximum that you can contribute, I think, is $11,000 (if you can, of course). This, too, will reduce your taxable income. But if you don't work for such an employer and want to use IRA, the maximum amount is $4,000.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Wed Apr 24th 2024, 11:37 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC