Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

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

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
 
moof Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-10-05 12:24 PM
Original message
Isn't this sort of .. hmmm what's the term .... unconstitutional ?
Edited on Wed Aug-10-05 12:25 PM by 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.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Stephanie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-10-05 12:26 PM
Response to Original message
1. Really! And would that apply to union meetings?
What about union organizing?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WildClarySage Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-10-05 12:30 PM
Response to Reply #1
5. Precisely what this ruling is aimed at preventing, I would imagine.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SteppingRazor Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-10-05 12:28 PM
Response to Original message
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.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JDPriestly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-10-05 12:29 PM
Response to Original message
3. I don't see how that ruling can hold up
unless they define fraternizing as sexual harassment.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Theres-a Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-10-05 12:30 PM
Response to Original message
4. Ban offduty fraternizing?
I would say that's unconstitutional,yes.:scared:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BlueEyedSon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-10-05 12:33 PM
Response to Original message
6. Call the ACLU
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Fovea Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-10-05 12:34 PM
Response to Original message
7. cutting off your nose...
it will also apply to political meetings, church, and fund raiser dinners.



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
havocmom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-10-05 12:45 PM
Response to Original message
8. Corporations won't be happy until every American worker has an off switch
and can be shut down when not in use.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kevsand Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-10-05 12:48 PM
Response to Original message
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.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Geoff R. Casavant Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-10-05 01:46 PM
Response to Original message
10. I don't think it's unconstitutional
The Constitution applies to governments, not private actors.

Still, reprehensible.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Freddie Stubbs Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-10-05 01:51 PM
Response to Original message
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
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
moof Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-10-05 03:18 PM
Response to Reply #11
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 ?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Viking12 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-10-05 03:37 PM
Response to Reply #12
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.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Freddie Stubbs Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-10-05 03:41 PM
Response to Reply #12
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.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
moof Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-10-05 04:51 PM
Response to Reply #14
16. Freddie Stubbs, was that an answer to the question ?
Edited on Wed Aug-10-05 04:51 PM by moof
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 ?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Freddie Stubbs Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-11-05 06:47 AM
Response to Reply #16
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.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
moof Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-11-05 11:40 AM
Response to Reply #17
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.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Freddie Stubbs Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-11-05 01:13 PM
Response to Reply #20
21. And Congress has passed laws saying what employers can and can't do
Edited on Thu Aug-11-05 01:14 PM by Freddie Stubbs
with regards to things like that. It isn't the constitution that prohibits those things, it's the laws which Congress has passed.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wli Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-10-05 03:57 PM
Response to Original message
15. more unionbusting, no big surprise
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nookiemonster Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-11-05 06:57 AM
Response to Original message
18. I always believed that fraternization
was to prevent conflicts of interests between bosses and subordinates.

But with your contemporaries? That's utter bullshit.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mtnester Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-11-05 07:14 AM
Response to Original message
19. The constitution is being used as toilet paper in the WH
Edited on Thu Aug-11-05 07:16 AM by mtnester
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.


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 May 15th 2024, 10:49 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