Job VS Facebook

[Howie Felterbush]

I work for a store that is part of a national chain (the word "Mart" does not appear in the store's name:)). Recently, one of the department managers left to work for the corporate office, located in another state. A friend of mine from the store applied for the position and was hired. It's a typical retail management job; seventy+ hour weeks, lots of headaches, etc.

Here's the part that weirded me out. When he accepted the job, the people in charge told him he had to "un-friend" anyone who worked at the store that was his friend on Facebook. I'm not on Facebook, I don't know anything about it, or Myspace, either, but this struck me as a little strange.

Anybody heard of this type of thing? Is it to avoid any semblence of favoritism between manager/employee? (I'm not interested in if the rule is "fair" or not, because the guy that signs the paychecks makes the rules, as far as I'm concerned. Don't like it? Work somewhere else.) I'm just curious about why the rule exists in the first place.

[Captain.Sassy]

Am I the only one that thought from the title of the thread that Apple was going to make a run at social networking?

Anyways, it does sound a bit weird but I get why they'd want him to do that.

[Ferguson]

While I can't say why they have it, I can understand it as a policy, I worked as a security guard from '04-'06, and one of my co workers posted a "disparaging comment about her commanding officer" as a facebook status, and was fired over it. So it could be either, A) as you said, to prevent favoritism and non-professional relationships, or B) prevent HR difficulties which arise when people post their "personal" lives on public forums.

[ksbluesfan]

My company sends out regular reminders that we cannot discuss business or mention where we work on Facebook or other social networking sites.

[AvalonXQ]

Am I the only one that thought from the title of the thread that Apple was going to make a run at social networking?

I can honestly say I thought it was going to relate the Biblical book of Job to Facebook somehow.

[Gord_in_Toronto]

I can honestly say I thought it was going to relate the Biblical book of Job to Facebook somehow.

Damn.

Now I am visualizing Job on Twitter --
Now I'm covered in boils. Why does God not answer my prayers?

[Redtail]

Damn.

Now I am visualizing Job on Twitter --
Now I'm covered in boils. Why does God not answer my prayers?

God SHHHHHH! A few more days and I can get that Jet Ski!!!!

[bpesta22]

Probably limits the likelihood of sexual harassment too (btw, what are you wearing?!_)

[Just thinking]

Is it to avoid any semblence of favoritism between manager/employee?

A very good friend of mine years ago was promoted from non-exempt to exempt status. He was quickly told to no longer fraternize with previous co-workers that were still at his previous level. He wasn't even to go to lunch with them.

From the way it sounds, this is neither something new nor unique to a given company.

[Marquis de Carabas]

Damn.

Now I am visualizing Job on Twitter --
Now I'm covered in boils. Why does God not answer my prayers?
Satan likes this.

[Cynic]

I can honestly say I thought it was going to relate the Biblical book of Job to Facebook somehow.


That was my first impression too. :)

Personally, this kind of rule strikes me as something that ought to be illegal if it isn't already. Companies shouldn't have the right to dictate what their employees do outside of work. If they want to challenge public disparagement, fine. But this doesn't feel right.

[TieDyedGuy]

That was my first impression too. :)

Personally, this kind of rule strikes me as something that ought to be illegal if it isn't already. Companies shouldn't have the right to dictate what their employees do outside of work. If they want to challenge public disparagement, fine. But this doesn't feel right.

I agree companies shouldn't have the right to dictate what they do outside of work but employees better understand that what they do outside of work can impact their work. I think the only reason this ever is an issue is people do stuff outside of work, work reprimands them, then they cry that it isn't fair.


When my employees are out of the office, they still represent my company.

[Howie Felterbush]

I thought it seemed a bit rigid.

This is the first big company at which I have been employed. Any other job I've ever had, if I had a question for the person who runs the joint, I just walked to their office and asked them. I wanted to see if anyone had ever run into this before.

[daenku32]

God SHHHHHH! A few more days and I can get that Jet Ski!!!!

Youre not suposed to spel crottly on twiter.

[daenku32]

A very good friend of mine years ago was promoted from non-exempt to exempt status. He was quickly told to no longer fraternize with previous co-workers that were still at his previous level. He wasn't even to go to lunch with them.

From the way it sounds, this is neither something new nor unique to a given company.

I'd tell them to shove it... how much did the job pay??

[The Fallen Serpent]

In my experience such draconian strictures against fraternization exist more in the retail sector than other industries. Well, retail and the military. I admit ignorance of the financial sector. In manufacturing the opposite tactic seems to be employed. The exempt are encouraged to muck it up with the non-exempt peons outside of work, in social networking and to generally foster a sense of fraternity. The discouragement against dating still applies, but there is leeway established for the inevitability.

Outside of work I am considered to represent my company when putting on company airs. Wearing the symbols or clothing, speaking "as an employee of ...." and speaking about the company by name. If I keep it vague and do not use my company's name admin could really care less if I express displeasure in my public life. This I believe is a good policy for an employee in any line of work, unfortunately not all companies can abide even vague references.

[gumboot]

Personally, this kind of rule strikes me as something that ought to be illegal if it isn't already. Companies shouldn't have the right to dictate what their employees do outside of work. If they want to challenge public disparagement, fine. But this doesn't feel right.


I suspect, as these sorts of online sites become more popular, privacy laws and employment law will arise to protect staff in this way. In New Zealand it's already illegal to fire an employee for something that happened outside of their job, unless the employer can demonstrate how it has a direct negative impact on their work place (for example if they're a professional driver and they get caught drink driving).

What's particularly alarming about work places trawling things like Facebook is that other people can put up incriminating information about you, without your permission.

I think all of this speaks to a far more alarming and insidious thing which has been filtering into our society - and seems particularly bad in the USA - employers who seem to essentially think by employing you they have claim to every aspect of your lives - like a medieval landlord or something.

[gumboot]

In my experience such draconian strictures against fraternization exist more in the retail sector than other industries. Well, retail and the military. I admit ignorance of the financial sector. In manufacturing the opposite tactic seems to be employed. The exempt are encouraged to muck it up with the non-exempt peons outside of work, in social networking and to generally foster a sense of fraternity. The discouragement against dating still applies, but there is leeway established for the inevitability.


One thing I love about my industry - film - the production companies couldn't care less what you're doing outside of work hours, and even dating and so forth appears to be the norm - mostly because trying to maintain a relationship with a non-industry person is almost impossible. Quite a few of the cast and crew on my current job are in a relationship together, and those that don't have their partners on this job more often than not are still with someone who works in the industry.

[The Fallen Serpent]

In the semiconductor industry there is quite a bit of intracompany dating as well. Quite a few of us have to work 12 hour shifts in compressed work weeks. It can be difficult to date outside of work when you are only available at night on weekdays. The discouragement is half-assed at best, and largely comes down to "if you are dating an underling let us know so we can transfer them." Then there is the excessive infidelity that goes on between married/taken workers. Not everyone eats during the lunch hour :mdance::monkeyr: = :mrocks

[ZirconBlue]

My company sends out regular reminders that we cannot discuss business or mention where we work on Facebook or other social networking sites.

Is the name of your employer meant to be kept secret, or are they just worried about you posting something that might make them look bad?

[Darat]

That was my first impression too. :)

Personally, this kind of rule strikes me as something that ought to be illegal if it isn't already. Companies shouldn't have the right to dictate what their employees do outside of work. If they want to challenge public disparagement, fine. But this doesn't feel right.

It is not about companies having that right but whether you have the right. You enter into a contract with a company and I can't see why you shouldn't have the right to to agree to a clause that says something like "Do not discuss any company business on a website".

[daenku32]

It is not about companies having that right but whether you have the right. You enter into a contract with a company and I can't see why you shouldn't have the right to to agree to a clause that says something like "Do not discuss any company business on a website".

I'd rather live on the dole than forgo my rights. Which could be a thread for the "ethics" section... All the more reason to support a welfare state: employees can bargain to keep their essential rights.

[Ashles]

At the company I work for and the previous one I know the members of HR are instructed not to have anyone from the company as 'friends' on Facebook.

The reason is that in the event of any HR issues they can't be seen to be playing 'favourites'.

[Darat]

I'd rather live on the dole than forgo my rights. Which could be a thread for the "ethics" section... All the more reason to support a welfare state: employees can bargain to keep their essential rights.


Being able to enter into a contract willingly is not "forgoing" your rights it is exercising them.

[daenku32]

Being able to enter into a contract willingly is not "forgoing" your rights it is exercising them.

We should also be able to reject such contracts without losing our livelyhood.

I would say most people who enter such contracts do it because they have to in order to survive.

[Michael Redman]

We should also be able to reject such contracts without losing our livelyhood.

I would say most people who enter such contracts do it because they have to in order to survive.
What's wrong with agreeing not to divulge proprietary business information?

[Dr. Keith]

It is a matter of keeping personal separate from professional. They don't want what you post on Facebook, or what you link to on Facebook, to be used against you or the company.

Suppose you post about going to Amsterdam and visiting Tea shops and then have to fire an employee for testing positive for marijuana. The two are not all that related but it just made the firing more of a headache for the employer.

Maybe that is a bad example, but I have heard several stories about people posting legal things on their Facebook that were a problem for them at work.

I don't Facebook.

[Cynic]

It is not about companies having that right but whether you have the right. You enter into a contract with a company and I can't see why you shouldn't have the right to to agree to a clause that says something like "Do not discuss any company business on a website".


But this was "you can't be friends with people from the company", essentially. Whether they like it or not, the internet has become a "place" and telling people they can't associate with people from the company on Facebook isn't all that much different than telling them they can't associate with them at a bar, or in their own kitchens.

Plus, there is a rather severe difference between being allowed to to agree to something and being forced to agree or not have a job.

[Darat]

We should also be able to reject such contracts without losing our livelyhood.

I would say most people who enter such contracts do it because they have to in order to survive.

I am all for having statutory rights that you cannot contract out of, but I don't think having the right to agree to not discuss your work outside of work is a right we should withdraw.

[Cynic]

I am all for having statutory rights that you cannot contract out of, but I don't think having the right to agree to not discuss your work outside of work is a right we should withdraw.


Are you suggesting that without such a right that people would be forced to then talk about work outside of work?

[Darat]

Not at all but I view it as a very important right to be able to enter into any voluntary contract that I want, with the proviso that I can't contract out of any of statutory rights. I really can't see why we need to have a statutory right to be able to talk about our work outside of work. (With caveats of course, sharing details that might impact on your health with a health professional, reporting illegal activities by your company and so on - in the UK we already have such statutory rights so I can't contract our of them even if I wanted to.)

[daenku32]

Not at all but I view it as a very important right to be able to enter into any voluntary contract that I want, with the proviso that I can't contract out of any of statutory rights. I really can't see why we need to have a statutory right to be able to talk about our work outside of work. (With caveats of course, sharing details that might impact on your health with a health professional, reporting illegal activities by your company and so on - in the UK we already have such statutory rights so I can't contract our of them even if I wanted to.)
I'm more thinking about safety nets that would limit need for people to apply for such jobs.

For the right price, I'll shut up. But it would need to be significant. Not some low paid middle-management position.

[bpesta22]

The other option is to accept the contract short term, then organize and have the union bargain over that lost right, if it means that much to employees.

[Cynic]

Not at all but I view it as a very important right to be able to enter into any voluntary contract that I want, with the proviso that I can't contract out of any of statutory rights. I really can't see why we need to have a statutory right to be able to talk about our work outside of work. (With caveats of course, sharing details that might impact on your health with a health professional, reporting illegal activities by your company and so on - in the UK we already have such statutory rights so I can't contract our of them even if I wanted to.)


But again, the situation mentioned into OP went well beyond talking about the company outside of work. It prohibited being FRIENDS with co-workers outside of work. And also, the contract wasn't "voluntary" except any more or any less than taking the job itself is voluntary. That sounds fair in principle, except when things become common. If the entire industry adopts such a condition, then "voluntary" takes on darker dimensions. That some corporate policies are fundamentally bad for people only becomes apparent when its ubiquitous. Only, it's easy apparent when people bother to project it forward. While the slippery slope argument is technically a fallacy, it is also a fallacy to suggest that the worst case scenario isn't possible because of that.

The UK might have laws protecting people from corporations. Here in the US, that balance favors the corporations.

[drkitten]

Being able to enter into a contract willingly is not "forgoing" your rights it is exercising them.

Read up on "contracts of adhesion" sometime. Employment contracts are rarely entered into "willingly."

[Darat]

Read up on "contracts of adhesion" sometime. Employment contracts are rarely entered into "willingly."

Really? I have never, ever entered into an employment contract unwillingly or ever been coerced into doing so, I've signed some that I've not been 100% happy about but that was my choice.

ETA: I've read the Wikipedia entry on "Contracts of adhesion" and it doesn't seem applicable to employment law - have you any links to a better reference?

[bpesta22]

I agree with Darat.

I don't understand why people are so reluctant to unionize. Pay some nominal dues for immediate job security and a chance to collectively increase pay.

I commented to a long time arbitrator about how students today seem to be wholly anti-union. His comment was: wait til their dad loses his ****** job.

[nimzov]

When my employees are out of the office, they still represent my company.
Do they get paid when out of the office ? :D

[Cynic]

I agree with Darat.

I don't understand why people are so reluctant to unionize. Pay some nominal dues for immediate job security and a chance to collectively increase pay.

I commented to a long time arbitrator about how students today seem to be wholly anti-union. His comment was: wait til their dad loses his ****** job.


Unions have their downsides. Once entrenched a lot of long-time members, unions tend to act in the best interests of those members, wielding newer ones like a blunt instrument. When you see unions strike and playing hardball and working out deals that results in raises and extra benefits in exchange for cut jobs, it's the newest members that are cut -- and the newest members that are sent out to strike. While the unreasoning corruption that spawned them cannot be denied, we largely have unions to thank for the migration of manufacturing jobs overseas and the huge financial inefficiencies for almost any government-related work. I used to work for a university and we had a door near my office that was a little scudgy and wanted to paint it: $1000. Wanted to move a PC from one office to another across the street: union guy had to do it. I could go on forever. Point is, unions, when they're acting to prevent workers from being taken advantage of, are great. to a large extent, however, they are increasing just taking advantage of those around them.

[bpesta22]

Cynic-- I don't disagree but I would argue that's just one possible scenario for a union; perhaps not the most likely one.

One thing I think is unfair-- people who complain that unions ruin a company or an industry or an economy by bidding up their wages and benefits to the point where a company suffers. I say it's unfair because everyone/anyone would do that if they could.

I don't see non-union employees saying: gimme less money or no pay raises (unless we're in an economy like this one) because I worry about the company's bottom line.

Anyone/everyone would want to bid his wages up as high as possible. The unions seem to get blamed because they're very good at it.

[Francesca R]

We should also be able to reject such contracts without losing our livelyhood. [ . . . ]

I am all for having statutory rights that you cannot contract out of, but I don't think having the right to agree to not discuss your work outside of work is a right we should withdraw.Presumably daenku32 believes there should be a statutory right to be able to discuss work outside work, or at least to be able to friend employees/coworkers on social networks.

I don't agree there should be. I expect competitive pressures and evolving norms will cause this practice to become normally permitted in most cases. Where it is not I think that a company ought to have the ability to disallow it.

[drkitten]

Really? I have never, ever entered into an employment contract unwillingly or ever been coerced into doing so, I've signed some that I've not been 100% happy about but that was my choice.

ETA: I've read the Wikipedia entry on "Contracts of adhesion" and it doesn't seem applicable to employment law - have you any links to a better reference?

Sure. Try this link (http://www.vsb.org/sections/cc/pdf/adheasoncontracts.pdf) for some references on how contracts of adhesion apply in employment law. Employment contracts are almost as fertile ground for "contracts of adhesion" as shrinkwrapped licenses.

Basically, any time you have a "standard" set of terms in the contract (i.e "company policy states that ....") you have a potential for a contract of adhesion. Most of the legal effort has looked at mandatory arbitration clauses, but once one clause in a contract is found to be a part of a contract of adhesion, the whole contract is one.

Did the employee have a genuine opportunity to negotiate away this clause, or was the clause non-negotiable? If it was non-negotiable -- if the contract could not have been offered without that clause -- then it probably qualifies as "adhesive." Which doesn't make in unenforceable, but does mean that the clause itself needs to be reviewed to see if it's unreasonable in isolation irrespective of the merits of the rest of the contract.

ETA : E.g., I couldn't negotiate away the clause in my faculty contract that says that I would be subject to the Faculty Handbook. In that sense, the faculty handbook is a classic "contract of adhesion." But it's also necessary for the smooth running of the school that we all have a single set of rules. We've also all collectively helped in writing most of the handbook, and so there's really only one clause in the handbook that a court might find objectionable. And we the faculty have objected to the clause (formally) and taken steps to repudiate that clause, so a court might well find that particular clause null and void if it were ever triggered.

But the clause stating that all work will be performed in a professional manner is kind of hard to argue with. I don't argue with that one personally, the faculty doesn't argue with it collectively, and a court would be hard pressed to figure out what is unconscionable about professional standards....

[Cynic]

Cynic-- I don't disagree but I would argue that's just one possible scenario for a union; perhaps not the most likely one.

One thing I think is unfair-- people who complain that unions ruin a company or an industry or an economy by bidding up their wages and benefits to the point where a company suffers. I say it's unfair because everyone/anyone would do that if they could.

I don't see non-union employees saying: gimme less money or no pay raises (unless we're in an economy like this one) because I worry about the company's bottom line.

Anyone/everyone would want to bid his wages up as high as possible. The unions seem to get blamed because they're very good at it.


Unions get blamed because they're successful. The people who aren't successful don't have an impact, and thus no downside. It's true that I only notice unions when they've done something bad. Who knows how many I've failed to notice. The the ones I've noticed have been pretty bad.

For instance, I remember in 1992 Pittsburgh had two major newspapers: the Pittsburgh Post and the Gazette. One of them (I don't remember which) was having money problems and was struggling to survive and the union that controlled its workers kept pushing them for more and more. The company kept saying flat out -- look, we don't HAVE the money to give you, just be content that you have jobs. So they threatened a strike. The company said -- look, if you strike, we're going to fail and you'll be out of jobs. The union stuck. The company folded. And let me tell you, I felt so, so bad for them. </sarcasm> The two papers merged eventually, so I'm sure some of them got rehired, but not most. Unions are sometimes like that guy at the bank with the bomb strapped to his chest. Or like a guy in a wooden rowboat with a sledgehammer demanding more rations. Or like a child having a tantrum on the aisle floor of a grocery store because his mommy won't buy him a lolly.

That's not a fair characterization in general, no. But it's is a fair characterization for many. If you want to know why children are growing up to be anti-union, consider how many grew up like I did, watching his father's career and pensions vaporize when the union he had no choice but to join helped destroy the American steel industry. Or consider how many of those students spent the first half of their summer vacations in school making up for teacher strikes. By and large, the face of unions has become one of unreasoning jerks willing to cause all many of suffering for everyone around them if they don't get what they want.

Maybe the bulk of them aren't like that, but they are not the face of unions.

[drkitten]

Unions get blamed because they're successful. The people who aren't successful don't have an impact, and thus no downside.

Well, they also only get blamed when they do something bad, as you point out :

It's true that I only notice unions when they've done something bad. Who knows how many I've failed to notice. The the ones I've noticed have been pretty bad.

The same unions that destroyed the steel industry in Pittsburgh in the 1970s are also responsible for Pittsburgh being one of the best places in the United States to work in the 1950s. Which is a tremendous change from the "Hell with the lid off" that it was in the late 19th century.

Everyone complains nowadays about the working conditions at Wal*Mart -- including local governments that are actively campaigning against Wal*Mart because they actively increase the burden on the local social services such as welfare and food stamps.

This kind of abuse is exactly the reason that unions exist. And I'd actually be bang alongside Wal*Mart's workers unionizing and demanding living wages, the same way that Carnegie Steel's workers did in the early 20th century. (Well, maybe not "the same way," as I hope there wouldn't be violence....)

On the other hand, there's also a huge Google plant in Pittsburgh if I remember correctly. And I'd be surprised and appalled if Google's workers unionized. Because those are some of the most coddled prima donnas alive today (drkitten says, the voice dripping with jealousy and envy).

[Cynic]

I'm not saying the idea of unions is bad. I'm saying unions can and have been abused, and if they've become unpopular, then they have a PR problem that they've brought upon themselves.

[The Fallen Serpent]

I'm not saying the idea of unions is bad. I'm saying unions can and have been abused, and if they've become unpopular, then they have a PR problem that they've brought upon themselves.

I agree that unions have a PR problem, but I disagree that they have brought it upon themselves. What they have failed to do is protect themselves in the court of public opinion when rare individuals act inappropriately and anti-unionists take these incidents to paint the concept negatively.

[WildCat]

Cynic-- I don't disagree but I would argue that's just one possible scenario for a union; perhaps not the most likely one.

One thing I think is unfair-- people who complain that unions ruin a company or an industry or an economy by bidding up their wages and benefits to the point where a company suffers. I say it's unfair because everyone/anyone would do that if they could.

I don't see non-union employees saying: gimme less money or no pay raises (unless we're in an economy like this one) because I worry about the company's bottom line.

Anyone/everyone would want to bid his wages up as high as possible. The unions seem to get blamed because they're very good at it.
Unions seem to forget that customers aren't required to patronize the company they work for, especially when prices are more reasonable elsewhere.

Chicago is now a has-been in the convention business, largely because the entrenched unions at McCormick Place have driven most of the trade shows to Las Vegas, Orlando, and other places where they don't have to pay $100 to plug in their own laptop. Union work rules have made McCormick Place 2-3 times as expensive as other sites.

[The Fallen Serpent]

Unions seem to forget that customers aren't required to patronize the company they work for, especially when prices are more reasonable elsewhere.

Chicago is now a has-been in the convention business, largely because the entrenched unions at McCormick Place have driven most of the trade shows to Las Vegas, Orlando, and other places where they don't have to pay $100 to plug in their own laptop. Union work rules have made McCormick Place 2-3 times as expensive as other sites.

I think this is an example of where unions and the free market work together. When a union becomes out of hand demanding untenable compensation the free market will see business move to a saner section of the industry. The opposite pressure being that workers will be drawn to business that compensate better, often union secured compensation.

Personally I think a better model is industry wide collective bargaining and standards. Social checks and free market checks are both important, but in my mind when one outweighs the other that is where disasterous policy comes about.

[drkitten]

Unions seem to forget that customers aren't required to patronize the company they work for, especially when prices are more reasonable elsewhere.

They don't forget that.

They just (correctly) identify that as "not their problem." Management always has lots of spots that it can try to cut costs, including its own wages. They are simply lobbying that the spots where cost-cutting occurs does not happen to be labor costs.

If McCormick Place wants to get back in the convention business, it simply needs to find another way to offer superior amenities. The real problem with Chicago as a convention destination is not the unions, but the fact that few people really want to go to Chicago. Las Vegas has gambling and lovely desert weather. Orlando has Disney and Florida sunshine.

Tell me why I would go to Chicago?

[oggiesnr]

It's the perrenial problem of "friends" and being a manager, whether the friends are real or on-line. Z is a manager, X is an online friend who works for them, Y just works for them. A vacancy comes up for which X and Y apply. X gets the job (probably on merit) but Y complains that they are an on-line friend of X. That is a major can of worms. It could get worse, Z and X are white males, the majority of their on-line friends are, Y is an Afro-Carib female.

I can see why the instruction even if it may be a bit OTT.

Facebook is dangerous, assume that everything you post is open to a future employer, do you really want to give the impression that you're a drunk when you go for that management consultancy job?

Steve

[bpesta22]

Well, they also only get blamed when they do something bad, as you point out :



The same unions that destroyed the steel industry in Pittsburgh in the 1970s are also responsible for Pittsburgh being one of the best places in the United States to work in the 1950s. Which is a tremendous change from the "Hell with the lid off" that it was in the late 19th century.

Everyone complains nowadays about the working conditions at Wal*Mart -- including local governments that are actively campaigning against Wal*Mart because they actively increase the burden on the local social services such as welfare and food stamps.

This kind of abuse is exactly the reason that unions exist. And I'd actually be bang alongside Wal*Mart's workers unionizing and demanding living wages, the same way that Carnegie Steel's workers did in the early 20th century. (Well, maybe not "the same way," as I hope there wouldn't be violence....)

On the other hand, there's also a huge Google plant in Pittsburgh if I remember correctly. And I'd be surprised and appalled if Google's workers unionized. Because those are some of the most coddled prima donnas alive today (drkitten says, the voice dripping with jealousy and envy).

I agree completely!

I don't understand why more people don't unionize especially at the low end of job value.

Walmart is one badmf. The meat cutters union finally got voted in, and management responded by eliminating the sale of sliced meat (and therefore the union and the employees!).

Nice.

[bpesta22]

I'm not saying the idea of unions is bad. I'm saying unions can and have been abused, and if they've become unpopular, then they have a PR problem that they've brought upon themselves.

Agree too, but it's the other side of the coin (be careful what you wish for). I think it's like the wall street climate of what can I get now; who cares about tomorrow mentality.

[bpesta22]

I think this is an example of where unions and the free market work together. When a union becomes out of hand demanding untenable compensation the free market will see business move to a saner section of the industry. The opposite pressure being that workers will be drawn to business that compensate better, often union secured compensation.

Personally I think a better model is industry wide collective bargaining and standards. Social checks and free market checks are both important, but in my mind when one outweighs the other that is where disasterous policy comes about.

The complicating problem though is federal laws allowing right to work states (a key reason the midwest sucks now) and allowing the employer to permanently replace striking workers.

[drkitten]

It's the perrenial problem of "friends" and being a manager, whether the friends are real or on-line. Z is a manager, X is an online friend who works for them, Y just works for them. A vacancy comes up for which X and Y apply. X gets the job (probably on merit) but Y complains that they are an on-line friend of X. That is a major can of worms. It could get worse, Z and X are white males, the majority of their on-line friends are, Y is an Afro-Carib female.

I can see why the instruction even if it may be a bit OTT.

Oh, yes,.... the problem it attempts to address is quite real. It's not clear whether the proposed remedy is appropriate or even effective.

As a simple thought-experiment, one way of addressing the disparate promotion/hiring "can of worms" you describe is simply through making the job application a "contract." On the one hand, I will give you the valuable "consideration" of the opportunity to be considered for a job, and on the other hand, you surrender irrevocably your right to sue the company for any reason whatsoever, explicitly including discriminatory hiring. (Or even that you have the option to surrender that right or not, but that applicants that surrender that right will be given preference at hiring, which translated under the hood to "if you don't surrender your right to sue, we won't hire you.")

Darat would be happy to point out that that contract is freely and willingly entered into by any applicant, almost by definition. If you don't want to give up that right, don't apply for the job.

The courts, however, have looked at that particular style of contract and rejected it as unconscionable. It's not that you can't sign away your right to sue (you can, for example, in favor of an agreement to binding third-party arbitration), but that the power differential in this kind of a "contract of adhesion" is such that it makes such a clause inherently unfair.

And, yes, this has come up in case law. Requiring mandatory arbitration as part of a contract of adhesion (giving up your right to sue) is not enforceable.

So corporations aren't permitted to ask you to give up your right to petition the government for redress of grievances as part of the terms of employment. Are they permitted to ask you to give up your right to freely associate?

And which parts of the Bill of Rights do you think employers should be able to simply trash because they find it inconvenient or potentially expensive? Should an employer be able to come in and search your house any time they get the urge? Should they be able to demand that you take in nonpaying guests to save on hotel expenses?

[bpesta22]

And, yes, this has come up in case law. Requiring mandatory arbitration as part of a contract of adhesion (giving up your right to sue) is not enforceable.
?

I'm not sure about the adhesion part of this, but are you sure this statement is correct? I thought because of the arbitration act, the SC ruled that arbitration agreements in non-union shops are binding (if you don't like em you have the right to quit) as long as they are "fair" and offer the same types of remedies one could get in court.

I do remember a case where the EEOC sued for a victim over this. The court ruled that although the victim could not sue because of the arbitration agreement, the EEOC could do whatever it wanted.

[drkitten]

I'm not sure about the adhesion part of this, but are you sure this statement is correct?

I am.



I thought because of the arbitration act, the SC ruled that arbitration agreements in non-union shops are binding (if you don't like em you have the right to quit) as long as they are "fair" and offer the same types of remedies one could get in court.

That's the magic phrase right there.

Bear in mind that there's nothing wrong with "contracts of adhesion" as long as the terms are not unconscionable. It's simply that the court has broad latitude to (unilaterally) re-write a contract of adhesion on behalf of the weaker party, precisely because the weaker party by definition has had no such opportunity.

That decision simply codifies the existing case law; contracts of adhesion are not entered into willingly (by definition), and therefore unfair arbitration clauses cannot trump your right to sue.

[bpesta22]

Thanks for clarifying!

[The Fallen Serpent]

That decision simply codifies the existing case law; contracts of adhesion are not entered into willingly (by definition), and therefore unfair arbitration clauses cannot trump your right to sue.

The case of a woman sexually assulted and imprisoned by a military contracter in Iraq comes to mind. The courts found the clause demanding arbitration was unfair and she was allowed to sue the company. I would have to google to find the exact details. It led to that whole "Republicans support rape" hub bub a few months ago with an Al Franken amendment to ban such arbitration clauses in government contracts.