US Labor Board: It's OK To Discuss Work and Pay with Coworkers On Social Sites 289
Posted
by
samzenpus
from the lets-talk-numbers dept.
from the lets-talk-numbers dept.
itwbennett writes "Your employer won't like it, but they can't stop you from discussing working conditions and compensation with your coworkers on social media. In his most recent social media memo, National Labor Relations Board General Counsel Lafe Solomon said that in 6 of the 7 employers' social media policies he reviewed, he found violations of Section 7 of the National Labor Relations Act, which allows employees to join labor unions and to discuss working conditions with each other."
Re:Oh, Thanks! (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Oh, Thanks! (Score:4, Informative)
It should bother you, as it's completely unethical (and hopefully illegal, but obviously that depends on laws where you live) to put such a stipulation in
There's nothing unethical about that at all. A contract is a two way agreement. They have to agree and so do I. So long as both parties agree, what's the issue?
and reflects extremely poorly on the character of those in charge at your employer. If you choose not to share your wages/salary with anyone else, that is your prerogative. Your employer still has no right to demand that you not share that information.
They are not my employer, they are my client. And they didn't demand, they negotiated.
Re:Oh, Thanks! (Score:5, Informative)
Private contracts can not overrule the consumer or employee-protection laws. So ruled a judge when he threw-out most of Paypal's user contract (which claimed they had the right to freeze access to your money for six months and, at their sole discretion, close your account & keep the cash).
Just because you sign a contract does not mean you sign-away your rights as protected by law. It sounds like your Employment contract violates the law which allows employees freedom to talk to one another about work conditions/pay.
Re:hey! (Score:5, Informative)
You're kidding, right?
It's mostly about negotiating, and keeping the peace.
The more someone knows what others are being paid, the more he knows about what the employer is truly willing to pay someone for that work. In salary negotiations, information is power. So employers try to scare employees away from gathering that kind of info.
Also, when people know each other's salaries, it tends to make people discontent, when they'd previously been happy. Everyone wants to make more than everyone else. When people don't know each other's salaries, they're generally happy if they think they're making market rate. Want a recipe for a nasty workplace? Negotiate different salaries for each employee, and then let them all know who's making what.
Re:So you'll know your value in the marketplace. (Score:4, Informative)
I spent 7 years in the Army.
http://www.militaryfactory.com/military_pay_scale.asp [militaryfactory.com]
I knew how much each of my co-workers was making.
There wasn't a problem with that.
No. The problem happens when the less experienced person managed to sell himself as worth MORE than the more experienced person.
Companies need to focus more on what skills are needed at what levels and how to test those skills.
Why would you have a problem with someone at a higher grade making more than you if you know what skills you'll need to work on to get to that grade?
Re:hey! (Score:5, Informative)
Mitt Romney, (aka Ronald II)
Reagan was willing to raise taxes, to work with Tip O'Neal to hammer out agreements and then stick to those agreements, and to use deficits to increase government hiring during an economic crisis. With a record like that, there's no way Reagan could have won the nomination for president in 2012. Although Reagan could have probably beaten that (by modern GOP standards) pinko Richard Nixon or that clearly socialist Dwight Eisenhower.
Mitt Romney is just yet another sleazebag politician out for more money and power. If he's for getting rid of the NLRB, it's not out of any ideology, but because he thinks his stock holdings will do better without the fear of workers doing silly things like wanting to be paid enough to eat.
Re:hey! (Score:4, Informative)
I agree with what you're saying but, as a manager, I have another issue that cannot be solved with completely transparent transactions (even if that was possible):
Salary rates are set by what the market will pay. When demand goes up, candidates know to ask for more. I'm desperate to hire now, which means either I ask my team to keep working 50/60 hr weeks, or I hire another person for (10-20%) more than what my current team (of equivalent experience) makes. Of course, I cannot simply raise everyone to this new level because I barely have the budget to hire this new person at a normal rate, much less this inflated rate. So, either I keep people in the dark and relatively happy, or I tell people what's up (they know anyway), and now they leave for greener pastures. Yes we can have talks about things that will happen "one day" but I can't promise anything I can't deliver, and right now I have no clue how the market will turn. Everyone wants to make more money when the market is great, no one wants to cut their paycheck when it dips.
With perfect information, I am at the mercy of the hiring market (bubble?), and my operating budget climbs while I don't necessarily get any more productivity (per person) with an increase salaries paid. Sure, I can look elsewhere to save money too, but I don't want to be the PHB that cuts the free coffee and tea so I can raise only one guy up to the market rate. Or do I?