And you thought firing smokers was bad - check this out

[The Straight Story]

from August if this year:

'No Fraternizing' Ruling Sparks Controversy

The National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) has caused a controversy by upholding an employer's rule against employees fraternizing with each other--on or off the premises.

The ruling involved a complaint brought against Guardsmark, a large security company, by one of its employees, a security guard at San Francisco-area hotel. The company's rule warns employees not to "... fraternize on duty or off duty, date or become overly friendly with the client's employees or with co-employees."

Guardsmark said it needs the rule because for business reasons: "A security officer who is overly familiar with a fellow security officer or a client's employee may overlook signals that, if detected, could be instrumental in preventing workplace violence."

The ruling, which is under appeal in a U.S. District Court in Washington, D.C., has brought criticism from employee-rights advocates and newspaper columnists as well as from a union lawyer representing the guard, Daniel Higgins.

-----
"We've filed our appeal in the context that workers have the right to come together to talk, compare paychecks, and talk about different supervisors or the problems they have on the job,'' Ruiz said.
http://hr.blr.com/display.cfm/id/16351

[converted_democrat]

1. What if two employees go to church together? Are they allowed to

hang out then? Or would they still be fired? Ohhh, I can smell the law suits cooking!!

[dogday]

2. Give em an inch and they will take a mile...

that is what happens when you even give corporations one ounce of control over your personal life. Because cigarettes are so unpopular, they start with that rule, then seeing how the people bow and stoop, they make even more rules which are wrong.

If a company wants to dictate what I do on my off-hours, then they will have to pay me. Anyone letting their company tell them what to do on their time away from work is just nuts...

[Warpy]

6. You're right

Employers have the right to curtail smoking on their premises.

They don't have the right to dictate what legal behaviour any employee engages in off the clock.

That's where the line is.

[acmejack]

8. Nuts? perhaps they need money for housing, food, etc!

Some professions one doesn't work in if unwilling to submit to a urinalysis, blood or hair test. Either you get a new vocation or...

[dogday]

10. It is one thing to submit to test before you get the job

but to be restricted in one's activities after hours on your own dime, it is your dime, not theirs.

[acmejack]

11. But they are also testing for what one does on their own time.

And most like to continue (or at least threaten to) random test after one is employed.

edit for spelling

[RB TexLa]

3. I've been waiting for cholesterol tests

If you fire smokers to keep health care costs down, the next would be people with bad diets and exercise habits.

[in_cog_ni_to]

5. Oh yeah. That's coming. You can tell because

"overweight" people are already an "issue." I actually saw CONGRESS people wasting time talking about obesity. It's none of their damn business, but WILL be soon. Just WAIT. The people who hate smokers have opened a PANDORA'S BOX.

[in_cog_ni_to]

4. Here's that slippery slope. Smoking bans are just the beginning.

Now we see this. What's next? The fascist policies will touch EVERYONE before it's all said and done. Some people "may" wish to rethink their rabid hatred of smokers. They're next.

[Inland]

7. And yet, I have no problem with it.

In part, because if someone can be fired for looking at the boss the wrong way, this isn't any worse.

But also, a security firm
s employees have to be looking at each other for malfeasance.

[Skittles]

9. see, instead of correcting infractions on the job

they try to penalize all employees - this is a disgrace

[kitkat65]

12. I'll make a bet their Christmas parties really suck. n/t

[TahitiNut]

13. Let's count the ways ....

- urine tests, even for employees that don't have "life and safety" duties, and not permitted to review results;
- agree to give employer access to home (to search for company property);
- agree to be "on call" even while on vacation (but employer won't pay for phone);
- not permitted to smoke, even off the job;
- spouse not permitted to smoke;
- not permitted to have social contacts with other employees;


Does anyone not comprehend the danger of corporations with greater economic and political power than government?

[Cleita]

14. We need a law. What people do on their own time and

and off the premises is no one's business but theirs. I don't believe any workplace has a right to enforce intrusive rules like those when their workers are off the clock and off the premises. If anyone tried to make me obey rules like that I would give them lip service and do whatever I pleased.