[Welcome Lewis Maltby, and Host Tula Connell.] [As a courtesy to our guests, please keep comments to the book. Please take other conversations to a previous thread. - bev]
Can They Do That? Retaking Our Fundamental Rights in the Workplace
Lynn Gobbell was fired because her boss didn’t like the John Kerry bumper sticker on her car.
In Colorado, teacher Meg Spohn got the pink slip from DeVry University for complaining about her job on her personal blog.
At Best Lock Company in Indiana, workers are axed for social drinking because the company president believes it’s a sin.
Can Employers do that?
You betcha, writes human rights attorney Lewis Maltby. He’s president and founder of the National Workrights Institute, which he formed after leading the American Civil Liberties Union office on free speech and privacy protection in the corporate world.
Before heading up the Workrights Institute, Maltby had spent time in the corporate world where “learning how to run a productive, profitable company without violating employees’ human rights” became the focus of his life. Right up front in “Can They Do That,” Maltby gets to the crux of the misconception most people have when facing unfair treatment on the job.
The United States Constitution applies to the government, not to corporations.
Not to corporations and most certainly not to the workers who enter those corporations hoping to get a paycheck. This comes as a surprise to many. Here at the AFL-CIO, we get e-mails from people detailing how their employer unfairly fired them, and asking what they can do about it. Chances are, if they’re not in a union, and if the action didn’t violate any Equal Employment Opportunity laws, the answer is: Not much.
And even if a company does violate a worker’s legal rights, many corporations have got that covered, too:
Almost 20 percent of employers today require all employees to agree in advance not to go to court if the company violates their legal rights…If you don’t agree, you don’t get the job.
And as Maltby notes, even joining a union “has become a dangerous undertaking.”
Over 8,000 employees are fired every year simply for trying to join [a union]. Technically, this kind of firing is illegal, but the penalties are so trivial that employers just pay the fines and keep breaking the law.
Which is why we have been trying so hard to pass the Employee Free Choice Act. Unlike many books on employment, Maltby includes an entire chapter overviewing unions and labor laws and ending with his personal recollection of helping move Wisconsin Republican Sen. Herbert Kohl toward sponsorship of the Employee Free Choice Act.
Unionization is covered by the National Labor Relations Act, an act of Congress, and union workers covered by contracts they negotiate with their employers. But the nation’s employment laws have historically been governed by common law (court decisions) and so for those not represented by a union, the primarily law of the land is “at-will employment.” In short: Management can fire you at will, for any reason, or no reason.
Maltby highlights high-tech workplace intrusion: from computer monitoring to video spying on women in the company restroom (yep, legal, except in California and Rhode Island). He also takes a look at the future of privacy at the workplace, and predicts an increasing use of GPS and the likely adoption of biometrics on the horizon. Horrifyingly, Maltby writes that some employers are beginning to install silicon chips into employees’ bodies as an identification system—you know, the kind you get implanted in your pet.
And then there’s the MMPI, the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory, a job-screening psychology test taken by 2 million people as part of the employment application process. The test has been translated into 115 languages, and 89 of the Fortune 100 employers use it. An all-American export.
Throughout, Maltby filters the book with real-life workplace horror stories—the kind we see by the droves whenever the AFL-CIO community affiliate Working America holds its My Bad Boss contest. (If anyone tells you employees don’t need unions in today’s 21st workplace, send them to the My Bad Boss site.)
Maltby’s view of the judicial system’s approach to workers’ rights—especially the Supreme Court—also would shock much of the public. In short:
Even when there is a law to protect your rights on the job, you often won’t receive justice. Judges work overtime to find ways to take away, or water down, the rights given by the legislature.
And he blasts away another holy grail of American mythology: The myth of impartial justice.
Because judges are politicians, they respond to political pressures. They favor prosecutors over defense attorneys in criminal cases because the public wants them to be tough on crime….And they favor employers over employees because employers have more political influence than employees.
Next, Maltby will tell us that the media in the United States are biased.
Maltby ends the book with chapters detailing our workplace rights and how we can win our rights, which includes joining a union. In short, the only way we can take back our workplace is joining with each other. Because as Maltby says:
There isn’t much you can do alone to protect yourself.
This book should be part of every high school curricula. Millions of Americans plunge into the job force with no idea that they leave their constitutional rights at the door.
Help me welcome Lewis Maltby.



80 Comments





Support this site!
Subscribe to the newsletter
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About Firedoglake
Lew, Welcome to the Lake.
Tula, Thank you for Hosting today’s Book Salon.
Welcome to Firedoglake! Glad you could join us today.
Glad to be here. Thanks for inviting me.
Lew Maltby
Lew, this is a great book that every informed citizen should read to understand his/her rights at work.
What are the most immediate concerns for employees regarding workplace rights today?
Hi Tula, and Lew
Is this administration amenable to the restoration of worker’s rights?
Tula:
That’s a bit like “how many $ does Bill Gates have?”.
But to pick one- Don’t say anything controversial or critical of your company on your personal blog or social network site. You may not think your boss will ever read it, but there’s a good chance he will. And if he doesn’t like anything he reads, he’ll fire you.
Lew
Good afternoon and welcome to FDL Lew. Hi Tula!
I think I was already aware of some of these situations. And I know I’ve had to sign the arbitration type deals in the past.
But this does seem to be the end result of “employment at will”.
Welcome, Lew! The problem for the vast majority of Americans is that even under the best economic circumstances, people feel they are not in a position to argue or challenge employer behaviors.
Hey Lew,
Glad to see you are still fighting the good fight.
Bill Hunn
Elliot:
Compared to the Bush administration, Obama is heaven. But that’s not saying a lot.
Obama is supportive of workplace rights, but he hasn’t make it a priority and his positions, while good, are not terribly progressive. There are many needed reforms he won’t touch with a 10 foot pole.
Lew
Exactly. Employment at will is the foundation on which all the other abuses are built. If American law was “you can be fired only for a legitimate reason” your boss couldn’t fire you for your politics, your sexual orientation, or refusing to pee in a bottle. But getting rid of employment at will is DOA on Capitol Hill. We have to aim for smaller reforms, like a new plant closing law.
How true–but you gave an excellent response. In other words, the field is wide open for management to run over workers.
Seems the only legislative redress is at the state level, bit by bit, state by state. That’s historically the way labor laws were passed, until the big package of the NLRA. Given the difficulty of improving the NLRA via the Employee Free Choice Act, probably not much hope of federal legislation addressing some of these issues for non-union workers–or are you more optimistic than I?
and of course, we are only referring to people who are on the payroll of the place where they work. we are not discussing people who are temps or contractors, who are basically 5 minutes and a cardboard box from being escorted out of their workplace, no matter how long they have worked there.
Toby:
Sadly, that’s true. In the long run, the solution is to change American law to protect basic human rights at work.
But there are a few things you can do to help yourself.
1. Use wireless communication any time you can. Even if it’s a company issued device, it’s almost impossible for the company to read your personal messages.
2. Learn about a company before you accept a job offer (if you’re lucky enough to have more than one). Don’t just ask about pay and benefits, find out if they spy on employees and/or fire people arbitrarily.
Tula:
That’s often true, but it depends on the issue. The federal laws banning polygraphs and genetic testing were trickle-up from the states.
But changing anything related to the right to organize has to be done at the federal level. EFCA is a challenge in its current form. But it appears that a modified version of EFCA is doable.
Bill:
Good to hear from you. It’s a tough field, but we do have some victories, like the new genetic testing law. Hope you are also fighting with the angels.
Lew
Toby:
True. But many so-called temps and independent contractors are really employees under the law. If there are enough of them at a company for the economics to work, they can get a lawyer and sue the company. It’s been done successfully.
Lew:
I mentioned to a few people how you found a few employers implanting chips in their employees and they were rightly appalled. Can you discuss it more here?
Lots of companies use RFID badges for security. A few have decided to respond to the minor problem of having to issue a new card to someone who loses theirs by implanting a chip in their arm.
This might be invasive enough for a court to consider it an invasion of privacy, but we won’t know for sure until someone files a case.
I’m wracking my brain to figure out WHY they would be doing this. What is the justification? Are they afraid of losing me, like I might be worried about losing my cat?
Cameras in the workplace – how many companies have you found to use camera surveillance (other than sidewalks and parking lots), to spy on their employees. What type of spying? where?
Any thought on the Pennsylvania school system that was spying on the students using laptops issued by the school?
Why do male dogs do that? Because they can.
It’s a typical case of employers responding to a legitimate, but small problem, like people occasionally losing their ID cards, by going off the deep end.
This is the same dynamic that leads to hidden cameras in bathrooms.
Mr. Maltby, I haven’t read your book, but I’m wondering – do you find much of this from small businesses? Some of this technology is expensive to implement, and I have to wonder about the ROI. Or am I being naive?
No one knows how many hidden cameras there are in workplace bathrooms and locker rooms; they’re all hidden.
But we hear from employees on an ongoing basis who have discovered hidden cameras. One such complaint came in two days ago.
The Pennsylvania case is the ultimate nightmare, a spy camera in your house, probably your bedroom. Given the proliferation of employer-issued laptops and the growing use of webcams this could become an epidemic.
What hasn’t been discussed in the press coverage is that it’s far from clear that the school district did anything illegal. Federal wiretapping laws ban covertly recording someones voice, but these laws don’t cover video.
Spying technology isn’t expensive anymore. Your boss can buy a tiny video surveillance camera on-line for $49 and install it himself. The software to read employee e-mail and find out what websites they visit doesn’t cost much more. And your boss can track you on your company-issued cell phone for only $4/month.
I would never accept an RFID implant from an employer. I am not a barnyard animal or livestock. It’s just not acceptable. This example of overreach along with so many other examples of employer overreaching into their employees lives (and bodies!) are a sign of trouble to come.
That’s true, except that the trouble isn’t coming, it’s already here. We’ve already started to get complaints about bosses using cell phone GPS to track people in their private lives.
One thing employees can do today is ask their boss about the company’s monitoring practices. There’s a reasonably good chance you’ll get an honest answer. If more people asked this question, employers would pay more attention to privacy. One reason employers put no value of employee privacy is because, through their silence, employees have told employers that they don’t value privacy.
what’s the rationale for hidden cameras in bathrooms? and i’m wondering how that can be legal. people are sometimes not fully clothed even when they’re not in a bathroom stall. i’ve gone into corporate restrooms and taken off clothing to wash off spots when i worked at a corporation. are the cameras in the stall areas as well? aren’t, say, gas station employees that spy on customers in bathrooms found behaving illegaly?
MacWorld had a special report on surveillance in the workplace (“Bosses with X-Ray Eyes,” MacWorld, June 1993). In the mid 1990s, I had one executive from Florida tell me first hand that it was part of his daily routine during the 1980s to go to a special room and perform surveillance on employee conversations.
Just one more reason that I don’t have a cell phone.
Hello Lew: About 15 years ago, I was working at a university where I discovered that they were filming us secretly at work. I went to the Press and told them what was happening and they embarrassed the college so much it stopped because the story went national. However while I was involved in the union negotiations around this issue, the union lawyer told us this was legal. He said that in essence while we are at work they “own” us as they used to own slaves. Now while we are out of work, they own us.
In drug testing where marijuana is in the blood stream for 30 days, workers are subjected to firing, even though it was never used in the workplace, while alcohol and cocaine is only in the system for less than a day and undectable, and therefore since these are “rich man’s drug” they are never detected ~ IF any upper management is tested at all.
I am not a drug user, but when are we going to get a little more sensible with our drug testing policies? I can understand testing perhaps with workers who are doing dangerous jobs that might injure them if they are not completely sober, or jobs that could hurt other people such as a piloting job, but recently I saw this policy being enforced in work such as cooking, landscaping, and other things that have little to do with whether or not they harmed anyone even themselves if they are working sober while at work.
When are we going to rid ourselves of this moral nannyism that expects workers to be perfect while companies continue to pollute, injure workers with their unsafe practices and pollute entire communities?
Just asking …
cat In Seattle
And as far as things like hidden cameras, reading of employees’ personal websites and writings, etc., are concerned, the employers who practice this sort of thing are really just asking for employees to start fighting back.
Apple, Inc., apparently responds to various issues like media leaks about its products from within Apple by demanding to summarily review various employees’ personal cell phones and communications devices. Failure to comply results in summary termination. I’ve already gamed out the countermeasure for such a policy – simply tell your employer that you don’t have a personal cell phone. Yes, this is a lie, but if an employer has an overbearing policy where they claim that your personal possessions and personal life is subject to their review at random, then the employer is simply asking employees to lie in order to fight back.
Employers read your personal web site and online writings? OK, go anonymous or use a pseudonym. Keeping your personal life largely separate from your work life is part of having a good work-life balance, anyway. Your employer’s overreach with this simple countermeasure results in employee alienation and an inability for the employer to monitor the employee.
Employer uses hidden or overt surveillance cameras? Learn where they are, and don’t ever go where there is one, if at all possible. You may never do anything you would worry about having on camera, but it is an appropriate response to an employer who wants to surreptitiously monitor to you to carefully control your “on-camera appearances” in your own interest and to otherwise evade your employer’s attempt at all-seeing eyes.
Ultimately, employer overreach should be met with employee alienation and countermeasures. This is appropriate and reasonable.
Occasionally, employers put cameras in bathrooms because they’re perverts. This is what happened in the Atlas Cold Storage case discussed in the book.
More often, it’s an excessive and illegitimate response to a legitimate concern. The Boston Sheraton case is typical. Management heard a rumor that employees were smoking marijuana in the locker room. Instead of investigating by legitimate means, management installed a hidden camera. They didn’t find anyone using drugs, just a lot of innocent employees taking their clothes off.
Lew, Tula,
How much control does an employer really have over your “personal” life? Where is the line drawn? Control over your associations, memberships, etc?
I worked for the Federal Gov for 32 years,and I was subject to “conditions” in my off-duty behaviors and associations. It was considered job-related.
and it’s legal for them to be watching people take off their clothes with their hidden cameras?
Fortunately, employers are becoming saner when it comes to drug testing. It’s not that they suddenly care about employee privacy. But they’ve found that it isn’t cost effective. Drug testing doesn’t improve workplace safety or productivity, so most employers have cut back. The majority now only do pre-employment testing. This is still dumb and unfair, but anyone who smokes pot the week before they take a scheduled drug test is probably too dumb to hire anyway.
The troubles with asking an employer about the company’s monitoring practices seem clear:
1) The employee so questioning raises eyebrows and draws more attention.
2) The employee’s direct manager may have no idea him/herself as to what the real practices are in a company.
I’d prefer a Federal law requiring employers to disclose in writing, uniformly, to all prospective employees, the full extent of potential monitoring. Changes to the monitoring practices likewise must be communicated ahead of time in the law I envision.
With respect to tracking employees by phone GPS, etc., I think that it is fine for employees to, again, use countermeasures. If an employer issues a phone, then the employee should only use the phone when s/he is working, and should otherwise turn the phone off. Part of the beauty of the phone tracking example is that it exposes the way American workers mix business life with personal life far too much. If there is no requirement for example that an employee actually USE the employer-provided phone, the phone probably can reside in an office desk. For the entire extent of employment. And, again, the phone can be powered on when the worker is on the clock, anyway.
Believe it or not, it may be. The Constitutional right to privacy does not apply to private employers, only to the government. The federal government could have passed a law to ban this kind of surveillance, but it hasn’t. Only a handful of state legislatures have acted.
Some judges will hold a hidden camera to be an invasion of common law privacy if it’s in a locker room or bathroom, but not always. A judge in Kansas threw out an invasion of privacy case involving a hidden camera in a locker room.
My employer continues to do drug testing, including random, because they are required to by government contracts. No testing program, no contract.
Just to clarify, when you talk about them monitoring e-mail and websites, you mean at work or on employer’s equipment. Or are they monitoring people’s gmail accounts somehow?
It’s usually not quite that bad. If you have a decent relationship with your boss, you can usually ask about monitoring practices without looking like a trouble maker. If your supervisor doesn’t know, he or she may ask their boss. This is a good thing. It sends a message that employees and first level managers care about privacy. Second, if upper management actually looks at their privacy practices, they may find things they think are too intrusive and change them. Most companies buy “off the rack” monitoring software without asking how it works. If management looks into what their software does, they might modify it.
Of course, this is no substitute for a federal privacy law. NWI has been trying to get one passed for the last 20 years.
“Cloud Computing” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cloud_computing) is the operative term:
Does the Fourth Amendment cover ‘the cloud’?
http://news.cnet.com/8301-19413_3-10436425-240.html
Most employers that drug test do it because they want to, but federal contractors have to as a business necessity. Transportation employers are required to test by federal law; part of the war on drugs launched by Regan.
If you send an e-mail on your office computer, it will be monitored no matter what provider you use. Switching from the company network to your AOL or Yahoo account changes nothing. It still goes through the company server, which makes no distinctions.
If you log on to your company computer network from home, everything you do is monitored just like it would be if you were in the office. To have any privacy, log off the company network before you send any personal e-mail or surf the web.
Sunday at the East Coast Bar and Grill there will be a gun rally of unloaded open carry supporters. The owner want this. This is legal in smaller towns in California (walnut creek). Do the employees have any rights in this situation?
The Fourth Amendment covers anything the government does, whether it’s federal, state, or local.
But the Constitution doesn’t apply to private corporations. There is literally nothing a private employer can do that would violate the Constitution, not even a strip-search.
What about Title VII of the Civil Rights Act? Is that now defunct?
No. Your boss can have a rally about any subject he wants. He can even make you attend it and fire you if you say no. If your boss is pro-life, he can make you come to an anti-abortion rally, even off-duty.
The only way you might have any rights would be if people came to the rally with loaded guns. This might be an OSHA violation, but even this is a stretch.
Unless of course you’re a Republican and work for Republicans, such as is the case with the guys who run the PowerLine blog.
Fortunately not. Even Regan and Bush never suggested making employment discrimination based on race or gender legal again. Although they did cut the funding for the EEOC, the agency that enforces Title VII.
But disability laws create a false impression. Because there are so many laws against employment discrimination, people get the impression that they have decent legal protection. But all anti-discrimination laws say is that your boss can screw you because of your race, gender, or religion. They don’t say anything about free speech, privacy, or other rights.
As an airline pilot I get subjected to random drug testing, because the powers that be seem to think that given the chance we’ll run off and light up a couple of bombers as soon as the wheels are chocked. TSA has the “power” to turn in a flight crew member they suspect of using alcohol (if you smell of booze going thru security they’ll pull you out). Most, if not all of us try to be professionals and not do anything that would jeopardize our passengers. LIke use drugs when flying. Duh, right?
However, refusal to take a drug test is cause to lose forever my license and job, no appeal. It’s gone. Nice, huh?
e.g., Don “Moose” Lewis is proposing a “whites-only” pro basketball league, the AABA. He cannot hire on the basis of race under Title VII. But you claim that “[T]here is literally nothing a private employer can do that would violate the Constitution.” While Title VII is not part of the Constitution, neither has it been found unconstitutional, or are you essentially saying it is unconstitutional?.
But if you’re in a state that allows concealed-carry, who knows?
Employer spying does cause alienation and reduce productivity, but not enough for employers to care.
What employers pay attention to is what employees say in exit interview, especially if they left voluntarily. People complain about a lot of things in exit interviews, but very seldom about privacy.
This practice makes me want to scream. I fly a lot, but I don’t feel any safer because you have to pee in a bottle once or twice a year.
If you snorted an entire gram of coke or smoked several joints on your way to the airport, you’d pass the drug test because it takes hours for your body to metabolize the drugs and have them appear in your urine. And, even if you did fail, it wouldn’t matter. By the time the test results came back, we’d have seen what’s left of your plane in the middle of a cornfield on the evening news.
Technology is available that tests for what really matters; whether you’re in a condition to fly the plane safety. It’s like a video game, developed by NASA for astronaut training.
But they airlines refuse to use it. They just keep invading your privacy and pretend it protects our safety.
Lewis, did you follow the issues with ChoicePoint? If so, what did you think of this: “ChoicePoint Settles With 43 States, D.C.” (
http://www.smh.com.au/news/Technology/ChoicePoint-Settles-With-43-States-DC/2007/06/01/1180205461106.html )
The Constitution is the foundation of human rights. It protects us even if Congress doesn’t act. But it only protects us from the government, not from private employers.
Congress can give us additional protection if it wants to. It acted on racial discrimination, but not on free speech or privacy.
Moose can’t have a white’s only basketball league. (Who would want to watch the games anyway?) The only time an employer can make race or gender a condition of employment is when it’s a legitimate job requirement, like having female guards in a woman’s prison for privacy reasons.
The world has gotten worse since the MacWorld study was done. The most recent survey found that 94% of employers conduct electronic surveillance. If you work in corporate America today, you are being watched, whether your boss has told you so or not.
Background investigation companies like Choice Point are a big problem. It’s not inherently wrong to run a criminal records check or credit check on a prospective employee; I don’t want convicted child molesters working in my daughter’s school or someone who can’t balance their own checkbook handling my account at the bank.
But background checking companies make a lot of mistakes, basically because they make more money by doing things fast and superficially.
And lots of employers will refuse to hire you if there is anything negative in your record, even a bounced check 10 years ago or getting caught smoking pot in college 20 years ago.
Lew, what do you see as the future of the workplace in the next five years?
I have a serious 14th Amendment, Section 1 problem with all this incoherence.
As we come to the end of this enlightening Book Salon,
Lew, Thank you for stopping by the Lake and spending the afternoon with us discussing your new book and our workplaces.
Tula, Thank you very much for Hosting this Book Salon.
Everyone, this is a must have resource, if you haven’t bought a copy of Lew’s book yet, here is a link.
Thanks all.
So, Lewis, are you telling me that there is an extensive dossier on each American who has ever worked, the subject probably has no idea what’s in it or has a way to force any accuracy in the report, and it is in circulation among unknown individuals and organizations within and without the United States?
Thanks, Lew!
Thanks Bev!
You’d be amazed by the things people have done off duty that got them fired. Dan Wynn was fired for having a couple of beers on his way home from work; his boss thought drinking was a sin. Kimberly Turic was fired because she was considering having an abortion. Lots of people have been fired for posting risque pictures of themselves on the Internet, or even because someone else photographed them with a cell phone and posted the picture.
Four states have pretty good laws protecting off-duty behavior. I helped write them. But it the other 46 states, your boss can run your life 24/7 if he wants to.
LOL. I once had an interview offer rescinded over my objection to signing a bkg check auth that was basically a blank check for them to compile any information, whether documentable or not, whether job-relevant or not (incl oral hearsay), and — AND — the auth indemnified them from any subsequent liability over any breach of confidentiality regarding the bkg dossier.
(Because, of course, with respect to the latter outrage, that information would then become “proprietary data” that would become a commodity of commercial value to them.)
Fuck ‘em. I just said “your loss.”
It’s not a pretty picture. New technology like GPS is continually being developed, and employers are quick to adopt it.
The only way things are going to change is if all of us start writing our congressman to complain about our lack of rights at work. Now that every congressman has a website, you can do this in about a minute. There is a sample letter in the book. Pretty soon, there will be “point and click” sample letters on NWI’s website, http://www.workrights.org.
Spencer Ackerman is upstairs!
The Only Public Diplomacy Campaign That Matters
It happens a lot. There is absolutely no restriction on the information your employer can collect on you. A company can even condition an offer of employment on your signing an authorization for the company to see your medical records; all of them, psychiatric, gynocological, everthing.
The only thing the company has to do (under the Fair Credit Reporting Act) is tell you if they turn you down because of something in a background check. Of course, they don’t have to tell you why you weren’t hired, and the background checking company won’t tell you who they gave your records too, so even this legal right is pretty useless.
What do you think about HIPPA and FICA?
“A company can even condition an offer of employment on your signing an authorization for the company to see your medical records; all of them, psychiatric, gynocological, everthing.”
___
Y’see, people have to say NO to this shit at some point. I did, and I needed the job, too.
My personal irony, is that this coming Tuesday I return to work for the private Medicare QIO contractor that laid me off 3 years ago. No piss test, no bkg check auth requirement. They simply invited me to interview (competitively) for this “new” job (basically my old job, under a new federal contract), made me an offer, I accepted. Done.
I’m fortunate.
It’s not really my area of expertise. But, as a patient, I don’t see any difference with HIPPA in effect. All I see is another form to sign (that I don’t have time to read) when I see the doctor. I hope it’s doing some good that I’m not aware of.
You’re right. Even under the current lousy laws, things would get a little better if people fought back. If you’re not making $100,00 a year and have three kids to support, how do you say no? But if you’re married without kids and your spouse works, it’s possible.
Also, the smart thing to do is to look for a better job while you still have one. That way you can say no if you don’t like the way a company treats employees. Better yet, find out what a company is like to work for before you take the time to apply and interview. It’s not all that hard and well worth the effort. All companies are not the same. Some, like office furniture company Herman Miller, treat employees very fairly. Some, like Wal-Mart treat them like garbage.
I served as president of an AFSCME local for ten years prior to my retirement. Let me make it clear in echoing Mr. Maltby’s assertion that workers can only hope to survive day-to-day until someone in the company decides to fire them. It is common to cut loose workers for some thread-bare reason simply because they are within a few years of collecting retirement benefits.
However, it should be pointed out, worker security under a union is only as good as the passion of union representatives to do the work of restoring a wrongfully terminated employee to work. I’ve seen too much in over 35 years of union leadership of good-old-boy paid union staff who think negotiating a contract is the end of their responsibilities to their members.
I will never forget the propationary employee fired for not bringing in a doctor’s excuse. Me and my team dug deep and uncovered the slip (never forwarded to human resources)in the supervisor’s desk. The supervisor deliberately withheld the excuse in order to have grounds to fire the female employee because of what the supervisor viewed as immoral behavior in the employee’s relationship with a married man.
Still, I had to fight with my own union to get justice for the fired woman. Probationary employees can be fired without reason, and no paid union staff would acknowlege my arguement that the fact a reason had been given for her firing, the grievance I filed on her behalf had merit to dispute the falsification of that reason. The regional office of the union withdrew that grievance, but I struggled for nearly 2 years up the hierarchy of Pennsylvania AFSCME until I managed a few minutes with the PA director. He saw the sense of what I was fighting for and provided the fired employee a union lawyer.
She won in a decision by the EEOC.
Sometimes justice can be had by just a simply step outside the box in thinking.
One of my frustrations are younger co-workers and supervisor!(I’m late 30s) who want to be connected by everything, all the time. I don’t want to be Facebook/MySpace friends with most of them or receive text/chat messages in my off time. For that I’m the anti-social weirdo. I’ve cut real life friends from Facebook who might post something I’ll have to explain, I don’t trust that site maintain their privacy settings.
I’ve been astounded at what these co-workers post about themselves. Even at the media and supposedly liberal companies there’s disparate treatment of how postings are handled. They’ll ignore the favored people posting from the beach when they took a sick day, but holding a drink in a photo becomes an issue for those they want to let go. Women with lots of photos/news about their kids develop reputations as slacking or distracted.
Fighting back is what got my husband fired, but it was worth it to me because I was sick and tired of hearing the ongoing drama brought home daily by my spouse.
He stood up for himself and his co-workers by trying to unionize and the boss was handed an order by the multinational corporate office to not allow a union to be organized. She had to come up with a lie to get him fired, but when the NLRB investigated, what a joke, they simply interviewed him, the only other person who would go to bat for him, and the boss. We never knew what the boss had told them, but I guarantee it was a lie.
My hubby was unemployed from May 09 until yesterday. He just got a job working for the competition :-) I was happy to live paycheck to paycheck just to not have to deal with the corporate crap going on at that place.
No institution is perfect, including unions. Most unions leaders fight hard for their members, but are some who become complacent. Fortunately, if the workers become dissatisfied with the union leadership, they can elect new leadership that will do a better job.
There is a huge disconnect between 20 and 30 something workers and the 40 and 50 year olds they work for. The good news is that young adults (even relatively conservative ones) have largely left behind many of the social wars that consumed my generation. No one gives a thought to two young adults living together without being married. My son and his peers (he’s 22) don’t even think about anyones race, or their sexual orientation. He finds it hard to believe that anyone ever cared about these things.
The down side is that young adults are completely open about themselves because they don’t see what they do as controversial. That gets them fired when their boss reads their blog on sees a picture of them on the Internet acting up at a party. I’m a pretty hands off Dad who lets my kids learn by making mistakes. But I put a hammerlock on my son until he took certain things off his Myspace page.
The best answer in the short run is to use password protected social network sites. It’s not perfect, but it’s a lot better than posting things for the whole world to see.
That’s the dilemma about unions. If you succeed in organizing, you get about 20% more pay, better benefits like health care and pensions, and protection against arbitrary discharge.
But employers hate unions and will do virtually anything, even break the law, to keep from getting one. It’s not hard; just fire the leaders of the organizaing drive and everyone else will be frightened to continue. The company may have to pay a small penalty in a couple of years, but its a small price to pay to keep the union out.
That’s why its so important to enact labor law reform like the employee free choice act. With EFCA in place, workers could organize a union relatively free of the threat of retaliation.
Everyone who works for someone else should write the Senators and Congressman and tell them to support EFCA.
Can they really video tape women in the bathroom?
Essentially yes. There isn’t a single database with exhaustive information about every American. But almost everything about you is in a database somewhere and information brokers can and do collect it for a fee.
If you find out your credit report or criminal record is wrong, you can get it fixed.
It’s very easy and inexpensive to tape bathrooms and locker rooms. Most of the time your boss (or whoever installed the camera) will get away with it because the camera is hidden so well you’ll never find it.
Even if you find it, however, there may not be much you can do, other than get the camera removed (and hope it doesn’t get reinstalled later). If another employee put the camera in, you can theoretically sue him, but he probably doesn’t have enough money for a lawyer to take your case. If it’s your manager, the CEO can say she wasn’t acting in his official capacity and the company isn’t responsible (see previous sentence). If that doesn’t work, the company can argue that the taping was legitimate because they had evidence that someone was using drugs in the bathroom.
The bottom line is that the company will probably offer you a modest settlement to avoid the risk that a jury will hammer them, but there are enough ways you might lose the case that you won’t get very much.