3 ms·

So what if it does? You are not prohibiting discussing of salaries - you are prohibiting discussing of salaries while using company property and company time. T

by Alupis 2y ago

So what if it does? You are not prohibiting discussing of salaries - you are prohibiting discussing of salaries while using company property and company time. There is no problem here.

kragen 2y ago
NLRB has ruled many times on companies "prohibiting discussing of salaries while using company property and company time", virtually always striking down the prohibitions and in many cases sanctioning companies for trying to impose them. Labor organizing activity is absolutely allowed to happen on company property and company time. It would be impossible otherwise at many workplaces. Think about auto factories, coal mines, offshore oil platforms, etc., especially before email.
- Alupis 2y ago
  You are misinformed. The NLRB does not allow you to use company time and company property to do non-company things. You can use your own break time to discuss salaries. There is nothing a company can do to prohibit that. It's really that simple.
  - ceejayoz 2y ago
    If work allows non-work conversations, discussing salaries can't be an exception to that. (Automattic definitely permits non-work conversations during the workday.) https://www.nlrb.gov/about-nlrb/rights-we-protect/your-rights/your-rights-to-discuss-wages https://www.nlrb.gov/about-nlrb/rights-we-protect/your-right... > You may have discussions about wages when not at work, when you are on break, and even during work if employees are permitted to have other non-work conversations. You have these rights whether or not you are represented by a union. If you consistently have - and consistently enforce! - a "no non-work conversations" policy, that can include salary discussions. Suddenly adding a new "no talking!" policy in response to people organizing wouldn't fly, either.
    - Alupis 2y ago
      Does the employee handbook/contract/whatever say it's ok? Or is it just done? There is no reality where any employer willfully enabled employees to literally not do work while being paid to work. This is a silly discussion to be having.
      - ceejayoz 2y ago
        > Does the employee handbook/contract/whatever say it's ok? Or is it just done? It would have to say that there are to be no off-topic conversations during work of any kind, and it would have to have been demonstrably enforced. If it's a new policy that somehow is only ever invoked when someone talks about salaries, you're in for a world of hurt. > There is no reality where any employer willfully enabled employees to literally not do work while being paid to work. If it's like any other significantly sized tech company, there's probably a pool and ping-pong table somewhere. It's also possible to talk while working.
        Alupis 2y ago
        > are to be no off-topic conversations during work of any kind, and it would have to have been demonstrably enforced This is silly. Go read your contract. It most likely has something exactly like this in it, in addition to spelling out what you are allowed to use company property and time for. This is employer 101 level stuff folks. > demonstrably enforced Telling someone to get back to work once in a while is enforcement. You can continue contorting this into some sort of pro-union/organization thing - but it is not. These people literally: 1) Started their work day 2) Used their company-provided computer to browse the internet instead of working 3) Used their company-provided email address to sign up for a non-work-related website 4) If successful in creating the account, would proceed to spend company time gossiping about company policies. On it's own that's a terminatable offense and a gross misuse of company time, money and property.
        ceejayoz 2y ago
        > You can continue contorting this into some sort of pro-union/organization thing - but it is not. You previously posted "Unskilled labor probably shouldn't be livable", so you'll have to excuse my doubts about your pro-worker stance. > These people literally: There's actually no evidence that occurred. I have my work email on my personal phone, and I can receive a 2FA code outside of work hours; I could sign up for Blind without ever once using company hardware or time. Again, if Automattic has a history of permitting occasional non-work browsing/emailing - which they almost certainly do - sudden specific targeting of payment discussions would be a violation of the NLRA.
  - fwip 2y ago
    Hey, dude, you're wrong.

by Alupis 2y ago

So what if it does? You are not prohibiting discussing of salaries - you are prohibiting discussing of salaries while using company property and company time. There is no problem here.

kragen 2y ago

NLRB has ruled many times on companies "prohibiting discussing of salaries while using company property and company time", virtually always striking down the prohibitions and in many cases sanctioning companies for trying to impose them. Labor organizing activity is absolutely allowed to happen on company property and company time. It would be impossible otherwise at many workplaces. Think about auto factories, coal mines, offshore oil platforms, etc., especially before email.

Alupis 2y ago
You are misinformed. The NLRB does not allow you to use company time and company property to do non-company things. You can use your own break time to discuss salaries. There is nothing a company can do to prohibit that. It's really that simple.
- ceejayoz 2y ago
  If work allows non-work conversations, discussing salaries can't be an exception to that. (Automattic definitely permits non-work conversations during the workday.) https://www.nlrb.gov/about-nlrb/rights-we-protect/your-rights/your-rights-to-discuss-wages https://www.nlrb.gov/about-nlrb/rights-we-protect/your-right... > You may have discussions about wages when not at work, when you are on break, and even during work if employees are permitted to have other non-work conversations. You have these rights whether or not you are represented by a union. If you consistently have - and consistently enforce! - a "no non-work conversations" policy, that can include salary discussions. Suddenly adding a new "no talking!" policy in response to people organizing wouldn't fly, either.
  - Alupis 2y ago
    Does the employee handbook/contract/whatever say it's ok? Or is it just done? There is no reality where any employer willfully enabled employees to literally not do work while being paid to work. This is a silly discussion to be having.
    - ceejayoz 2y ago
      > Does the employee handbook/contract/whatever say it's ok? Or is it just done? It would have to say that there are to be no off-topic conversations during work of any kind, and it would have to have been demonstrably enforced. If it's a new policy that somehow is only ever invoked when someone talks about salaries, you're in for a world of hurt. > There is no reality where any employer willfully enabled employees to literally not do work while being paid to work. If it's like any other significantly sized tech company, there's probably a pool and ping-pong table somewhere. It's also possible to talk while working.
      - Alupis 2y ago
        > are to be no off-topic conversations during work of any kind, and it would have to have been demonstrably enforced This is silly. Go read your contract. It most likely has something exactly like this in it, in addition to spelling out what you are allowed to use company property and time for. This is employer 101 level stuff folks. > demonstrably enforced Telling someone to get back to work once in a while is enforcement. You can continue contorting this into some sort of pro-union/organization thing - but it is not. These people literally: 1) Started their work day 2) Used their company-provided computer to browse the internet instead of working 3) Used their company-provided email address to sign up for a non-work-related website 4) If successful in creating the account, would proceed to spend company time gossiping about company policies. On it's own that's a terminatable offense and a gross misuse of company time, money and property.
        ceejayoz 2y ago
        > You can continue contorting this into some sort of pro-union/organization thing - but it is not. You previously posted "Unskilled labor probably shouldn't be livable", so you'll have to excuse my doubts about your pro-worker stance. > These people literally: There's actually no evidence that occurred. I have my work email on my personal phone, and I can receive a 2FA code outside of work hours; I could sign up for Blind without ever once using company hardware or time. Again, if Automattic has a history of permitting occasional non-work browsing/emailing - which they almost certainly do - sudden specific targeting of payment discussions would be a violation of the NLRA.
- fwip 2y ago
  Hey, dude, you're wrong.