Because it is anti-business, I guess
"A Connecticut woman who was fired after posting disparaging remarks about her boss on Facebook has prompted a first-of-its-kind case by federal authorities who say her comments are protected speech under labor laws.
The National Labor Relations Board alleges that American Medical Response of Connecticut illegally fired Dawnmarie Souza from her job as an emergency medical tech late last year after she criticized her supervisor on her personal Facebook page and then traded Facebook messages about the negative comments with other employees.
The complaint, filed Oct. 27 by the board's Hartford, Conn., regional office, could set a precedent for employers to heed as more workers use social-networking sites to share details about their jobs.
"It's the same as talking at the water cooler," said Lafe Solomon, the board's acting general counsel. "The point is that employees have protection under the law to talk to each other about conditions at work."
John Barr, an attorney representing the company, said the company stands by its policy against employees discussing the company on the Internet.
Source
I think freedom to gripe is a pretty basic freedom
9 comments:
Another attempt at curtailing free speech by a company that thinks it has the power to tell it's employees what they can, and can not, say on their own time. Don't think these cases will stop simply because the company lost. They won't.
So is the court saying that I can talk crap about my boss in front of him and not get fired? Because that's exactly what Facebook is, specially when you become "friends" with people that can tell on you.
Section 8(a)(1) of the NLRA gives broad protection to employees who act in concert for mutual aid and protection. This is a little known protection afforded employees to get together and voice complaints. It does not protect insubordination, but it does protect employees who complain as a group among themselves about working conditions, including the quality of their supervisors. It has been on the books since 1947, so it is not an incursion by Obama's minions.
Federal laws should protect the right to own property, even your business. so federally it should not be illegal to fire her. If a state wishes to basically prevent true ownership of businesses by taking the land and buildings back, when a company fires over speech I suppose that should be up to the state.
I woudl rather live in a state that lets people really own property though.
The federal government maybe should make sure that there is enough land to go around so we can all own it for real and fire people for whatever we like.
Freedom of speech has always meant that the government cannot punish you for what you say. How your employer, customers, family, or friends react is up to them.
I would be interested in the timestamps and IP source of her comments. She may have the right to be critical of the boss, but she doesn't have the right to violate company internet policies while at work.
Lest we forget, the First Amendment was intended to protect political speech only.
Its ovious the supervirors and bosses of major companies dont belive in the U.S. CONSTITUTION until its read to them by a judge or court system
Why is it curtailing free speech? She said what she said. I think she works for a private company. Does this mean they don't have any rights?
Post a Comment