UPS Targeting Teamsters' Rights on Social Media

[superballs63]

The very fact that she took the time to phone in a corporate complaint tells me that you identified yourself as a UPS employee and throughout the conversation in her mind you were a representative of the company.

Of course I identified myself as a driver, when I was telling her of alternative methods. I spelled it out for her.

I don't bite my tongue around anyone, and on the net is no different.

 

[104Feeder]

We had one Steward talked to for comments he was posting on the UPSers site, where you could comment about transfers & promotions. He was told to knock it off, he said they could block him if Corporate didn't like his comments. Nothing really came of it, and I'm not sure if the heat came from Corporate or someone local, my guess would be local. The few I read were more of the "Congratulations, maybe now you can do something about Supervisors working" type. I wasn't in the meeting, but I think I would agree that postings like that on UPS's site are inappropriate, especially with outlets such as these available.

 

[Anonymous 10]

And, as we know, these would be two very mild statements that UPS would not even blink an eye at.
There are some people who cannot help but to step outside the actual and make stuff up that will catch attention.

Could you give an example of something they wouldn't like?

 

[grgrcr88]

I completely disagree with the company's right to discipline based on someone's statements in social media. Now if someone is proven dishonest based on a Facebook post or posted themselves doing something on the clock that would be a different story. Simply stating ones displeasure with their place of employement however should be protected free speech!! Using Dave's analogy, does anyone think one should be fired for telling the grocery store clerk that UPS sucks?

 

[UpstateNYUPSer(Ret)]

We had one Steward talked to for comments he was posting on the UPSers site, where you could comment about transfers & promotions. He was told to knock it off, he said they could block him if Corporate didn't like his comments. Nothing really came of it, and I'm not sure if the heat came from Corporate or someone local, my guess would be local. The few I read were more of the "Congratulations, maybe now you can do something about Supervisors working" type. I wasn't in the meeting, but I think I would agree that postings like that on UPS's site are inappropriate, especially with outlets such as these available.

I posted a comment on the story about Tom Camp. I made sure to choose my words carefully but did not change my opinion that I felt it was time for TC to retire. The comment was taken down shortly thereafter.

 

[Catatonic]

I posted a comment on the story about Tom Camp. I made sure to choose my words carefully but did not change my opinion that I felt it was time for TC to retire. The comment was taken down shortly thereafter.

I heard they take down posts showing symptoms of asperger syndrome.

 

[Bubblehead]

I heard they take down posts showing symptoms of asperger syndrome.

Dave's affliction is called Assbooger Syndrome.
I do see however where the two might be confused.

 

[Brownslave688]

That whole "hell / heck" thing struck a nerve with me----as you probably noticed. I will try not to be such a butthead next time

I have no idea if it could even be an option here but one site I'm on has a spoiler bar. Anything that could be offensive or be considered a spoiler for a movie or show gets blacked out.you then choose if you want to remove the black bar and see the text.

 

[cachsux]

I have no idea if it could even be an option here but one site I'm on has a spoiler bar. Anything that could be offensive or be considered a spoiler for a movie or show gets blacked out.you then choose if you want to remove the black bar and see the text.

So you want pages full of nothing but solid black?

 

[cachsux]

Watch your posts.

 

[Indecisi0n]

I hate the company.




....how do I edit that, quick!

 

[104Feeder]

I posted a comment on the story about Tom Camp. I made sure to choose my words carefully but did not change my opinion that I felt it was time for TC to retire. The comment was taken down shortly thereafter.

I only comment on people who are retiring or being promoted that I have personally worked with and have respect for (it's a very short list). The rest know what I think of them. I get tired of the obvious ass kissing that goes on in the comments on UPSers.

 

[cachsux]

I hate UPS.




....how do I edit that, quick!

I think I fixed it the right way.

 

[BMWMC]

Posting on social media sites are protected by 1st amendment rights. There are many court rulings that define what kind of speech is allowed but short of direct threats or clearly defaming all forms of opinions and speech are fully protected. Any attempt by a company to punish or harass employees can be and should be a cause of action for a remedy through the court sytem.

Sent using BrownCafe App

 

[Catatonic]

Posting on social media sites are protected by 1st amendment rights. There are many court rulings that define what kind of speech is allowed but short of direct threats or clearly defaming all forms of opinions and speech are fully protected. Any attempt by a company to punish or harass employees can be and should be a cause of action for a remedy through the court sytem.

This is so ignorant a statement that it does not deserve a reply but I will anyway.
Well actually a reposting from the Phil Dynasty Duck thread to which a link is provided at the end.

Neither the 1st Amendment nor the 14th Amendment cover anything outside the relationship and punitive actions against an individual citizen by any level of governments.

The first amendment protects citizens from the government from taking any action against them due to what the citizens says ... in particular, if they say something against the government.
Citizens can say anything they want as long as they do not fall within the following:

• Burning draft cards to protest draft — prohibited because of superior governmental interest.
• Words likely to incite imminent violence, termed “fighting words.”
• Words immediately jeopardizing national security.
• Newspaper publishing false and defamatory material — libel.

Adams passed the Sedition Acts back in 1798 and were so unpopular that Jefferson was elected and these laws expired in 1802.
Lincoln suspended the 1st amendment rights as have other presidents during times of war.

Read more: http://www.browncafe.com/community/...red-under-1st-amendment.354041/#ixzz2q8hFZ4j3

Notice: One's posts on Social Media sites are not protected under the 1st Amendment.
Do not do something stupid and post disparaging statements about UPS on Facebook or Twitter or other social media sites thinking you are protected by the 1st Amendment.
You are protected by provisions of the NLRB regulations and laws and whistle-blower laws but your statements must be carefully worded and with the intention as outlined under those laws.

 

[PT Car Washer]

I believe you do not have a Constitutional Right to a job. Don't like your job or the boss, go get another job.

 

[BMWMC]

As I said there id a large body of court cases and article on this very topic. Before you call someone or something ignorant why don't you read the ehole post. Google " freedom of speech and social media".
Corporation are not governments and can not act outside the law's enacted by Congress.


Sent using BrownCafe App

 

[Catatonic]

As I said there id a large body of court cases and article on this very topic. Before you call someone or something ignorant why don't you read the ehole post. Google " freedom of speech and social media".
Corporation are not governments and can not act outside the law's enacted by Congress.


Sent using BrownCafe App

You are the one that needs to research.
This has been discussed on here ad nauseum and the 1st Amendment applies in absolutely no way in any form or fashion to anything other than the government not being able to take actions against individual citizens.

Even FOX News and MSNBC and CNN all agree that 1st Amendment rights do not protect an employee from speech, written or communications.

People get fired by their employers all the time for what they say or write.

My goal is to make sure that somebody does not read an ignorant, non-factual post like yours and wind up getting fired because someone has fed them a line of BS.

Sorry if you don't like it but you are 100% wrong and don't know what you are talking about when it comes to protection of speech provided by the 1st Amendment.

Notice: One's posts on Social Media sites are not protected under the 1st Amendment.
Do not do something stupid and post disparaging statements about UPS on Facebook or Twitter or other social media sites thinking you are protected by the 1st Amendment.
You are protected by provisions of the NLRB regulations and laws and whistle-blower laws but your statements must be carefully worded and with the intention as outlined under those laws.

 

[p228]

As I said there id a large body of court cases and article on this very topic. Before you call someone or something ignorant why don't you read the ehole post. Google " freedom of speech and social media".
Corporation are not governments and can not act outside the law's enacted by Congress.

You should take your own advice.

[...]
The question of employees' rights when it comes to social media is "the hottest issue going right now," said Dorraine Larison, a St. Cloud employment law attorney who frequently counsels businesses on developing social media policies.

Generally, employees don't enjoy broad First Amendment rights to say whatever they want without risk, Larison said. However, employees do have protections under the National Labor Relations Act, passed in 1935, which include the right to engage in "concerted activity" for collective bargaining or other mutual aid.

Although many workers don't realize it, the law applies to all employees, not just those who belong to a union, Larison said. Before the rise of social media, the law rarely was used in non-union workplaces, she said. Workers complained about their jobs, but not in such a visible way.

Source: http://www.usatoday.com/story/money...social-media-complicated-for-workers/2495721/

 

[Overpaid Union Thug]

Didn't the NLRB just rule that our rights to "discuss work related problems and grievances" on social media or something like that?