UPS Targeting Teamsters' Rights on Social Media

[oldngray]

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

http://www.nooga.com/159578/the-national-labor-relations-board-and-employers-social-media-policies

 

[Catatonic]

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

If an employee posted on Facebook or Twitter that UPS was changing internal coding of packages to EC to avoid paying guarantees strikes me as something that would get the crosshairs on their back.

This would not be covered under the NLRB and would be exposing internal processes that do not result in a tariff issue and would be detrimental to the company.

I really don't know but this seems like it would fit.

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.

 

[Anonymous 10]

If an employee posted on Facebook or Twitter that UPS was changing internal coding of packages to EC to avoid paying guarantees strikes me as something that would get the crosshairs on their back.

This would not be covered under the NLRB and would be exposing internal processes that do not result in a tariff issue and would be detrimental to the company.

I really don't know but this seems like it would fit.

If I disclose information like this as I have in the past it's to the integrity hotline in cases of dishonesty and I leave my name. I would never condone anyone trying to damage the ups brand. This is where we eat.

 

[BMWMC]

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

You should take your own advice.

First off I suppose if your an ass-clown and assume everyone live's and breaths BC and trolls every thread then you can say I missed that thread. However freedom of speech as the NRLB has defined it DOES protect employees. So Mr. Hoaxster if I want to wear a pickle barrel and walk a circle line in front of a store complaining about the service it A PROTECT ACT!!!!~!!
Free of speech, freedom of expression, freedom of assembly, are in the 1st amendment because it was ITEM 1 for the importance of the constitution and bill of rights. NOW, because people on this board have a pension for being PISS-POTS let me clarify: that the 1st amendments protects LEGALLY DEFINED speech. There feel smarter now? I took more than 1 class in college on constitutional law so excuse my not having your lengthy resume on the subject. Furthermore: the bases of the NRLB law. regulation, and rule is BASED ON THE 1ST AMENDMENT!!!!!! All they did is EXTEND the rights ALL citizens have to EXPRESS themselves AS DEFINED by the and court precedents.

According to the National Labor Board, Social Media are essentially digital water coolers. Acting General Counsel Lafe Solomon expounded, “This is a fairly straightforward case under the National Labor Relations Act — whether it takes place on Facebook or at the water cooler, it was employees talking jointly about working conditions, in this case about their supervisor, and they have a right to do that.”

This landmark case will serve as precedent for the coming flood of cases to consume courts.

While common sense is uncommon, it seems that in this case, at least employees are covered even if judgment lapses. The National Labor Relations Act gives workers a federally protected right to form unions and it prohibits the punishment of workers for discussing working conditions or unionization.

https://web.archive.org/web/2015032...-ammendment-of-social-media-freedom-of-tweet/


This significant move by the NLB triggered a “lawflash” by Morgan, Lewis & Bockius, a law firm with a large labor and employment practice representing hundreds of companies, “Employers should review their Internet and social media policies to determine whether they are susceptible to an allegation that the policy would ‘reasonably tend to chill employees’ in the exercise of their rights to discuss wages, working conditions and unionization.”

**In case you glossed over the above paragraph, it essentially says that your social media policy might open up the organization to potential complaints, suits, and liabilities.**





Would there even be one song allowed to be distributed or one letter to the editor that did tweak someone sensibilities. Even to complain about a companies service or render an opinion of same company products or service could be stifled if freedom of speech didn't extend to private citizens to non-governmental bodies. How could even 1 book get published? The historical, legal, and social bases for freedom of speech lies within the heart of its interpretation.

http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/firstaminto.htm

 

[BMWMC]

If an employee posted on Facebook or Twitter that UPS was changing internal coding of packages to EC to avoid paying guarantees strikes me as something that would get the crosshairs on their back.

This would not be covered under the NLRB and would be exposing internal processes that do not result in a tariff issue and would be detrimental to the company.

I really don't know but this seems like it would fit.

What are you a lawyer now? Hey counselor, aren't all those allegations you make against these employee's actions protected under the whistle blowers protection act? An act who's roots are in the 1st amendment.

 

[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 was your initial post which exhibits your extreme ignorance.

What are you a lawyer now? Hey counselor, aren't all those allegations you make against these employee's actions protected under the whistle blowers protection act? An act who's roots are in the 1st amendment.

No, the NLRB rights are not rooted in the NLRB. Geez!

I guess it is your intention to to divert from the fact that you posted something that made you look ignorant.
I guess that's OK because you certainly can't argue your initial point which was that one's Social Media postings are protected from employer actions under the 1st Amendment.
That is what you posted and that assertion is just plain ignorant and anyone who says that should be derided and scoffed at.

Now, I guess you are going to try and assert you meant NLRB all along and that is fine. I understand people trying to change the perception that they made a fool of themselves.

Keep on posting because your words just get sillier and more ignorant trying to dig yourself out of the hole you dug. Extreme number of words never balance the weight of ignorance.

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.

 

[cachsux]

Bottom line they have to prove it was you posting the statement. In an inquiry simply deny any knowledge. As far as you know your wife got tired of hearing you bitch and posted how unhappy your are.

 

[BMWMC]

No you either misread the statement or refuee to read what doesn't refute your position. Your social media statement regarding your employer are protected under the 1st amendment as long, as I stated, are not threatening or clearly defamatory. THATS WHAT I WROTE AND THATS THE TEST IN LAW.
I never said the NLRB rights are rooted in the NLRB but are rooted in the 1st amendment. That's what I said so why the misquote?

No I didn't just mean the NLRB. I clearly stated that everyone has rights under the 1st amendment to freedom of speech and your Duck Dynasty example clearly shows itvto be true. No NLRB required.


Sent using BrownCafe App

 

[cosmo1]

I like it when you guys get pissed enough to start using bold and colored text.

 

[BigUnionGuy]

Your social media statement regarding your employer are protected under the 1st amendment as long, as I stated, are not threatening or clearly defamatory.

Even TDU.... is "treading lightly" around the subject. (which is interesting)

http://tdu.org/news/can-boss-fire-me-facebook


Being terminated for common vocal generalizations ?? Doubt it.

Specific inferences ?? Maybe.


Right now, its a gray area.

Unless, you are on the clock....

Then, your concern would be Article 37.



-Bug-

 

[cachsux]

I like it when you guys get pissed enough to start using bold and colored text.

YOU BE QUIET

 

[Catatonic]

No you either misread the statement or refuee to read what doesn't refute your position. Your social media statement regarding your employer are protected under the 1st amendment as long, as I stated, are not threatening or clearly defamatory. THATS WHAT I WROTE AND THATS THE TEST IN LAW.
I never said the NLRB rights are rooted in the NLRB but are rooted in the 1st amendment. That's what I said so why the misquote?

No I didn't just mean the NLRB. I clearly stated that everyone has rights under the 1st amendment to freedom of speech and your Duck Dynasty example clearly shows itvto be true. No NLRB required.

Unfortunately, for some reason, you will not investigate your premises to determine whether they are true or not.

You are simply wrong and do not understand what you are talking about.
The 1st Amendment only protects US citizens from the actions of the various governments within the US. That is well established and backed up by every lawyer asked to comment by the media whenever one of these cases gets public attention.

I am through trying to reason with you as you appear incapable or unwilling to understand what you are talking about.

I only take the time to do this so that others on Brown Cafe do not think you know what you are talking about and post something on Social Media sites that will result in them losing their job.

I will reply to every post by you or any other member that states that one's posts on Social Media sites are protected under the 1st Amendment. That's just plain wrong and stupid or ignorant.

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.

 

[Catatonic]

I like it when you guys get pissed enough to start using bold and colored text.

I really don't care what others think about this cosmo but I feel that I must rebuff wrong assertions that may result in naive readers taking actions that may result in their losing their jobs.

I personally don't agree with companies taking the heavy-handed actions they have legal (sometimes no legal rights) but most people, especially drivers, cannot replace their wages and other compensation they enjoy by working at UPS.

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.

 

[cachsux]

Notice: One's posts on Social Media sites are not protected under the 1st Amendment.
Do not do something stupid and post disparaging statements to 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.

"To" or "About" ?

 

[oldngray]

YOU BE QUIET

 

[p228]

No you either misread the statement or refuee to read what doesn't refute your position. Your social media statement regarding your employer are protected under the 1st amendment as long, as I stated, are not threatening or clearly defamatory. THATS WHAT I WROTE AND THATS THE TEST IN LAW.
I never said the NLRB rights are rooted in the NLRB but are rooted in the 1st amendment. That's what I said so why the misquote?

No I didn't just mean the NLRB. I clearly stated that everyone has rights under the 1st amendment to freedom of speech and your Duck Dynasty example clearly shows itvto be true. No NLRB required.

Your speech, under the First Amendment, is protected from government censorship and you from persecution. If your still not clear on that just read the text:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

It speaks only of the government, not private entities. The aim of the Bill of Rights is to limit the power of the government.

With a few narrow exceptions the Constitution and the federal laws derived from it only protect a person’s right to expression from government interference, not from the restrictions a private employer may impose, lawyers say.
[...]
While federal statutes such as the 1964 Civil Rights Act, the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, the Americans with Disabilities Act, the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act, and the National Labor Relations Act limit companies’ rights to fire or hire workers and prevent them from joining unions, these restrictions are based only on race, religion, ethnicity, sex, age, and a few other protected categories. Political opinion isn’t protected by any of these statutes.

“The First Amendment applies only to employees of the government in certain situations, and all citizens when they’re confronted by the government,” says Mark Trapp, an employment lawyer with Epstein Baker Green in Chicago. “In other words, freedom to speak your mind doesn’t really exist in work spaces.”

Source: http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2012-08-03/where-free-speech-goes-to-die-the-workplace

Continuing with the Duck Dynasty example, here is a quote you may find interesting:

"Lesson #1.”Duck Dynasty”’s Phil Robertson has a First Amendment right to state his views on homosexuality, minorities and pretty much anything else on this unlikely reality-TV star’s mind, whenever he wants.

Lesson #2. The A&E television network, which airs “Duck Dynasty,” has a First Amendment right to declare publicly what it stands for, and to suspend Robertson if it doesn’t like how he handled his free speech as outlined in lesson #1."

Source: http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/here-are-duck-dynasty

That quote is from Gene Policinski, Senior Vice President of the First Amendment Center.

 

[BMWMC]

P228

You dont see that on the one hand you claim from one citation that 1st amendment right are only for protection from government yet then cite the Duck Dynasty point which claims ue had a 1st amendment right to his speech.
Which is it?
The answer is both.

Sent using BrownCafe App

 

[Catatonic]

P228

You dont see that on the one hand you claim from one citation that 1st amendment right are only for protection from government yet then cite the Duck Dynasty point which claims ue had a 1st amendment right to his speech.
Which is it?
The answer is both.

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.

 

[BMWMC]

Hoaxster either can't read or refuse recognize his false interpretation. The Duck Dynasty example is just one of thousands of forms of free speach that had nothing to do with just protesting government.

Sent using BrownCafe App

 

[IVE GOTTA PACKAGE 4U]

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.

I love UPS..they treat me well!