This is something i'd love Ron to do for us

[Santana28]

Though i doubt it will happen due to his beliefs of freedom of association

I think there really ought to be some sort of "Employee Freedom Of Communication" act protecting employees for losing their jobs over the quantity or quality of email communications/internet activity.

For one, it is relatively easy to monitor email activity vs. listening in on employee phone calls and monitoring cellphone activity, etc. And of course, everything is usually covered under the "At Will" hiring laws and also the employee handbook which basically makes any non-business-related communication activity subject to scrutiny and termination over.

Here's my issue with this :

1) There is always a claim of lost productivity involved. However, from my personal experience, the communication is almost always during "down time" or a general lull between projects. I don't think it unreasonable to expect an employer preparing to terminate an employee for misappropriation of time at work to be responsible to show proof that the loss of productivity is tangible and indeed a true disruption of activities.

2) As internet communications are easier to monitor, it means that an inordinate percentage of people disciplined for violating communication policies will be due to email and online activities, vs. telephone/cellphone, etc. It is also more likely that the problem will arise from the CONTENT vs the TIME spent on other-than-work activities. I believe that our freedom of speech activities do not end upon walking into the workplace, and communication activities which do not harm the company in a tangible way that evidence can be presented, should not face consequences for them.

So basically, I would like an end to this discrimination against email and internet communications in the workplace, and protections enacted to require a burdon of proof that these activities harm the company, before employees are subject to disciplinary action.

Anyone have any questions? Comments? Suggestions?

Just thought i'd throw this out here.

LOL... its quite similar to my days in Jr. High. I was one of the only kids who had a pager... which i kept quite hidden. Anyone carrying a pager would face suspension or expulsion due to it being "drug paraphanelia" - no questions asked. Whether you were a supposed "drug dealer" or not.

 

[USPatriot36]

In General, I don't think the government should interfering in the employee-employer relationship like this.

In the specific area of online activity, there are always those who abuse the internet activity beyond what you can imagine. And an employer shouldn't have any hassles when it comes to handling such people. The work ethic in this country sucks today especially with the younger people.

If such a bill was ever passed, employers would move quickly to get software to prevent people from doing 'ANYTHING' non-work related. This would of course be a huge burden to business. But not as much a burden as people who goof-off all day.

 

[Santana28]

thats true... i never thought about it that way.

But i've also known situations where there really wasn't anything to fire someone over, but the boss was intent on getting rid of that person - so they just pull up some random "abuse" of the computer policy.

I just dont like how internet/email activities are treated differently than other forms of communication, and scrutinized differently. I think all communication activities should be treated equally.

 

[Kregener]

Let me see...you want the Federal Behemoth to make more "laws" on how employers and employees interact?

*SIGH*

 

[murrayrothbard]

But i've also known situations where there really wasn't anything to fire someone over, but the boss was intent on getting rid of that person - so they just pull up some random "abuse" of the computer policy.

So. What's wrong with "i don't want you to work for me anymore. here are your wages owed. Good bye."

 

[Santana28]

okay, "At-Will" employment aside.... if there are laws protecting against certain forms of discrimination in the workplace, why shouldn't there also be protection for freedom of speech?

If someone is truly doing something that harms the company then the company certainly has the right to discipline or fire them. But there is a burdon of proof for other forms of discrimination that must be followed - why not the same for methods of communication?

 

[noxagol]

It is their computer, their system, you are working for them, and you are working in their building. They have every right to fire you for using the e-mail for whatever reason they want.

 

[Santana28]

true... but again... you're missing my point. there is a chasm of difference between the way employers treat telephone communications vs. computer communications.

yes - technically, they could fire you for picking up the company phone during the day and calling your wife for [fill in the blank] reason. say you say something negative about your boss to your wife over the phone. or they can fire you for doing the same thing via email.

tell me which one happens more often?

 

[Zarxrax]

And seriously, how big of a problem is this? I mean I can see where some people might want government to step in when there are rampant problems with something, but come on. Are you just wanting more laws to cover some hypothetical situation that you came up with?

 

[murrayrothbard]

okay, "At-Will" employment aside.... if there are laws protecting against certain forms of discrimination in the workplace, why shouldn't there also be protection for freedom of speech?

But that's my whole point. There shouldn't be ANY discrimination laws. We should can them all, not be adding more. I guarantee RP would veto a bill such as the one you describe.

But anyways this isn't something the president can "do". Congress makes laws.

There are plenty of things the president CAN do: declassifications, pardons, resind executive orders, etc.

 

[Santana28]

well, i've seen it happen at least a dozen times to at least 7 people off the top of my head that i know personally... probably more if i think about ex coworkers.

i can't imagine that my little microsm of the world is the only one bearing the brunt of this issue. i'm 26 years old - i've grown up with the internet for the majority of my life. it's no different than a telephone call for me. i know good people with families who have lost employment over things which had absolutely NOTHING to do with productivity issues. I know employers who have used that policy to fire people because they couldnt fire them for other "protected" reasons. i even know of one cheat who was embezzling funds from the company and proceeded to fire everyone in the office who could prove what was going on... for violations of various email/productivity policies.

its not like it would be creating a whole new bureaucracy (besides the one that already exists). it would simply require employers to be able to present proof that there was harm coming to the company before they arbitrarily fire people for things which directly imply the presence of detriment to the company.

unscrupulous and discriminatory employers use this "loose" rule to get around other protected statuses. With a burdon of proof protection, it would simply be one less method for employers to use and abuse their employeers.

Losing a job due to a violation of some sort of policy doesn't just go away - its with you every time you have to fill out the "reason for leaving" box on a new employment application. Its with you on every background check. It directly affects one's ability to find and gain meaningful employment in the future. I don't think it is unreasonable at all to think employers should have to have proof of these things before they arbitrarily ruin someone's life and future over them.

But thats just my personal opinion. I'm not looking for arguments here - just reasonable discussion.

 

[Santana28]

But that's my whole point. There shouldn't be ANY discrimination laws. We should can them all, not be adding more. I guarantee RP would veto a bill such as the one you describe.

But anyways this isn't something the president can "do". Congress makes laws.

There are plenty of things the president CAN do: declassifications, pardons, resind executive orders, etc.

well, thats where you and i differ i suppose. i have no problem with anti-discrimination laws - as long as the burdon of proof is VERY VERY HIGH. I'm talking, 100% without a doubt blatantly obvious.

And you forget... Ron Paul is still in congress

 

[murrayrothbard]

well, thats where you and i differ i suppose. i have no problem with anti-discrimination laws - as long as the burdon of proof is VERY VERY HIGH. I'm talking, 100% without a doubt blatantly obvious.

And you forget... Ron Paul is still in congress

You already admitted that your 'problem' scenario only exists because unscrupulous employers try to find something to get around other official victim classifications. Government intervention always leads to unintended consequences, that then become that impetus for calls for further intervention.

If it is not legitimate to fire some one for using the internet all day at work, then it should be perfectly fine for the employee to defend his/her rights themselves. Let them use violence, or the threat thereof, to force an employer to continute to pay them, and see how far that goes.

 

[Rich333]

okay, "At-Will" employment aside.... if there are laws protecting against certain forms of discrimination in the workplace, why shouldn't there also be protection for freedom of speech?

The existing laws are bad laws which have no place in a free society.

An employer is an individual with rights, the same as anyone else, which includes the right to their property, the right to freely associate with others, and the right to enter into any relationships with other individuals where consent to the relationship is mutual. The employer wants something that the employee has to offer, and the employee wants something that the employer has to offer; if they're willing to work out a deal with each other and can agree on the terms, an exchange takes place. This is no different from the exchange of any other goods or services, or any other relationship based on mutual consent.

It is generally obvious to most people that forcing the employee to perform some service for the employer turns the relationship into a master-slave relationship, but what most people seem to overlook is that forcing the employer to maintain the employment also turns the relationship into a master-slave relationship. In both cases, consent has been supplanted by force or the threat of force. Laws are a threat to use force, and their enforcement is force itself, so establishing laws which demand that employers employ those they do not wish to employ is slavery.

 

[Santana28]

??

when someone slanders or libels a company, they must be able to prove 1) that it did indeed occur, and 2) that it caused them harm. the courts decide the guilt, or they settle.

when an employer brands someone in violation of a policy which is in essense against freedom of speech, the employee loses their job and is branded with something that they will carry with them which will negatively affect their future.

technically, the brand is true. it is "against" company policy to use email/computers/phones/whatever for non-business purposes. "technically" the employer is right.

i think when you look at the consequences of these actions, it is far and away an unfair pre-emptive punishment against employees for something of which little to no proof of damage can be provided.

whats wrong with declaring that private conversations in the workplace (of any form) are NOT the companies business unless they can prove that it is actually damaging productivity in some way or harming something? and again, i point out the discrimination against electronic communications vs. phone communications.

yes, the laws are already crappy. but as i've said before - i'm not against protecting employees' basic rights against unscrupulous and abusive employers who in man y ways have the outright advantage.

 

[Rich333]

when someone slanders or libels a company, they must be able to prove 1) that it did indeed occur, and 2) that it caused them harm. the courts decide the guilt, or they settle.

Those are bad laws too.

when an employer brands someone in violation of a policy which is in essense against freedom of speech, the employee loses their job and is branded with something that they will carry with them which will negatively affect their future.

Freedom of speech only applies to "public property". My right to freedom of speech certainly doesn't extend to your home unless I'm invited, or these forums were I to be banned. A business is private property, just like your home and these forums.

technically, the brand is true. it is "against" company policy to use email/computers/phones/whatever for non-business purposes. "technically" the employer is right.

If it's against policy, then either don't do it or find another job.

i think when you look at the consequences of these actions, it is far and away an unfair pre-emptive punishment against employees for something of which little to no proof of damage can be provided.

Damage is irrelevant. It's their business, they set the rules. If they lose good employees to bad policies, that's their problem.

whats wrong with declaring that private conversations in the workplace (of any form) are NOT the companies business unless they can prove that it is actually damaging productivity in some way or harming something? and again, i point out the discrimination against electronic communications vs. phone communications.

I already explained what's wrong with it. A business is private property. What you do on another person's property IS their business.

yes, the laws are already crappy. but as i've said before - i'm not against protecting employees' basic rights against unscrupulous and abusive employers who in man y ways have the outright advantage.

The only "basic rights" employees have are the same rights everyone else has: life, liberty, and property, all of which rationally derive from self-ownership. There is no right to violate the rights of another individual; it doesn't exist, no matter how you try to phrase it.