<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	
	>
<channel>
	<title>
	Comments on: Facebook and the Law: The NLRB Got It Right	</title>
	<atom:link href="https://www.evilhrlady.org/2011/02/facebook-and-law-nlrb-got-it-right.html/feed" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>https://www.evilhrlady.org/2011/02/facebook-and-law-nlrb-got-it-right.html</link>
	<description>Everything to make HR better</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Thu, 10 Feb 2011 23:09:50 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>
	hourly	</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>
	1	</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>https://wordpress.org/?v=7.0.4</generator>
	<item>
		<title>
		By: Mike C.		</title>
		<link>https://www.evilhrlady.org/2011/02/facebook-and-law-nlrb-got-it-right.html#comment-6374</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Mike C.]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 10 Feb 2011 23:09:50 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://localhost/wordpress/2011/02/facebook-and-the-law-the-nlrb-got-it-right.html#comment-6374</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[@fposte &lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;I would lean towards the latter. Obviously a company that is acting maliciously won&#039;t stop until it becomes too costly not to. &lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;As I ponder this issue a bit more, I think it&#039;s most important for employees to hear this. In reading the comments at various sites when this story broke, many posters couldn&#039;t fathom the idea of speaking ill of employer. Many employees simply don&#039;t understand the rights they do and do not have (and I&#039;m sure the HR professionals that read this can attest to this!). It&#039;s not as though reading and interpreting federal law is a trivial exercise after all.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;I certainly didn&#039;t catch this argument and I consider myself somewhat versed in the NLRA.]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>@fposte </p>
<p>I would lean towards the latter. Obviously a company that is acting maliciously won&#39;t stop until it becomes too costly not to. </p>
<p>As I ponder this issue a bit more, I think it&#39;s most important for employees to hear this. In reading the comments at various sites when this story broke, many posters couldn&#39;t fathom the idea of speaking ill of employer. Many employees simply don&#39;t understand the rights they do and do not have (and I&#39;m sure the HR professionals that read this can attest to this!). It&#39;s not as though reading and interpreting federal law is a trivial exercise after all.</p>
<p>I certainly didn&#39;t catch this argument and I consider myself somewhat versed in the NLRA.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>
		By: fposte		</title>
		<link>https://www.evilhrlady.org/2011/02/facebook-and-law-nlrb-got-it-right.html#comment-6373</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[fposte]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 10 Feb 2011 18:54:53 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://localhost/wordpress/2011/02/facebook-and-the-law-the-nlrb-got-it-right.html#comment-6373</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[Mike, do you think a company that&#039;s not convinced by the law would be convinced by the settlement?  Or is it just that the PR value of something like this makes them aware that there&#039;s law, a fact that they&#039;d otherwise make a point of not exploring?  To me this is merely reaffirmation of existing law, so I wouldn&#039;t see a company that&#039;s knowingly breaching the law caring much. &lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;But I do read the decision slightly differently than EHRL.  From what I&#039;ve been reading, the employee&#039;s union status isn&#039;t actually relevant to the board&#039;s judgment on the Facebook posting aspect--it would be considered a breach to fire a non-union employee who was attempting to organize via Facebook same as by phone or in person, basically.  Again, that&#039;s not necessarily making a new point, just elaborating that new technology is included under the old law.]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Mike, do you think a company that&#39;s not convinced by the law would be convinced by the settlement?  Or is it just that the PR value of something like this makes them aware that there&#39;s law, a fact that they&#39;d otherwise make a point of not exploring?  To me this is merely reaffirmation of existing law, so I wouldn&#39;t see a company that&#39;s knowingly breaching the law caring much. </p>
<p>But I do read the decision slightly differently than EHRL.  From what I&#39;ve been reading, the employee&#39;s union status isn&#39;t actually relevant to the board&#39;s judgment on the Facebook posting aspect&#8211;it would be considered a breach to fire a non-union employee who was attempting to organize via Facebook same as by phone or in person, basically.  Again, that&#39;s not necessarily making a new point, just elaborating that new technology is included under the old law.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>
		By: Mike C.		</title>
		<link>https://www.evilhrlady.org/2011/02/facebook-and-law-nlrb-got-it-right.html#comment-6372</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Mike C.]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 10 Feb 2011 14:47:52 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://localhost/wordpress/2011/02/facebook-and-the-law-the-nlrb-got-it-right.html#comment-6372</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[&#034;The argument is not significant. Itjust clarified that online speech is like outloud speech.&#034;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;@EHRL How can you say that this decision isn&#039;t significant? Do you realize how many companies out there have rules banning employees from discussing workplace conditions (including salaries) despite what the law says?&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Back in my days of helping my grandfather work as a janitor, I can&#039;t tell you how many times I saw little signs reminding employees that discussing salary information outside of work would be considered grounds for immediate termination. Today that&#039;s translated into draconian policies where some employers will fire people for simply identifying where they work, let alone what it&#039;s like. &lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Maybe there&#039;s simply a disconnect here - you know and follow the law, and most of my previous experience has been with small companies that don&#039;t have the experience or morals to follow the laws. So when the NLRB has a ruling like this I can point to my bosses and say, &#034;See, this is bad policy&#034; while you can say, &#034;Well duh, this is how it&#039;s always been&#034;.]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&quot;The argument is not significant. Itjust clarified that online speech is like outloud speech.&quot;</p>
<p>@EHRL How can you say that this decision isn&#39;t significant? Do you realize how many companies out there have rules banning employees from discussing workplace conditions (including salaries) despite what the law says?</p>
<p>Back in my days of helping my grandfather work as a janitor, I can&#39;t tell you how many times I saw little signs reminding employees that discussing salary information outside of work would be considered grounds for immediate termination. Today that&#39;s translated into draconian policies where some employers will fire people for simply identifying where they work, let alone what it&#39;s like. </p>
<p>Maybe there&#39;s simply a disconnect here &#8211; you know and follow the law, and most of my previous experience has been with small companies that don&#39;t have the experience or morals to follow the laws. So when the NLRB has a ruling like this I can point to my bosses and say, &quot;See, this is bad policy&quot; while you can say, &quot;Well duh, this is how it&#39;s always been&quot;.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>
		By: fposte		</title>
		<link>https://www.evilhrlady.org/2011/02/facebook-and-law-nlrb-got-it-right.html#comment-6371</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[fposte]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 10 Feb 2011 14:18:02 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://localhost/wordpress/2011/02/facebook-and-the-law-the-nlrb-got-it-right.html#comment-6371</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[Huh.  Looks like something&#039;s going on with that NLRB press release--your link to it is dead now, and while it comes up in a search, clicking on it won&#039;t get to a document.  I&#039;m guessing it may be the same as http://www.nlrb.gov/news/settlement-reached-case-involving-discharge-facebook-comments&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Is it?]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Huh.  Looks like something&#39;s going on with that NLRB press release&#8211;your link to it is dead now, and while it comes up in a search, clicking on it won&#39;t get to a document.  I&#39;m guessing it may be the same as <a href="http://www.nlrb.gov/news/settlement-reached-case-involving-discharge-facebook-comments" rel="nofollow ugc">http://www.nlrb.gov/news/settlement-reached-case-involving-discharge-facebook-comments</a></p>
<p>Is it?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>
		By: Suzanne Lucas		</title>
		<link>https://www.evilhrlady.org/2011/02/facebook-and-law-nlrb-got-it-right.html#comment-6370</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Suzanne Lucas]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 10 Feb 2011 13:19:59 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://localhost/wordpress/2011/02/facebook-and-the-law-the-nlrb-got-it-right.html#comment-6370</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[Thank you!  I fixed it.]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Thank you!  I fixed it.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>
		By: dbkliv		</title>
		<link>https://www.evilhrlady.org/2011/02/facebook-and-law-nlrb-got-it-right.html#comment-6369</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[dbkliv]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 10 Feb 2011 12:56:41 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://localhost/wordpress/2011/02/facebook-and-the-law-the-nlrb-got-it-right.html#comment-6369</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[Your link is broken. It should be: http://www.bnet.com/blog/evil-hr-lady/facebook-and-the-law-the-nlrb-got-it-right/1739&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Currently it is double-pasted as http://www.bnet.com/blog/evil-hr-lady/facebook-and-the-law-the-nlrb-got-it-right/1739http://www.bnet.com/blog/evil-hr-lady/facebook-and-the-law-the-nlrb-got-it-right/1739]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Your link is broken. It should be: <a href="http://www.bnet.com/blog/evil-hr-lady/facebook-and-the-law-the-nlrb-got-it-right/1739" rel="nofollow ugc">http://www.bnet.com/blog/evil-hr-lady/facebook-and-the-law-the-nlrb-got-it-right/1739</a></p>
<p>Currently it is double-pasted as <a href="http://www.bnet.com/blog/evil-hr-lady/facebook-and-the-law-the-nlrb-got-it-right/1739http://www.bnet.com/blog/evil-hr-lady/facebook-and-the-law-the-nlrb-got-it-right/1739" rel="nofollow ugc">http://www.bnet.com/blog/evil-hr-lady/facebook-and-the-law-the-nlrb-got-it-right/1739http://www.bnet.com/blog/evil-hr-lady/facebook-and-the-law-the-nlrb-got-it-right/1739</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
