Weather Service conducts ‘illegal surveillance’ on staff, union says
Source: W Post
By Joe Davidson
If its on Facebook, can it be secret?
Members of the National Weather Service Employees Organization (NWSEO) thought they had a secret Facebook page that was available only to them.
But not only did National Weather Service (NWS) management officials know about the page, they accessed it and made scornful comments about the postings, according to the union.
That amounts to illegal surveillance of union activities, according to the labor organizations complaint filed Wednesday with the Federal Labor Relations Authority.
FULL story at link.
Read more: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/wp/2016/07/28/weather-service-conducts-illegal-surveillance-on-staff-union-says/
This on the front page tells you it is members only:
This is more common:
OS
pscot
(21,024 posts)For the novel idea of a 'secret' Facebook page.
Historic NY
(37,451 posts)National Weather Service Employees Organization
Organization
601 Pennsylvania Ave NW
Washington, District of Columbia 20004
(202) 466-5109
Save
Share
National Weather Service Employees Organization
Official Page
Omaha Steve
(99,659 posts)This on the front page tells you it is members only:
This is more common:
OS
LanternWaste
(37,748 posts)You've accurately illustrated irony without realization.
uhnope
(6,419 posts)which doesn't exist either
Renew Deal
(81,861 posts)christx30
(6,241 posts)snooper2
(30,151 posts)getagrip_already
(14,764 posts)Than management sending in a mole to a closed door union meeting? That is generally forbidden under labor law.
Sure, facebook and secret are oxymorons, but the concept of a private meeting place isn't an unkown concept under the law. And private doesn't mean impenetrable. It means you aren't welcome to participate.
truthisfreedom
(23,148 posts)Oneironaut
(5,504 posts)getagrip_already
(14,764 posts)and privacy doesn't mean you can't find info, it means you aren't entitled to.
I can physically stand in front of your house with a powerful lens and video camera, but that doesn't mean I have to right to film you in your bathroom.
Oneironaut
(5,504 posts)Facebook offers the illusion of privacy. In your example, it's illegal voyeurism at a physical location. Facebook is much different - these groups aren't really secure. You're usually at the group admin's mercy, and 99% of them let anyone in.
Never put anything on the internet you wouldn't mind people finding out about, imo.
getagrip_already
(14,764 posts)and that should be enough to establish a right to privacy.
I'm not saying you can't break into any facebook group given enough social engineering. facebook itself mines groups, private and otherwise. But that doesn't make it right.
We are private individuals living in public spaces. That doesn't erase our expectations or rights to privacy.
It wouldn't be any different if they hacked their way into a private website or a private meeting in a public place (hotell meeting room for example).
Bernie supporters tried this with unions. They put pins on and crashed meetings to politic. It was just as wrong then.
Xithras
(16,191 posts)Mostly relating to a couple of personal fitness and outdoor activities programs I work with.
FB groups belong to their administrators. You can only gain access to those groups if one of the page owners grants you access. That raises a simple question...who gave them access? If one of the page administrators gave management access to the page, then nothing illegal happened. If, however, managment created fake Facebook profiles to sneak their way into the page without detection, then the managment not only violated labor rules, but they violated federal computer privacy and security laws.
So which is it? The article doesn't say.
Omaha Steve
(99,659 posts)Unless more of this story hits the press, we will have to wait to find out.
OS
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)Because, if they did, they pretty much gave their employer the right to snoop.
Omaha Steve
(99,659 posts)The NLRB says if you allow outside email (non-employee) to employees, you must allow union communication without surveillance of that email communication. Easy to snoop, but your breaking the law if you do and there are penalties for it.
OS
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)I think that would be the key piece of information.
If not, they probably need to fix that.
If it does cover those communications, then obviously I'm just plain wrong and happy to be corrected.
Omaha Steve
(99,659 posts)COPYRIGHT EXEMPT!
https://www.nlrb.gov/news-outreach/fact-sheets/nlrb-and-social-media
The National Labor Relations Act protects the rights of employees to act together to address conditions at work, with or without a union. This protection extends to certain work-related conversations conducted on social media, such as Facebook and Twitter.
In 2010, the National Labor Relations Board, an independent federal agency that enforces the Act, began receiving charges in its regional offices related to employer social media policies and to specific instances of discipline for Facebook postings. Following investigations, the agency found reasonable cause to believe that some policies and disciplinary actions violated federal labor law, and the NLRB Office of General Counsel issued complaints against employers alleging unlawful conduct. In other cases, investigations found that the communications were not protected and so disciplinary actions did not violate the Act.
General Counsel memos
To ensure consistent enforcement actions, and in response to requests from employers for guidance in this developing area, Acting General Counsel Lafe Solomon released three memos in 2011 and 2012 detailing the results of investigations in dozens of social media cases.
The first report, issued on August 18, 2011, described 14 cases. In four cases involving employees use of Facebook, the Office of General Counsel found that the employees were engaged in "protected concerted activity" because they were discussing terms and conditions of employment with fellow employees. In five other cases involving Facebook or Twitter posts, the activity was found to be unprotected. In one case, it was determined that a union engaged in unlawful coercive conduct when it videotaped interviews with employees at a nonunion jobsite about their immigration status and posted an edited version on YouTube and the Local Unions Facebook page. In five cases, some provisions of employers social media policies were found to be overly-broad. A final case involved an employers lawful policy restricting its employees contact with the media.
The second report, issued Jan 25, 2012, also looked at 14 cases, half of which involved questions about employer policies. Five of those policies were found to be unlawfully broad, one was lawful, and one was found to be lawful after it was revised. The remaining cases involved discharges of employees after they posted comments to Facebook. Several discharges were found to be unlawful because they flowed from unlawful policies. But in one case, the discharge was upheld despite an unlawful policy because the employees posting was not work-related. The report underscored two main points regarding the NLRB and social media:
Employer policies should not be so sweeping that they prohibit the kinds of activity protected by federal labor law, such as the discussion of wages or working conditions among employees.
An employees comments on social media are generally not protected if they are mere gripes not made in relation to group activity among employees.
The third report, issued May 30, 2012, examined seven employer policies governing the use of social media by employees. In six cases, the General Counsels office found some provisions of the employers social media policy to be lawful and others to be unlawful. In the seventh case, the entire policy was found to be lawful. Provisions were found to be unlawful when they interfered with the rights of employees under the National Labor Relations Act, such as the right to discuss wages and working conditions with co-workers.
Some of the early social media cases were settled by agreement between the parties. Others proceeded to trial before the agencys Administrative Law Judges. Several parties then appealed those decisions to the Board in Washington D.C.
Board decisions
In the fall of 2012, the Board began to issue decisions in cases involving discipline for social media postings. Board decisions are significant because they establish precedent in novel cases such as these.
In the first such decision, issued on September 28, 2012, the Board found that the firing of a BMW salesman for photos and comments posted to his Facebook page did not violate federal labor law. The question came down to whether the salesman was fired exclusively for posting photos of an embarrassing accident at an adjacent Land Rover dealership, which did not involve fellow employees, or for posting mocking comments and photos with co-workers about serving hot dogs at a luxury BMW car event. Both sets of photos were posted to Facebook on the same day; a week later, the salesman was fired. The Board agreed with the Administrative Law Judge that the salesman was fired solely for the photos he posted of a Land Rover incident, which was not concerted activity and so was not protected.
In the second decision, issued December 14, 2012, the Board found that it was unlawful for a non-profit organization to fire five employees who participated in Facebook postings about a coworker who intended to complain to management about their work performance. In its analysis, the Board majority applied settled Board law to social media and found that the Facebook conversation was concerted activity and was protected by the National Labor Relations Act.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)Omaha Steve
(99,659 posts)Most employees that are not union don't know the coverage or their rights.