- Crickets?
- Drinking Coffee Liberally, Mount Airy: Labor Day Weekend
- Shaping a Marcellus Shale Tax that is Fair to Pennsylvanians
- Philly Inquirer Cleans up Philly Politics More than Mayor Nutter Ever Would
- Bloom to face Brownlee and Kernaghan in the General
- Bloom Get's On The Bus
- For the Record | Feudalism
- Drinking Coffee Liberally, Mount Airy: 8/29
- PREMIERE: Infection in Our Health Care System
- Rally Saturday--join Rep. Patrick Murphy in supporting Express Scripts workers
As long as we're talking unions: Temple Hospital nurses and the "gag clause"
Submitted by BradyDale on Thu, 11/05/2009 - 3:24pm.
While on the subject of unions, the Temple Nurses union has been in tense negotiations with the hospital for months. At issue, among other things, is a contract demand that the union shut up about the bosses at the hospital.
The workers say the gag order sucks. Good coverage about it at WHYY this morning.
I just want to point out the Hospital's spin: "we aren't saying individual workers can't speak up, it's just the Union we want to shut up." Memo to Temple (and everyone) -- it's the same thing. A union IS the workers' voice.
Why? Because if you're a nurse and you see the practices of your hospital is hurting patients, it's a real scary thing to stand up alone and say it. But if you've got a union and your fellow nurses agree, well that's real different. We created unions not just to win better pay, but so workers could have a strong voice, one that's hard to just slap down, when it came time to talk about the issues in the workplace.
A worker on an assembly line could be scared to say that the bosses are wrecking the quality of cars, right? It's a whole other monkey to say that the bosses are jeopardizing people's lives.
So it's Orwellian B.S. to say that a gag order on the Union isn't a gag order on the workers. Workers organize Unions so they can be heard and so they can say the tough truths without getting fired.
In Solidarity, BradyDale.
Gag clause seems blatantly unconstitutional
I'm pretty sure that Temple administration would not accept a contract that barred them from buying advertisements or hiring PR. Why would this be any different?
-Sean
MrLuigi, my cat, actually only types half as badly as I do.
I hear they are common
I'm no union expert, but I was hanging out with one of the Nurses Union guys recently and he was telling me all about gag clauses. Apparently, they exist in a lot of contracts. I don't get the constitutionality of them either, but I guess they work.
And they suck.
So let's hear it for the nurses that are standing up to them.
Any of the lawyers out there want to explain why a gag clause would be legally binding on a union??
---
This Too Will Pass, for the guts in your cerebrum.
It may be because the 1st
It may be because the 1st Amendment only applies to the Government--federal, state and local, etc., not to private employers. It is a civil right or liberty--not one you are afforded in most work places.
I'm still confused.
"in the work place" to me means while you are on the clock. Sure if you work at McDonalds and while on the clock representing the golden arches, it would be appropriate for Ronald and Co. to demand that you don't tell customers they should go across the street to KFC.
But if workers, while not on the clock decide to advocate that the new hamburger storage system is not sanitary and a possible danger to customers, that strikes me as very much protected speech by the First Amendment and also possibly even maybe by "whistleblower" laws.
But you're the lawyer guy. You don't have any background do you?
-Sean
MrLuigi, my cat, actually only types half as badly as I do.
Depends. In the work place
Depends.
In the work place can be much broader than just while you're on the clock. But, your first example would be grounds for termination in any place of private employment where you are an "at will" employee. A better example can be your employer having a policy prohibiting folks from hanging "vote for so-and-so" signs from their office doors. That is likely permissible as your protected speech is only protected vis-a-vis the state.
As for your second example, a whistleblower is typically someone who raises a concern about some type of wrong doing. If "Mr. Luigi's Burgers and Shakes" are violating the law, feeding folks outdated meats and is in violation of health and safety codes, the employee who raises this concern is a whistleblower and may be entitled to some protection--but that depends on the state and federal law on the issue. The employee of "Mr. Luigi's Burgers and Shakes" who spends his nights and weekends bashing the company for not paying enough, having inept manager and other things not "wrong doing" could be terminated.
So Walmart can fire folks
who post on Walmart Watch if they figure out who it is?
That does not seem even remotely in line with the intention of the First Amendment. I'd love context. Again maintaining professional comportment whenever you are deemed to be "representing" the company is different from speaking out about management policies as an individual citizen or collectively on your own time.
Also the issue with nurses treads a fine line on the whistleblower thing because typically the issue is not wages but that hospitals push nurses to work incredibly long hours basically to consolidate on benefits expenses. The nurses typically want to argue to the public that after 4 consecutive 14-18 hour shifts they are not delivering optimal health coverage for patients. In other words, the argument is phrased as a public safety argument even if it is about work conditions ultimately.
-Sean
MrLuigi, my cat, actually only types half as badly as I do.
You have to understand what
You have to understand what the First Amendment is, Sean. It is not a protection against private actors--but from the Government. It was made applicable to the State after the 14th Amendment (actually, some time thereafter). At the time, the biggest threat to your liberty was from the government (and maybe still is).
OK Freedom of Speech blurring into Freedom of Association
Isn't that Constitutional basis for labor unions anyway?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_association
We have a fundamental right to band together to express an opinion and argue for our collective interests as political activists, as church groups, as members of unions. Again I can see all sorts of limits on a particular employee talking about particular managers, etc. but it seem to me that the right to criticize a management policy in a general way would be specifically protected for the same reason its unconstitutional to outlaw unions in general
The "peaceably assemble" part is interpreted to protect collective expressions including that an employer's management approach is unsound or unfair.
Even if the clause is Constitutional, its a bitter pill to swallow, probably worth a dozen raises to not be barred from speaking out about abusive work conditions if need be. Its not clause any worker should accept lightly.
-Sean
MrLuigi, my cat, actually only types half as badly as I do.
Union busting 101
Temple University and other employers use this technique as a back-door way of union busting. The nurses at Temple, as with the guards at the Philadelphia Museum of Art, have voted to be represented by a union. Under that law, once that happens, the employer must work directly with the union. The union is to work directly with the employees to determine what work place changes need to take place.
When Temple Hospital or AlliedBarton tries to intervene in that line of communication it is simply an attempt to illegitimate the union that was sanctified by the democratic rule of the people.
Though an individual worker can also, of their on free will communicate anything they want about the work place to any one they choose, when an employer attempts to make this mandatory it is to undermine the union.
The workers should go through the union, not around it.
word up!
And, I would take that one step further: that in the case of a place like a hospital, it's very important that workers speak up, but they aren't very likely to do it as often as they should without a strong institution like a union for them to speak thru. Because otherwise they would fear for their paycheck.
---
This Too Will Pass, for the guts in your cerebrum.