Complete Labor Law Poster for $24.95
from www.LaborLawCenter.com, includes
State, Federal, & OSHA posting requirements

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Forbidden lunches Oklahoma

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • cbg
    replied
    Okay, Joe, I think we pretty much understand your position now. But as I said before, you're not convincing anyone and we're all pretty much in agreement that we're not going to convince you. So let's just drop it, shall we?

    Leave a comment:


  • cyjeff
    replied
    If they were meeting to discuss union activities, wouldn't it be much simpler just to say that?

    After all, you cannot be fired for talking about union activities, even if nothing comes of those discussions.

    Leave a comment:


  • las365
    replied
    Well, joec, you certainly are zealous! However, I don't think the National Labor Relations Board was formed in order to provide a forum for employees to whine about their bosses wanting them to stop socializing with people the boss doesn't like. That is what this situation is. I think you are encouraging a frivolous claim that will waste taxpayer resources and do the OP no good at all in the long run.

    I think filing a complaint over this would be an abuse of a process that is intended to help people who have real problems.

    As for the "rolling over" thing, not at all. I consider it choosing my battles and using my bank of goodwill wisely. I find it works well for me. But to each his own.
    Last edited by las365; 01-06-2008, 07:03 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • las365
    replied
    That is like telling the OP to go after a gnat with an anti-aircraft gun. She said herself:

    Just as a bit more insight, the specific people I go to lunch with every now and again, my manager does not like. She has specifically told me in the past that she does not get along with them. That has nothing to do with me!
    They are not meeting to discuss organizing a union.

    The OP's decision is to determine what is more important to her: staying in her supervisor's good graces and reaping whatever benefits that may bring, or asserting her rght to associate with whom she pleases and perhaps facing negative (but not necessarily illegal) repurcussions.

    If it was my decision, I'd go with #1. Nothing lasts forever, and I think it's smarter to do the easy things that make a boss happy than to make a stink over something that in the long run is insignificant, like going to lunch with certain people. But that's just me.

    Leave a comment:


  • cbg
    replied
    I do not agree that the policy is out of compliance. Let's just agree to disagree here. Neither of us is going to convince the other so it's just a waste of time.

    Leave a comment:


  • cbg
    replied
    So Adnay speaks for the entire HR community nationally? Everyone in HR is required to think exactly as he does?

    Shove the ****, Joe. There are unions I've worked with before that I'd happily work with again. Quit making assumptions.

    You're making a heck of a lot of them here. NO ONE indicated that there was any union activity here.

    Leave a comment:


  • Pattymd
    replied
    Unfortunately, unfair and illegal are not always the same thing.

    Leave a comment:


  • brookejames
    replied
    interesting...

    Thanks for all of the thoughts on this topic. Just as a bit more insight, the specific people I go to lunch with every now and again, my manager does not like. She has specifically told me in the past that she does not get along with them. That has nothing to do with me! Just because I work for her, it isn't fair for her to forbid me from going to lunch with them. And they are of the opposite sex and she says that is not a good perception. I argued this, if I were to go to lunch with a group of people of the same sex as me, someone might perceive that as wrong. It just isn't very fair - because she doesn't like certain people, I am not allowed to have lunch with them. Why can't people act their age! Especially in a management position.

    Leave a comment:


  • cbg
    replied
    First of all, Joe, that's not even remotely true. Don't tell me what HR thinks, please. You are not HR. I am.

    Secondly, there is NO indication that they are looking to unionize at all, let alone to discuss it at lunch.

    Third, even if they were, they can discuss it after work, on their breaks, at home on the weekends. Lunch is not the only time it can happen.

    Leave a comment:


  • cbg
    replied
    There are good and valid reasons to limit HR staff's social contact with other employees.

    I do not agree with Joe. There are other times besides lunch when "concerted activities" can be discussed. Prohibiting lunches does not exclude any other opportunity to do so.

    Leave a comment:


  • cyjeff
    replied
    Only if the employee are lunching to discuss collective bargaining is their conversation protected.

    Otherwise, it is not illegal.

    Leave a comment:


  • cyjeff
    replied
    To be honest... I was kinda hoping this thread would mean that forbidden lunches were kinda like the "Forbidden Dance".

    Oh well.

    Leave a comment:


  • DAW
    replied
    Agreed.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/At-will

    Leave a comment:


  • cyjeff
    replied
    It is legal only because there is not a law making it illegal.

    Leave a comment:


  • cbg
    replied
    I'm going to split a hair here.

    Short of holding a gun to your head, she cannot prevent you from going to lunch with anyone you want to.

    But, if you are fired for going out to lunch with a person or department she does not want you to go out with, that firing will be a legal firing.

    Leave a comment:

The LaborLawTalk.com forum is intended for informational use only and should not be relied upon and is not a substitute for legal advice. The information contained on LaborLawTalk.com are opinions and suggestions of members and is not a representation of the opinions of LaborLawTalk.com. LaborLawTalk.com does not warrant or vouch for the accuracy, completeness or usefulness of any postings or the qualifications of any person responding. Please consult a legal expert or seek the services of an attorney in your area for more accuracy on your specific situation.
Working...
X