The enemy within: when paid union organizers become employees

Article Abstract:

The US Supreme Court reversed the 8th Circuit Court to find that when paid union organizers are hired by a company, they become employees of the company and are protected by the National Labor Relations Act. Town and Country Electric argued, in NLRB v. Town & Country Electric, that the organizer could not be an employee because the union's interests were in conflict with the company's. However, the Supreme Court characterized the dual employment as moonlighting because the union activities occurred after work hours. Salting the workplace is likely to be more common because of restrictions on union activities.

author: Mello, Jeffrey A.
Regulation, Licensing, and Inspection of Miscellaneous Commercial Sectors, Union Organizing, Labor unions, Unionization

User Contributions:

Comment about this article or add new information about this topic:

CAPTCHA

Employer restrictions on employees' legal off-duty conduct

Article Abstract:

Employers cite rising medical insurance costs and threats to productivity as justifications for paying more attention to employees' off-duty conduct such as smoking, diet and sexual behavior. Employees claim these restrictions invade their privacy. Some states have lifestyle laws designed to protect employees' off-duty conduct. Those who terminate employees due to obesity could be liable under the Americans with Disabilities Act. Court decisions in this area have been split. Arbitration decisions are more favorable to employees in union settings. Employer policies must be very clear.

author: Balkin, David B., Allen, Robert, Miller, Janice L.

User Contributions:

Comment about this article or add new information about this topic:

CAPTCHA

Personality screening in employment: balancing information gathering and the law

Article Abstract:

Personality tests used pre-employment or pre-promotion draw most of their objections on privacy grounds. Many of the questions ask respondents about their private lives and have no bearing on their jobs. The law in question is the Privacy Act of 1974. One test, the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory, has been updated to exclude some potentially controversial queries. Things employers can do to minimize their liability for personality testing are listed.

author: Mello, Jeffrey A.
Management, Usage, Employee recruitment, Psychological tests

User Contributions:

Comment about this article or add new information about this topic:

CAPTCHA


subjects list: United States, Laws, regulations and rules, Workers, Protection and preservation, Privacy, Right of, Right of privacy
This website is not affiliated with document authors or copyright owners. This page is provided for informational purposes only. Unintentional errors are possible.