Do not associate with employees outside of work
December 20, 2009 9:29 PM Subscribe
What is the legality of signing a mandatory company agreement to not associate with non-management employees outside of the workplace?
Need more data...
Are there limitations on what is meant by "associating"? And what is a "non-management employee"? Would that be an hourly worker?
Is this a company that deals in/with government or military contracts?
On the surface it sounds akin to agreements where the company wants the employee to sign over rights to "all inventions, tangible and intangible, now and in perpetuity." (Like I would sign over my dreams and non-job related inventions? LOL!
posted by Jinx of the 2nd Law at 9:53 PM on December 20, 2009 [1 favorite]
Are there limitations on what is meant by "associating"? And what is a "non-management employee"? Would that be an hourly worker?
Is this a company that deals in/with government or military contracts?
On the surface it sounds akin to agreements where the company wants the employee to sign over rights to "all inventions, tangible and intangible, now and in perpetuity." (Like I would sign over my dreams and non-job related inventions? LOL!
posted by Jinx of the 2nd Law at 9:53 PM on December 20, 2009 [1 favorite]
The bigger issue is if you want to work for a place that would ask you to sign such a document. Even if it turns out to be unenforceable and you win/settle a wrongful termination suit (that's a huge if), you'll have gone down a long, painful road you want nothing to do with. There may be not horrible reasons for asking you to sign such an agreement, but generally, I would view this as a very strong warning sign that something is wrong here. Have they given you any reason for this or otherwise clarified "associate?"
There's a big difference between "please don't sleep with your subordinates because we don't want a sexual harassment suit xthxbye" and "you must stay 300 feet away from your subordinates at all times when away from work."
posted by zachlipton at 9:58 PM on December 20, 2009 [1 favorite]
There's a big difference between "please don't sleep with your subordinates because we don't want a sexual harassment suit xthxbye" and "you must stay 300 feet away from your subordinates at all times when away from work."
posted by zachlipton at 9:58 PM on December 20, 2009 [1 favorite]
In California, such a provision might raise questions under Labor Code section 96(k).
posted by ClaudiaCenter at 10:06 PM on December 20, 2009 [1 favorite]
posted by ClaudiaCenter at 10:06 PM on December 20, 2009 [1 favorite]
Response by poster: Need more data...
It's a nation-wide company that basically restricts salaried management from associating with hourly employees, ostensibly to avoid favoritism and harassment.
posted by Brian B. at 10:07 PM on December 20, 2009
It's a nation-wide company that basically restricts salaried management from associating with hourly employees, ostensibly to avoid favoritism and harassment.
posted by Brian B. at 10:07 PM on December 20, 2009
Response by poster: a nation-wide company
United States, that is, sorry.
posted by Brian B. at 10:11 PM on December 20, 2009
United States, that is, sorry.
posted by Brian B. at 10:11 PM on December 20, 2009
Response by poster: Have they given you any reason for this or otherwise clarified "associate?"
It's commonly interpreted to mean parties, visiting at home or elsewhere, having lunch together, etc. All around avoidance.
posted by Brian B. at 10:14 PM on December 20, 2009
It's commonly interpreted to mean parties, visiting at home or elsewhere, having lunch together, etc. All around avoidance.
posted by Brian B. at 10:14 PM on December 20, 2009
Brian B.
So you're part of management? I think part of the confusion here (at least what confused me) is that it was assumed you were part of "non-management", which makes the idea that you're not allowed to associate with other "non-managers" really weird.
Having said that, I can't think of any reason that would be illegal.
posted by Target Practice at 10:42 PM on December 20, 2009 [1 favorite]
So you're part of management? I think part of the confusion here (at least what confused me) is that it was assumed you were part of "non-management", which makes the idea that you're not allowed to associate with other "non-managers" really weird.
Having said that, I can't think of any reason that would be illegal.
posted by Target Practice at 10:42 PM on December 20, 2009 [1 favorite]
Response by poster: So you're part of management?
No, the question is not for my sake.
posted by Brian B. at 10:48 PM on December 20, 2009
No, the question is not for my sake.
posted by Brian B. at 10:48 PM on December 20, 2009
I'm also a little confused what you're asking. You're a manager asking on behalf of another manager?..
If this rule applies to non-management employees, I believe it's a violation of the National Labor Relations act, and firing employees for "associating" would be a type of labor law charge called an Unfair Labor Practice. The problem is that an employee's recourse would be the National Labor Relations Board, which is most cases is totally useless.
If the rule applies only to supervisors/managers (defined as those who direct others, not as non-hourly employees), I don't see any legal issue with it. Supervisors have no rights under the NLRA, and I don't think any other aspect of the law would cover it either.
IANAL, but I am a union organizer who deals with labor and employment law a lot.
posted by crabintheocean at 11:20 PM on December 20, 2009 [1 favorite]
If this rule applies to non-management employees, I believe it's a violation of the National Labor Relations act, and firing employees for "associating" would be a type of labor law charge called an Unfair Labor Practice. The problem is that an employee's recourse would be the National Labor Relations Board, which is most cases is totally useless.
If the rule applies only to supervisors/managers (defined as those who direct others, not as non-hourly employees), I don't see any legal issue with it. Supervisors have no rights under the NLRA, and I don't think any other aspect of the law would cover it either.
IANAL, but I am a union organizer who deals with labor and employment law a lot.
posted by crabintheocean at 11:20 PM on December 20, 2009 [1 favorite]
Response by poster: I'm also a little confused what you're asking. You're a manager asking on behalf of another manager?..
Nothing to do with me, I was part of the discussion however.
To clarify, it only applies to managers, restricting their association with hourly employees. It sounded like telling people they can't assemble or something.
posted by Brian B. at 6:45 AM on December 21, 2009
Nothing to do with me, I was part of the discussion however.
To clarify, it only applies to managers, restricting their association with hourly employees. It sounded like telling people they can't assemble or something.
posted by Brian B. at 6:45 AM on December 21, 2009
Response by poster: IANAL, but I am a union organizer who deals with labor and employment law a lot.
I was thinking it was a "convenient" way to split the workforce from politicizing their relationship with the company.
posted by Brian B. at 6:54 AM on December 21, 2009
I was thinking it was a "convenient" way to split the workforce from politicizing their relationship with the company.
posted by Brian B. at 6:54 AM on December 21, 2009
Re: telling people that they can't assemble, don't forget that the bill of rights is a list of things that the *government* can't do, not a list of things that private people can't do (aside from the notable exception of slavery). As far as the bill of rights is concerned, I can step all over your free speech rights or quarter troops in your home. These actions may still violate other laws.
posted by craven_morhead at 7:42 AM on December 21, 2009 [2 favorites]
posted by craven_morhead at 7:42 AM on December 21, 2009 [2 favorites]
I think a more correct statement of craven_morhead's point is: a private citizen or company can restrict your liberties in many ways that the government cannot, but you have the ability to "opt out" of these restrictions.
For example, a private citizen can forbid black people from entering their house, forbid guests from advocating health care reform (while in their house), forbid the usage of swear words (ditto), or require guests at a party to wear sheets and sport pointy hoods.
A company is somewhat more restricted in its abilities to exclude behaviors, due to fair labor laws, but can get away with many restrictions that do not fall under race/gender/age/origin discrimination. No one is required to interact with such a company, of course.
posted by IAmBroom at 9:38 AM on December 21, 2009 [2 favorites]
For example, a private citizen can forbid black people from entering their house, forbid guests from advocating health care reform (while in their house), forbid the usage of swear words (ditto), or require guests at a party to wear sheets and sport pointy hoods.
A company is somewhat more restricted in its abilities to exclude behaviors, due to fair labor laws, but can get away with many restrictions that do not fall under race/gender/age/origin discrimination. No one is required to interact with such a company, of course.
posted by IAmBroom at 9:38 AM on December 21, 2009 [2 favorites]
If you can get a copy of the agreement, post it somewhere; embarrassment may resolve the issue.
posted by theora55 at 10:10 AM on December 21, 2009 [2 favorites]
posted by theora55 at 10:10 AM on December 21, 2009 [2 favorites]
These policies are common -- google "anti-fraternization rules" or "anti-fraternization policies" to get a sense of what they are and the legal issues that have come up in association with them.
As for the why -- the stated reasons are pretty reasonable (if you will). A lot of Mefites work in professional and creative services and have no idea how horrible it can be for a manufacturing or customer services workplace when one unskilled or semiskilled employee has too bad or too good a relationship with a manager.
posted by MattD at 11:02 AM on December 21, 2009 [1 favorite]
As for the why -- the stated reasons are pretty reasonable (if you will). A lot of Mefites work in professional and creative services and have no idea how horrible it can be for a manufacturing or customer services workplace when one unskilled or semiskilled employee has too bad or too good a relationship with a manager.
posted by MattD at 11:02 AM on December 21, 2009 [1 favorite]
« Older Why does my TV get clear video, but only static as... | Please help me identify a movie using only this... Newer »
This thread is closed to new comments.
IANYL. TINLA.
posted by spacewrench at 9:53 PM on December 20, 2009 [1 favorite]