Discussing Pay Issues
MLB
9 Posts
We are a non-union Company and as many other companies across the world, having problems with employees discussing pay rates amongst themselves. Of course, this creates a tremendous amount of animosity amongst employees and supervisors.
Are you aware on any regulations or restrictions placed on privately-owned corporations that would prohibit a policy disallowing such discussions amongst employees?
Do any of you currently enforce such policies and if so, can you offer suggestions?
Are you aware on any regulations or restrictions placed on privately-owned corporations that would prohibit a policy disallowing such discussions amongst employees?
Do any of you currently enforce such policies and if so, can you offer suggestions?
Comments
You can always discipline employees if their discussion is disruptive to actual work or in an inappropiate manner.
Al Vreeland
Editor, Alabama Employment Law Letter
Lehr Middlebrooks Price & Vreeland, P.C.
Edit: Oops, Al Vreeland's post above appeared after I hit the send button.
Are you aware of specific regulations that can be used as verification of the legal ramification involved with such disciplinary actions?
[url]http://www.nlrb.gov/workplace_rights/i_am_new_to_this_website/what_are_protected_concerted_activities.aspx[/url]
In the military income is a posted item and everyone knows what one is being paid if one knows the rank and time in service, the published charts provide the income information. I highly encourage the private working world to get on board with that concept. It works. No, I have not been able to get the companies in which I have been employed after retiring from the military to publish this information and be done with it as a issue!
Pork also known as Richard
For example:
ray a and Paul are coworkers.
marc is the supervisor.
Ray a complains to marc that Paul is constantly complaining about pay, hours, etc. and he wants Paul to knock it off.
In the disciplinary document, marc acknowledges Paul's concerns and notes that another employee who shall remain nameless has asked him to make Paul stop. marc notes that all concerns must be brought to a supervisor's attention so they can be addressed.
marc does not tell Paul he CAN'T complain to his coworkers, marc just tells him how his actions were perceived, and also what he must do if he wants his own issues resolved.
marc reminds Paul of the Employee Grievance section of the handbook were it advises employees to bring all concerns to a supervisor to they may be addressed.
The only time I've had the problem is with performance bonuses being communicated between exempt employees. But with an effective appraisal system these discussions are actually minimized.
Often, they don't realize the damage they are doing or how negatively others see them when they stir the pot. OK, sometimes they know exactly what they are doing, and when coaching them in the right direction doesn't work, a hand slap for being disruptive, regardless of the topic they are discussing, sometimes needs to happen.
Oddly, it still doesn't occur to Paul that his stomping around is bringing everyone else down. He thinks he's the only one who's miserable. Now Marc has to talk to him about it, without violating any employee rights laws.
>confrontation issues.
Would YOU want to confront a grown man whose idea of casual day involves spandex tights, oversized glitter-glasses and a feather boa?
We employed quite a few openly and flamboyantly gay men in my "past life" and although I occasionally had to tell some of them to tone it down, we had a good time. It all depends on your outlook, Frank. x;-)
Blessings.
Elizabeth
"We honor confidentiality. We recognize and protect the confidentiality of any information concerning the company, its business plans, its partners, new business efforts, customers, accounting and financial matters."
Even though there was no evidence that the company had ever disciplined any employee for discussing wages, nor was there evidence that any employee actually had interpreted the policy to prohibit the discussion of wages, the NLRB and Court of Appeals found that the policy constituted an unfair labor practice because an employee could reasonably interpret language prohibiting the release of “any information concerning the company,…its partners,…accounting and financial matters” to prohibit the discussion of information concerning wages.
It's possible that employees could interpret a reprimand (or mere "talking-to") for "bringing everyone else down" as a reprimand for discussing wages (which I think is kinda what it is, no matter how you dress it up). I mean that's the whole point: concerted activity is protected, even if it causes a certain amount of "disruption" (which sometimes is a euphemism for 'unionization'). Obviously if it's actually disrupting work performance or otherwise done inappropriately, that's one thing, but if it's more an issue of morale, resentment, jealousy, I think it would be risky to discipline for discussing wages under the guise of that kind of "disruption." The morale, resentment, jealousy issues, etc. are part of what's at issue in union activity protection - by prohibiting people from introducing those issues to the workplace with their gripes (or praises) about their pay, you could be affecting people's rights to work together to improve their working conditions. It's a fine line, for sure.
The quitting employee ended up staying, the other employee said she didn't know she was upsetting anyone.
The problem stopped.