- NLRB ruling: calling one’s boss “nasty m___f___” can be protected labor advocacy for which dismissal is unlawful [Pier Sixty LLC; Michael Schmidt, Cozen O’Connor, Jon Hyman]
- “Declining Desire to Work and Downward Trends in Unemployment and Participation” [Tyler Cowen]
- Public sector union negotiations need sunlight [Trey Kovacs, Workplace Choice]
- “Is Non-Pregnancy a BFOQ [Bona Fide Occupational Qualification] for Exotic Dancers?” [Philip K. Miles III, Lawffice Space]
- “EEOC Issues Long-Awaited Wellness Program Rules” [Daniel Schwartz]
- Following New York Times investigation, Gov. Andrew Cuomo cracks down on employment at nail salons, and that will hurt immigrant workers [Alex Nowrasteh, New York Post; Elizabeth Nolan Brown/Reason and more, New York Times “Room for Debate”]
- President Obama keeps promoting myths about Lilly Ledbetter case [Hans Bader, CEI; Glenn Kessler, Washington Post; earlier]
Filed under: Andrew Cuomo, EEOC, immigration law, labor unions, Lilly Ledbetter, National Labor Relations Board, public employment
3 Comments
So, if I call my boss a nasty mfer and it is protected speech, does that mean it is protected speech if my boss uses the same language in refering to me?
There is a very important piece of context at the linked article that is not in the blurb above, that clearly distinguishes the case in question from insubordination for which an employee could be fired.
The employee in question did not call his boss a mfer to his face. Rather he made that reference in a social media post that was also advocating for people to vote yes on a union election. It’s the latter part that makes it protected labor advocacy.
[…] perspective on working in a nail salon [Tyler Cowen, earlier pushback on New York Times […]