Graduate studies at Western
|Abstract||The National Labor Relations Board has never been an agency known for its ability to adapt quickly to changing times. So, it is perhaps no surprise that when the Board finally decided to address its regulation of e-mail and other electronic communications in its 2007 Register-Guard decision, it sounded like an agency still stuck in the New Deal era. The Board’s e-mail decision was a missed opportunity. Instead of adapting its regulations to the modern economy, the Board looked backward and made itself and the act it enforces even less relevant than they were before. Although a relatively new phenomenon, employee use of e-mail and other electronic communications for collective purposes implicated an issue that has existed since the early days of the National Labor Relations Act: the conflict between employers’ property rights and employees’ right to engage in collective action. The Board’s decision in Register-Guard is significant, as well as troubling, because it ignored long-established precedents in both labor and property law by elevating in virtually all instances employers’ personal property interests in their computer systems above employees’ NLRA rights. Moreover, in an aspect of Register-Guard that was less anticipated than the e-mail issue but ultimately more far-reaching, the Board modified its general approach to all communication policy cases - even those not involving e-mail - by implementing an extraordinarily narrow definition of unlawful “discrimination.” Register-Guard’s rulings on e-mail usage and discriminatory restrictions on workplace communications represent a sea change in how the Board regulates employees’ ability to discuss collective issues at work. Whether the case survives long enough for these rulings to make a lasting impact is unclear. What is more obvious, however, is that the Register-Guard Board further cemented its image as an agency mired in the past. A future Board that wishes to shed this persona must find a way to give electronic communications and unequal access rules the respect that they deserve under the NLRA.|
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
|Through your library||Only published papers are available at libraries|
Similar books and articles
Scott Lichtenstein, Les Higgins & Pat Dade (2008). Engaging the Board: Integrity, Values and the Board Agenda. International Journal of Business Governance and Ethics 4 (1):79-98.
Nisan Selekler-Goksen & Abdulmecit Karatas (2008). Board Structure and Performance in an Emerging Economy: Turkey. International Journal of Business Governance and Ethics 4 (2):132-147.
John L. Pollock (2008). What Am I? Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 76 (2):237-309.
Thomas E. Ruggiero (2001). Electronic Mail and Listservs: Effective Journalistic Ethical Fora? Journal of Mass Media Ethics 16 (4):293 – 304.
Morten Huse, Sabina Tacheva Nielsen & Inger Marie Hagen (2009). Women and Employee-Elected Board Members, and Their Contributions to Board Control Tasks. Journal of Business Ethics 89 (4):581 - 597.
Daniel Edward Shapiro & Charles Eric Schulman (1996). Ethical and Legal Issues in E-Mail Therapy. Ethics and Behavior 6 (2):107 – 124.
Amy M. Bovi (2003). Ethical Guidelines for Use of Electronic Mail Between Patients and Physicians. American Journal of Bioethics 3 (3):43-47.
Thomas J. Hodson, Fred Englander & Valerie Englander (1999). Ethical, Legal and Economic Aspects of Employer Monitoring of Employee Electronic Mail. Journal of Business Ethics 19 (1):99 - 108.
James J. Cappel (1995). A Study of Individuals' Ethical Beliefs and Perceptions of Electronic Mail Privacy. Journal of Business Ethics 14 (10):819 - 827.
Sorry, there are not enough data points to plot this chart.
Added to index2009-05-10
Total downloads1 ( #292,563 of 739,375 )
Recent downloads (6 months)0
How can I increase my downloads?