Jacobite members told by employer they can not attend meetings!

[sirdaniel1975]

As founder of the the local Scottish & Irish club in Lakeland, FL (Jacobites) we have a new situation. A situation I feared could happen and has, but still could have further to go.

Several of our members (including myself) work at the same retail store of a popular retail corporation. Over a situation involving employees (whom are not club members) the executive team has made it clear to Team Leads (non execs) and Senior Team Leads (also non execs) that they can not mingle with employees beneath them outside of work for any situation.

Two of my clubs members fall in this category and one is a Senior Team Lead and was placed on " 6 months coaching" for being involved with our Heritage group. Our meetings revolve around history lessons, genealogy, discussions, music, art, and food. Our meetings are not a party, although we do have a good time. There has also never been any drunken behavior at all. Which is a hard thing to do with Celtic folk! Just kidding...


Any advice is welcome!

Let's please keep this discussion from getting put in the penalty box. If you feel you need to voice something that could put this in the penalty box, PLEASE PM me.

[Spartan]

No advice. Just astonishment. Something's wrong here. There is some fine line of civil rights that has been crossed, but beyond my understanding -- meaning I'm not an attorney. Unfortunately, those who hold the money are making the rules. Hmmn... I'm curious to see other people's response. This is one of those questions of which ditch do you want to die?

[Marshal Moroni]

Sorry to hear about the Corporate foolishness. Sometimes corporations are simply trying to keep themselves from getting sued.

How to prevent, hmmm.. perhaps we have a civil rights lawyer on the board. One would think that your off hours are your own, particularly if no untoward behavior happens, and (this may be where they are coming from) no preferential behavior is shown by members of the group towards other members of the group at the disadvantage of other employees who are not members of the group. (Read it slowly, then it will make more sense)

Can't have Jacobites helping each other out in the work place.

Best of luck in trying to get this favorably resolved.

Cheers,

Marshal Moroni

[Kiltedfirepiper]

Wow....I work for the Fire Department and even THEY can't tell me who to hang out with, or what I can do outside of work! they can't even tell me I can't have a second job!
obviously there is common sense involved here. nothing illegal, and I can't go wearing my uniform t-shirt to the bar and get stupid!

the way I look at it is this. if you aren't going to pay me 24-7 then you can't tell me what to do outside of work!

are the two involved in a direct supervisor situation? ( is he/she YOUR boss?)
I could see the "no fraterinzation"(sp) rule being sited... but since that rule is usually under the sexual harrassment section of an SOP book and you aren't "hooking up" then I don't see what the problem is.
I'd consult the HR person, and if you have a union talk to your rep. and after that you don't get a satisfactory answer as to WHY and you feel strongly enough talk to a lawyer. NO company should have control over what you do on your own time.

Scott-work to live not live to work-Ellis

[gilmore]

It would probably be best to consult a labor lawyer for an authoritative opinion. The laws vary quite a bit from state to state.

[Howard Clark]

I would think that patently illegal. The employer cannot dictate who their employees socialize with outside of the company. Exceptions being the armed forces, perhaps.

Of course before I was self employed, I was regarded as having an attitude problem. Too true, and this kind of thing is one of the reasons why.

[gilmore]

I would think that patently illegal. The employer cannot dictate who their employees socialize with outside of the company....

Quite the opposite. Generally---and this word needs to emphasized---and originally in Anglo-American (and I would guess Scots) jurisprudence, the terms and conditions of employment are determined by the employer, and employees can be terminated at any time for any reason whatsoever. They are usually contracts at will, terminable by either employer or employee at any time. E.g., if an employer didn't or doesn't like red hair, (assuming it wasn't a racial characteristic) you could be fired for having red hair. Or being left-handed. Or wearing a white shirt, etc. However, starting only in the 19th century laws were enacted to preserve workers in their employment, and to regulate it, starting, I suppose, with laws prohibiting child labor. Laws regulating the safety of workers came later. Labor law didn't really come into its own until the mid-20th century. In the US, starting in the 1960's, laws prohibiting discrimination by private employers based on race, religion, sex, etc, were enacted. (I have often found it interesting that although employment discrimination due to sexual orientation does not give rise to a cause of action in most jurisdictions in the US, most people seem to assume incorrectly that it does. These days to fire some one because he or she is gay---or for quite a few other reasons--- (owning a schnauzer, or being divorced, or wearing a balmoral in the privacy of own's home, etc.) seems to not comport with most people's notions of fairness, but generally, in most places, there is no legal recourse in the US for such actions by an employer.)

An exception to the general rule is union contracts, which usually contain agreements as to terms and conditions of employment.

Laws protecting the right to freedom of assembly in the US protect that right from governmental interference, not from interference by a private employer, in general.

As mentioned earlier, labor laws vary from state to state in the US, (though of course federal laws cover the entire country) so it would be wisest to consult a local attorney familiar with labor law if you wish to look into whatever legal remedies you might have.

[MacMillan of Rathdown]

Generally the concept of free association is protected in law. However, if you have signed an employment agreement (or contract), then you may be subject to some sort of "non-fraternization" clause. This clause may, or may not be a good thing. As Gilmore has stated, quite rightly, a proper legal opinion should be sought, not merely the gut reactions of this forum.

My advice would be to seek out a competent legal opinion in the state of Florida, follow that advice, and then let us know (if you can) how things have turned out.

[SteveB]

Here, in the United States, most labour relations are determined by the laws and regulations of each individual state. For your own sake, I would contact your state representative. He/she may be able to sent you a set of extracts on the labour laws of Florida.. From the publication, you could then determine whether an attorney should become involved.
Here in Massachusetts the law only allows the employer say in one off duty behaviour -- the consumption of tobacco products. A certain big box retail operation is regular target practice for our state's attorney general over attempts to do otherwise.
Be well

[thescot]

I think you're just screwed on this one.

It would, of course, be well to point out to the execs that this is not quite the same as having Fred and the little lady over for beer and football, but it's not likely that it will do any good. The powers that be would have to admit they were wrong, and there are not many things more petty than a minor "power-that-be!" Maybe a petty bureaucrat, but I'm not sure.

You could pursue all this through labor law, but doing so is not only overkill, it's probably professional suicide. I really hate it, but there may not be any good choices here.

Having said that, I will point out that non-fraternization rules have a good basis. Familiarity really does breed contempt, and the general rule has a good reason for existing. Of course, the downside is that "general rules" and policies tend not to actually fix anything.

Good luck and keep us posted.