Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: A eulogy for RadioShack, the panicked and half-dead retail empire [View all]happyslug
(14,779 posts)95. Actually the National Labor Relations Board or the State's Labor Department
Those are the agencies in charge of making sure overtime pay is paid not the EEOC. They enforce the Fair Labor Standards Act not the EEOC.
Remember the National Labor Relations Board has jurisdiction over anything related to unionization, including things done by employees that are NOT the actual formation of a union, but can be related to later efforts at unionization.
June 18, 2012
The National Labor Relations Board today made public a webpage that describes the rights of employees to act together for their mutual aid and protection, even if they are not in a union.
The page, at protected-concerted-activity, tells the stories of more than a dozen recent cases involving protected concerted activity, which can be viewed by clicking points on a map. Among the cases: A construction crew fired after refusing to work in the rain near exposed electrical wires; a customer service representative who lost her job after discussing her wages with a coworker; an engineer at a vegetable packing plant fired after reporting safety concerns affecting other employees; a paramedic fired after posting work-related grievances on Facebook; and poultry workers fired after discussing their grievances with a newspaper reporter.
Some cases were quickly settled after charges were filed, while others progressed to a Board decision or to federal appellate courts. They were selected to show a variety of situations, but they have in common a finding at some point in the NLRB process that the activity that the employees undertook was protected under federal labor law.
The right to engage in certain types of concerted activity was written into the original 1935 National Labor Relations Acts Section 7, which states that: Employees shall have the right to self-organization, to form, join, or assist labor organizations, to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing, and to engage in other concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection, and shall also have the right to refrain from any or all such activities.
That right has been upheld in numerous decisions by appellate courts and by the U.S. Supreme Court over the years. Non-union concerted activity accounts for more than 5% of the agencys recent caseload.
A right only has value when people know it exists, said NLRB Chairman Mark Gaston Pearce. We think the right to engage in protected concerted activity is one of the best kept secrets of the National Labor Relations Act, and more important than ever in these difficult economic times. Our hope is that other workers will see themselves in the cases weve selected and understand that they do have strength in numbers.
http://www.nlrb.gov/news-outreach/news-story/nlrb-launches-webpage-describing-protected-concerted-activity
The National Labor Relations Board today made public a webpage that describes the rights of employees to act together for their mutual aid and protection, even if they are not in a union.
The page, at protected-concerted-activity, tells the stories of more than a dozen recent cases involving protected concerted activity, which can be viewed by clicking points on a map. Among the cases: A construction crew fired after refusing to work in the rain near exposed electrical wires; a customer service representative who lost her job after discussing her wages with a coworker; an engineer at a vegetable packing plant fired after reporting safety concerns affecting other employees; a paramedic fired after posting work-related grievances on Facebook; and poultry workers fired after discussing their grievances with a newspaper reporter.
Some cases were quickly settled after charges were filed, while others progressed to a Board decision or to federal appellate courts. They were selected to show a variety of situations, but they have in common a finding at some point in the NLRB process that the activity that the employees undertook was protected under federal labor law.
The right to engage in certain types of concerted activity was written into the original 1935 National Labor Relations Acts Section 7, which states that: Employees shall have the right to self-organization, to form, join, or assist labor organizations, to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing, and to engage in other concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection, and shall also have the right to refrain from any or all such activities.
That right has been upheld in numerous decisions by appellate courts and by the U.S. Supreme Court over the years. Non-union concerted activity accounts for more than 5% of the agencys recent caseload.
A right only has value when people know it exists, said NLRB Chairman Mark Gaston Pearce. We think the right to engage in protected concerted activity is one of the best kept secrets of the National Labor Relations Act, and more important than ever in these difficult economic times. Our hope is that other workers will see themselves in the cases weve selected and understand that they do have strength in numbers.
http://www.nlrb.gov/news-outreach/news-story/nlrb-launches-webpage-describing-protected-concerted-activity
A construction contractor fired five employees after several of them appeared in a YouTube video complaining of hazardous working conditions. Following an investigation, the NLRB regional office issued complaint. As a hearing opened, the case settled, with the workers receiving full backpay and declining reinstatement.
The employees, all immigrants from El Salvador, learned they were building concrete foundations at a former Superfund site and worried that the soil they were handling was contaminated with arsenic and other toxins. They also said they were required to wear badges indicating theyd been trained to handle hazardous materials, when in fact, the badges belonged to other workers and they had never been trained.
Three of the employees took their concerns public in a YouTube video posted on July 21, 2008. Speaking in Spanish, they hid their faces in shadow in an attempt to avoid retaliation. However, within 10 days, the three who appeared in the video and two others who were close to them had all lost their jobs with Rain City Contractors. Through the ensuing months, according to charges filed with the agencys Seattle office, the employer continued to threaten and interrogate other employees, warning them not to talk about working conditions with outsiders.
Following an investigation of the charges, the NLRB Regional Director determined that the YouTube video was protected because the employees voiced concerns about safety in the workplace, and the public airing of their complaints did not lose the Act's protection because they accurately described their concerns about working conditions. On behalf of the NLRB General Counsel, the director issued a complaint calling for a hearing before an administrative law judge.
As the hearing began in June of 2009, NLRB attorneys were prepared to play the video, and to present evidence that the employer had been fined for numerous violations of state law regarding the same concerns as those raised by the workers. However, on the second morning of testimony, Rain City Contractors agreed to settle the case by giving all five workers full backpay for the period from their discharges to the settlement date. The workers declined reinstatement.
http://www.nlrb.gov/rights-we-protect/protected-concerted-activity
The employees, all immigrants from El Salvador, learned they were building concrete foundations at a former Superfund site and worried that the soil they were handling was contaminated with arsenic and other toxins. They also said they were required to wear badges indicating theyd been trained to handle hazardous materials, when in fact, the badges belonged to other workers and they had never been trained.
Three of the employees took their concerns public in a YouTube video posted on July 21, 2008. Speaking in Spanish, they hid their faces in shadow in an attempt to avoid retaliation. However, within 10 days, the three who appeared in the video and two others who were close to them had all lost their jobs with Rain City Contractors. Through the ensuing months, according to charges filed with the agencys Seattle office, the employer continued to threaten and interrogate other employees, warning them not to talk about working conditions with outsiders.
Following an investigation of the charges, the NLRB Regional Director determined that the YouTube video was protected because the employees voiced concerns about safety in the workplace, and the public airing of their complaints did not lose the Act's protection because they accurately described their concerns about working conditions. On behalf of the NLRB General Counsel, the director issued a complaint calling for a hearing before an administrative law judge.
As the hearing began in June of 2009, NLRB attorneys were prepared to play the video, and to present evidence that the employer had been fined for numerous violations of state law regarding the same concerns as those raised by the workers. However, on the second morning of testimony, Rain City Contractors agreed to settle the case by giving all five workers full backpay for the period from their discharges to the settlement date. The workers declined reinstatement.
http://www.nlrb.gov/rights-we-protect/protected-concerted-activity
February 15, 2013
The National Labor Relations Board has found that a Texas engineering firm unlawfully fired an employee for discussing salary information with co-workers, and ordered the company to offer reinstatement and to pay back wages for the time out of work.
Under the Board Order, which issued February 8, Houston-based Jones & Carter, Inc. also must rescind its policy of forbidding employee discussion of salaries. The National Labor Relations Act protects the rights of workers to discuss their terms and conditions of employment, including wages.
In the absence of exceptions, the Board adopted the November 26 decision of Administrative Law Judge Margaret G. Brakebusch. During trial, company officials said the employee a training coordinator - was fired for harassing other workers. But the judge noted that the same company officials told state unemployment investigators a different story, including that the employee was fired for discussing salaries with other workers, and that sharing such information was a pet peeve of the company.
As a result of the Board action, Jones & Carter offered the employee reinstatement to her former position, which she declined. The employer agreed to make the former employee whole by paying her backpay, 401(k) contributions, medical expenses and interest in the total amount of $107,000, to revise its policy to delete the prohibition on employees of discussing their salaries, and to post a Board Notice describing these actions.
http://www.nlrb.gov/news-outreach/news-story/board-finds-houston-engineering-firm-unlawfully-fired-employee-discussing
The National Labor Relations Board has found that a Texas engineering firm unlawfully fired an employee for discussing salary information with co-workers, and ordered the company to offer reinstatement and to pay back wages for the time out of work.
Under the Board Order, which issued February 8, Houston-based Jones & Carter, Inc. also must rescind its policy of forbidding employee discussion of salaries. The National Labor Relations Act protects the rights of workers to discuss their terms and conditions of employment, including wages.
In the absence of exceptions, the Board adopted the November 26 decision of Administrative Law Judge Margaret G. Brakebusch. During trial, company officials said the employee a training coordinator - was fired for harassing other workers. But the judge noted that the same company officials told state unemployment investigators a different story, including that the employee was fired for discussing salaries with other workers, and that sharing such information was a pet peeve of the company.
As a result of the Board action, Jones & Carter offered the employee reinstatement to her former position, which she declined. The employer agreed to make the former employee whole by paying her backpay, 401(k) contributions, medical expenses and interest in the total amount of $107,000, to revise its policy to delete the prohibition on employees of discussing their salaries, and to post a Board Notice describing these actions.
http://www.nlrb.gov/news-outreach/news-story/board-finds-houston-engineering-firm-unlawfully-fired-employee-discussing
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
120 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
I believe there are supposed to be protections for workers who report such things,
SheilaT
Nov 2014
#11
Things have changed drastically, in so many ways, for workers in our country.
robinlynne
Nov 2014
#20
I only go in there to recycle batteries I've bought from someplace else. And that is only because
RKP5637
Nov 2014
#21
"At-Will" employment really needs to be renamed to "Fire At-will" employment, to say it
RKP5637
Dec 2014
#69
All that work that went into building up unions in this country wasted/lost in today's
RKP5637
Dec 2014
#77
He must go to the E.E.O.C. and file a complaint. They will investigate (ha,ha) and find nothing
Dustlawyer
Dec 2014
#87
That used to drive me up the wall. I had one clerk tell me once I could not buy anything at RS without
RKP5637
Nov 2014
#6
And they just don't get it! Just like Circuit City didn't get it. In the very very early days
RKP5637
Nov 2014
#7
They ditched appliances for video games and small electronics that could found cheaper online
pstokely
Dec 2014
#99
Yep, and they often move onto other companies into directorships, etc. It's often an
RKP5637
Dec 2014
#93
In all honesty, I keep on being surprised that Radio Shack is still in business.
SheilaT
Nov 2014
#15
Pretty much the same experience for me, actually Lafayette Radio before RS, and then before that
RKP5637
Nov 2014
#26
I got 20 years out of one of their top of the line stereo recievers I bought about 1981.
brewens
Nov 2014
#37
Yep, some of their re-named gear way back was really good. I have one of their record changes I
RKP5637
Dec 2014
#75
They sure did relabel as RS some real junk from time to time, and it just got worse and worse. n/t
RKP5637
Nov 2014
#28
Yep, thanks, hadn't noticed that. It is amazing, 10 years later, still appropriate more
RKP5637
Dec 2014
#72
My local Radio Shack is right by where I work and way handier than Walmart or others
brewens
Nov 2014
#34
They've always been like that. I was offered a management position in the early '80s just
1monster
Nov 2014
#38
What an awful work situation. I used to go to RS often, one near my house in NoVa
appalachiablue
Nov 2014
#41
I've never found Radio Shack to be a pleasant experience, not for years and years. I've had some
RKP5637
Nov 2014
#52
Same feelings here. Just an unpleasant place to go into. When I went there on occasion I used
RKP5637
Nov 2014
#56
Retail electronics sale story to share, what the heck. NYC friend worked in a photo store in DETROIT
appalachiablue
Nov 2014
#55
Yep, that happens a lot. There's a guy around here, looks totally homeless and he's
RKP5637
Nov 2014
#60
I believe it, good to know. On the other hand I recall Whoopie G. shopping with her mother
appalachiablue
Nov 2014
#62
Yep, they stick to business as usual feeling omnipotent, like they control the world. I've
RKP5637
Nov 2014
#61
I would not mind seeing them gone, they deserve it, but I feel sorry for the employees.
RKP5637
Dec 2014
#110
I always wonder how RS stays open, I'm usually one of 2 or 3 in the store.
Liberal_in_LA
Dec 2014
#101
Yep, I used to buy tubes there and way back at Lafayette Radio. As I recall RS had the better ones
RKP5637
Dec 2014
#113
Dating myself, I remember its much better competitor Lafayette Electronics, closed in 1981.
happyslug
Dec 2014
#114
This is an exceptionally astute reply and right on target IMO. Yes, they often remind me of a
RKP5637
Dec 2014
#116
How do they sustain themselves? They can't be making much of a profit, not even to
RKP5637
Dec 2014
#117