Fired for complaining about working conditions in online forum

[MidwestTech]

I think you are going to find your termination was legal.

Had you been fired for (or after) filing a formal complaint over working conditions with the proper agency, you would be in a better position to argue your termination. You have very little protection from firing if you make derogatory comments about your employer and your working conditions on a public online site.

The best way to change working conditions in the event industry, is to encourage other event-industry workers (via these online forums) to reject jobs with bad working conditions and to pressure employers for good working conditions. Unfortunately, some people in the online forum said that these horrible working conditions were OK with them.

 

[Taxing Matters]

My understanding is that, under the National Labor Relations Act, W-2 employees can not be fired for complaining about working conditions in online forums.

That's not quite what the law is. The NLRA prohibits an employer from retaliating against employees for working together to improve wages or working conditions. So if you posted on an online forum of fellow employees (i.e. others working for the same employer) that would be protected. But posting online in a forum that is not made up of fellow employees but instead made up of outsiders all over the country is not protected.

 

[Taxing Matters]

Does the National Labor Relations Act have some kind of threshold of how bad or dangerous the working conditions must be, for the public complaining about the conditions to be protected activity?

The NLRA does not address worker safety. That is another act, the OSH Act, administered by OSHA, that deals with worker safety. But the kind of conditions that you are complaining about, which is simply a complaint about the hours worked each day, wouldn't violate that act.

 

[MidwestTech]

That's not quite what the law is. The NLRA prohibits an employer from retaliating against employees for working together to improve wages or working conditions. So if you posted on an online forum of fellow employees (i.e. others working for the same employer) that would be protected. But posting online in a forum that is not made up of fellow employees but instead made up of outsiders all over the country is not protected.

As I previously mentioned, one of the participants in the online discussion that I started, was a former employee of the same company. She had worked for the same company, doing the same event, under the same conditions, but in a different city. Can it not be said that the former employee and I are working together (in protected concerted activity) to bring attention to bad working conditions?

 

[MidwestTech]

The NLRA does not address worker safety. That is another act, the OSH Act, administered by OSHA, that deals with worker safety. But the kind of conditions that you are complaining about, which is simply a complaint about the hours worked each day, wouldn't violate that act.

As you said above, the NLRA protects employees from an employer's retaliation for working together to improve working conditions. Some people in this thread are implying that the working conditions that I complained about are not that bad and that, therefore, the NLRA will not protect workers who try to improve these not-so-bad conditions. I am asking whether working conditions have to meet some minimum standard of "badness" for the NLRA to protect workers who try to improve the conditions.

I hope that makes sense.

 

[commentator]

They won't. You are fired. You will not be able to interest any attorney in "taking your case." You can call the labor board in your state and ask them about this situation, but you won't like their answer. You should file for unemployment benefits, which you may or may not have enough wages to receive anyhow, since part of your work has been 1099, and find another job. Most people really believe that they have a whole lot more rights and privileges in the workplace than they do. The question will come down to, "Did the company have a valid work related reason to terminate you?" about receiving unemployment benefits (if applicable.) Did the company have a legal right to terminate you? is going to be a big old flat yes in this situation. You weren't organizing for a union. You weren't even a regular employee. You were grousing about your work and hours they asked you to work. You suffered no real ill effects anyway.

 

[cbg]

The fact that one other person in the forum worked for the same company does not translate to "employees working together to improve working conditions". Even what you were doing does not translate to "working to improve working conditions" IMO. It sounds more like whining that you didn't like your schedule for a temporary position.

 

[quincy]

As you said above, the NLRA protects employees from an employer's retaliation for working together to improve working conditions. Some people in this thread are implying that the working conditions that I complained about are not that bad and that, therefore, the NLRA will not protect workers who try to improve these not-so-bad conditions. I am asking whether working conditions have to meet some minimum standard of "badness" for the NLRA to protect workers who try to improve the conditions.

I hope that makes sense.

MidwestTech, the NLRB issued an Opinion on January 11, 2019, explaining "concerted activity," and revising and clarifying what qualifies as protected activity.

Your online comments would not be protected comments under the new ruling (or likely under the old). Your online comments were not designed to improve employee working conditions by bringing employees together to focus your employer's attention on the conditions. You were, instead, just complaining to random others about your working conditions.

Here is a link to the NLRB decision in Alstate Maintenance, LLC and Trevor Greenidge:
https://www.managementmemo.com/files/2019/01/Alstate-Board-Decision.pdf
OSHA has addressed employee complaints about extended or unusual workshifts (and resulting employee fatigue), and OSHA has addressed employee complaints about standing too long. OSHA agrees with you that both long hours and standing too long can increase employee injuries and illnesses in the workplace. These are factors considered to be "ergonomic stressors."

OSHA's recommendations to employers have included providing extra breaks and adding anti-fatigue mats to areas where employees must stand and to rotate employee schedules or positions so no one employee is required to stand too long at a time or work too many hours without a break.

But these OSHA recommendations are not OSHA policies. They are employer guidelines only.

What could have protected your job would have been complaints to OSHA or the NLRB, even though complaints of the sort you had probably would not have led to the forced changes in the workplace that you wanted.

Good luck with your job search.

 

[Taxing Matters]

As you said above, the NLRA protects employees from an employer's retaliation for working together to improve working conditions. Some people in this thread are implying that the working conditions that I complained about are not that bad and that, therefore, the NLRA will not protect workers who try to improve these not-so-bad conditions. I am asking whether working conditions have to meet some minimum standard of "badness" for the NLRA to protect workers who try to improve the conditions.

You had to be coordinating with other current employees of the employer to change working conditions to be protected under the NLRA against retaliation by the employer for the online post you made. But that's not what you were doing. This was not a forum composed of current employees of the employer and the goal was not to work with current employees to better the working conditions. You went on a national forum that, as far as you knew when you posted had no other employees of the company, to get a feel for whether people thought your position was good. Reaching outside the company to get feedback, while not necessarily a bad thing (so long as you don't defame the employer in the process), is not protected activity under the NLRA.

 

[HighwayMan]

I work in the event industry... These event jobs require a worker to work on his feet. So, if a worker is not on a break,
the worker is on his feet.

Well, since you knew this you shouldn't be complaining about health problems caused by long periods of being on your feet - you should be looking for employment in another industry.

 

[PayrollHRGuy]

Do doctors and first responders have only 8.5 hours between the end of one shift and the beginning of another?

Yes, they often do.

 

[quincy]

You had to be coordinating with other current employees of the employer to change working conditions to be protected under the NLRA against retaliation by the employer for the online post you made. But that's not what you were doing. This was not a forum composed of current employees of the employer and the goal was not to work with current employees to better the working conditions. You went on a national forum that, as far as you knew when you posted had no other employees of the company, to get a feel for whether people thought your position was good. Reaching outside the company to get feedback, while not necessarily a bad thing (so long as you don't defame the employer in the process), is not protected activity under the NLRA.

The fact that the site that was used requires a person to post under their real name makes a post about an "unnamed" company less than anonymous.

I find very few good reasons for posting negative information online about a current employer. Even if what is posted is not defamatory (and a lot of what is posted crosses the line from opinion and truth into defamation territory), an employer is not going to like reading negative comments.

Ticking off the person or entity that pays you rarely turns out well for the employee.

 

[westside]

The best way to change working conditions in the event industry, is to encourage other event-industry workers (via these online forums) to reject jobs with bad working conditions and to pressure employers for good working conditions.

Not really. A far better way would be to create your own event company, and treat people as you believe they should be treated.

 

[quincy]

Not really. A far better way would be to create your own event company, and treat people as you believe they should be treated.

Although that suggestion can work for some, not many employees are equipped financially (or otherwise) to create their own businesses. That is why you have more employees than you have employers, and why employers can dictate (within the law) what employees do.

 

[gryndor]

The working conditions that I was complaining about, could have created health problems for me. Standing for long periods of time could have caused problems with my legs and blood clots. Also, on Day 3, I would have worked a 14.5-hour day after only a few hours of sleep. Afterwards, I would have driven home while under extreme fatigue. I would have been at risk of getting into an auto accident.

I'm just curious: Do you have a chronic condition where blood clots are an issue you have to carefully manage on a daily basis? Do you succumb to "extreme fatigue" after a longer than usual day? Or are these things you've heard about, and sound like good excuses to back fill and justify your reaction to being let go?

As @CdwJava touched on, the paramedics I work with are on for 48 hour shifts. There are no guaranteed times for meals, sleeping or anything. When a call comes in, they respond. An hour away? A transport from up in the mountains to San Francisco in the middle of the night? They're on it. And we get slammed. No one here complains that they've been standing for 14 hours. They may get hangry, but there are ways to manage that.

It just sounds like you heard standing for long periods of time could lead to blood clots off WebMD or something and are using that as a platform to hate your job. Try another industry, this one isn't working for you.