Are workplace bans on personal cellphone use a violation of civil rights?

[Tax Counsel]

The NLRB and others MIGHT take a DIFFERENT view.

The NLRB's jurisdiction has nothing to do with unemployment comp benefits. In any event, even the NLRB bit you posted only targets an employer rule that would prohibit use of a cell phone during NON WORKING hours. As the Karen in the OP's situation is using the cell phone during working hours, the NLRB position would do nothing to help her.

 

[Redemptionman]

You're a troll. Posting drivel just for your own amusement.

Okay, it was pretty funny because well besides @army judge most on here if they are an actual attorney's information is vastly off base and wrong. Regardless of how the law is written actual application is different.

You are utterly clueless about how that's done.

Not really as again most of it is dependent upon the cause for termination

TC is correct in his analysis. Not that he needs my endorsement but I have been through the Arizona UC appeals process and studied the same Arizona UC statutes and case decisions.

Not really as again stated using a cell phone does not amount to gross conduct or willful or wanton disregard to company standards


Again, TC posted Arizona law on the statutes which apply. I do not doubt that those apply in Arizona; however, UIC is a benefit which is basically automatic approval unless gross misconduct with proper documentation occurred. I can almost guarantee you that if this company fired them for one time use of cell phone without any previous documentation then that would not amount to the conduct necessary. I am sure that you do know your states laws and have no doubt about that but as stated above it probably isn't going to raise the companies rates much at all.

 

[cbg]

I do not doubt that those apply in Arizona

And the OP is in Arizona. So why are you so determined that the law would not apply to the OP's co-worker?

And I'll remind everyone - Redemptionman was the first one to mention unemployment. It was not a concern of the OP.

 

[Redemptionman]

And the OP is in Arizona. So why are you so determined that the law would not apply to the OP's co-worker?

And I'll remind everyone - Redemptionman was the first one to mention unemployment. It was not a concern of the OP.

No actually I wasn't, TC did in Post #3.

"policy very clear she might find she's out of luck on unemployment comp benefits too."

Again as I stated since when does cell phone use result in termination? It is not willful/ wanton or a gross policy violation warranting termination. Again, maybe some of you all wish it was but in at will states such as Arizona that will not fly.

 

[GoodWorker32]

I would terminate sooner rather than later as this is a new hire still in training/probationary period, so it won't affect the employer's UC premiums too much.

At a prior job employees weren't even permitted to have a cell phone in the facility, much less in use while on the clock. We had to pass through metal detectors and briefcases, purses, backpacks, etc. were sent through x-ray machines on entry and exit. No one fussed about civil rights violations.

I can't help but wonder if it could be a generational thing. A lot of under-25 coworkers think the cell policy is so trivial it doesn't have to be followed. The employee this thread is about, however, is old enough to be my mom. She's old enough to know better (and obviously she's old enough she functioned at work in the days before everyone had a cell).

 

[Tax Counsel]

Again as I stated since when does cell phone use result in termination? It is not willful/ wanton or a gross policy violation warranting termination. Again, maybe some of you all wish it was but in at will states such as Arizona that will not fly.

A private employer in Arizona and nearly every other state may fire an employee for any reason other than one specifically prohibited by law. The prohibited reasons include firing you because:

• of your race, color, religion, sex (including sexual orientation, gender identity, etc) national origin, citizenship, age, disability, or genetic test information under federal law (some states/localities add a few more categories like marital status, veteran status, etc);
• you make certain kinds of reports about the employer to the government or in limited circumstances to specified persons in the employing company itself (known as whistle-blower protection laws);
• you participate in union organizing activities;
• you use a right or benefit the law guarantees you (e.g. using leave under FMLA);
• you filed a bankruptcy petition;
• your pay was garnished by a single creditor; and
• you took time off work to attend jury duty (in most states).

The exact list of prohibited reasons will vary by state.

No federal or Arizona law prohibits an employer from terminating an employee for cell phone use at work. Thus, as I said from the outset, the employer may fire this Karen for her cell phone use and it would not be a wrongful termination. And by the way, it does happen that people get fired for it. One of my clients did just that. Obviously you think that such a rule is BS. So when you are the boss you are free to let your employees use their cells phones as much as they want (though you may suffer productivity loss as a result of it). But other people have different views on it, and when they are the bosses they are free to make a no cell phone use at work policy.

 

[retic]

I can't help but wonder if it could be a generational thing. A lot of under-25 coworkers think the cell policy is so trivial it doesn't have to be followed. The employee this thread is about, however, is old enough to be my mom. She's old enough to know better (and obviously she's old enough she functioned at work in the days before everyone had a cell).

Her age isn't relevant. What is relevant is that her actions could get you fired. If she comes to your desk for training then ask that she leave her cell phone at her desk. If you have to go to her desk then ask her to put it away while you train her.

Or, if you have Skype/Zoom/etc. train her remotely using a screen share, because COVID and social distancing.

 

[army judge]

The NLRB's jurisdiction has nothing to do with unemployment comp benefits.

I said NOTHING about UI bennies, you did.

But, thank you bossman, for all that wizdumb you be lay on me.

 

[Tax Counsel]

I said NOTHING about UI bennies, you did.

Your post said that the NLRB might take a "different view." A different view of what? You didn't say. Since, at least up to your post, there was little discussion that termination due a cell phone rule might violate the law and most of the discussion had been about whether such termination might result in loss UI benefits, I think it reasonable to think that it was the UI conversation that you were expressing the "different view" on. But of course you can't possibly see that maybe your post wasn't entirely clear on that and give the benefit of the doubt, can you? No, of course YOU can't.

But, thank you bossman, for all that wizdumb you be lay on me.

Thank you for your snarky reply. It further confirms my view of the sort of person you are.

 

[army judge]

But of course you can't possibly see that maybe your post wasn't entirely clear on that and give the benefit of the doubt, can you?

No, but whatever ewe duz sez bossman.

Eye bee two dumb to no.

Ewe like to argew two much four me, bossman.
Ewe muss bee very unhappy two bee so angree all the times.

Thank you for your snarky reply. It further confirms my view of the sort of person you are.

Bossman eye got me free, so me no care wut ewe thought of me.

On other hands, ewe seem obsessed with mee, I almost feel like ewe bee stalk mee.

 

[cbg]

Army, do you REALLY think that kind of post is in any way helpful to the OP?

 

[Redemptionman]

Man this went south fast, Arizona is at will, True

TC is saying that it could lead to UI denial? True

but it could lead to approval as easily? True

So we are both correct...
fify

 

[Tax Counsel]

No, but whatever ewe duz sez bossman.

Eye bee two dumb to no.

Ewe like to argew two much four me, bossman.
Ewe muss bee very unhappy two bee so angree all the times.

Bossman eye got me free, so me no care wut ewe thought of me.

On other hands, ewe seem obsessed with mee, I almost feel like ewe bee stalk mee.

Hmm, and this from a man who claims he wore stars on his shoulder boards?

 

[Tax Counsel]

Man this went south fast, Arizona is at will, True

TC is saying that it could lead to UI denial? True

but it could lead to approval as easily? True

I actually agree with you on this one. While it might lead to UI benefits being denied, a lot depends on how the UI hearing goes (assuming the employer contests it at all). The point for Karen is that she's risking her job and perhaps UI benefits too by flaunting the employer's rule.

 

[GoodWorker32]

Her age isn't relevant. What is relevant is that her actions could get you fired. If she comes to your desk for training then ask that she leave her cell phone at her desk. If you have to go to her desk then ask her to put it away while you train her.

Or, if you have Skype/Zoom/etc. train her remotely using a screen share, because COVID and social distancing.

Every single time she pulls her phone out, I remind her of the policy. Yet every single time, she dismisses my concerns and proceeds to use her phone anyway. There's no arguing with someone when they're convinced they're somehow exempt from the rules.

I've made up my mind. If it happens again, I'm threatening to go to management. If she still disregards my wishes, I will go to management.

 

[justblue]

Every single time she pulls her phone out, I remind her of the policy. Yet every single time, she dismisses my concerns and proceeds to use her phone anyway. There's no arguing with someone when they're convinced they're somehow exempt from the rules.

I've made up my mind. If it happens again, I'm threatening to go to management. If she still disregards my wishes, I will go to management.

What type of job is this?

 

[GoodWorker32]

What type of job is this?

I don't want to give out too much information in case anyone from work is reading this. It's an office job where we work with a lot of sensitive information (which is probably the rationale behind the total ban on personal cells...they don't want to risk having us take a picture of sensitive info).

 

[Tax Counsel]

I don't want to give out too much information in case anyone from work is reading this. It's an office job where we work with a lot of sensitive information (which is probably the rationale behind the total ban on personal cells...they don't want to risk having us take a picture of sensitive info).

In that case, you really do need to inform upper management of her violations if they continue since this is now more than just a productivity issue. Now it's an issue also of risking leaks of sensitive information, whether it's the company's or the client's. That also ups the risk for her that UI benefits would be denied. When I worked for the IRS it had a similar rule for employees working in sensitive areas where taxpayer information was safeguarded; no cameras of any kind, including those on cell phones, were allowed in those areas. Employees caught violating that rule were subject to termination, and those who were terminated for it didn't get federal unemployment benefits, at least in the states where I worked (federal employee unemployment benefits are paid by the feds but administered by the states using the applicable state rules). This wasn't surprising because risking improper disclosure of taxpayer data is a huge deal and easily qualified as willful misconduct in every state I'm familiar with.

 

[retic]

I've made up my mind. If it happens again, I'm threatening to go to management. If she still disregards my wishes, I will go to management.

FWIW I don't threaten. I would quietly report to the supervisor that she has repeatedly ignored your admonitions to stop.

I would also ask that a supervisor catch her at it, and leave my name out of any ensuing fallout.

 

[cbg]

I have a friend who works for a law firm which often deals with cases of national import. You've read about at least one case they handled in history class. They are working remotely right now (still) and those employees who have any kind of AI device (Alexa, etc.) are told they have to turn them off during work hours - that's how careful they have to be with sensitive information.