Bleeping on the Job

In which our man in Washington visits the halls of justice to witness gross obscenities and a towering pompadour.

Michael W. Lynch from the July 2001 issue

(Page 3 of 3)

"I certainly do," said Sentelle. "You are at a terrible disadvantage when you try to defend a decision like this."

"If you have a limited rule," said Horowitz, "such as employees are not allowed to engage in sexual harassment of other employees."

"Define sexual harassment," replied Sentelle. "Any sexual harassment? If a labor organizer gets irritated...and uses the 'B' word to a female employee, that would be covered?" Sentelle, of course, knew it wouldn't be covered by a company policy if the NLRB has its way.

At this point, had Horowitz not been such a trouper, he would have simply admitted that the NLRB is hopelessly in the pockets of the unions and that its ruling, which is absurd on many levels, is an indefensible example of the torment the NLRB puts employers through, day in and day out. But Horowitz didn't cop out. He soldiered on.

"These rules have a chilling effect."

"Why is it a good thing to use abusive language?" asked an incredulous Sentelle. "Is chilling that language a bad thing?"

"If that language is used in a context of asserting a [protected right]," responded Horowitz.

"I don't care what the context is," replied Sentelle. "You have an employee that uses the racial epithet that the counsel sets forth as protected. Is that a good thing?"

It's not necessarily a good thing. But according to Rosenfeld, who maintains that we can't expect industrial workers to speak any other way, allowing such speech in the workplace is a necessary thing. The NLRB considers it a legally protected right.

Somehow, I doubt this court will agree.