As we reported the other day, Major League Baseball released its new social media policy. And it’s good.
But do parts of it run afoul of federal labor laws?
That’s the question asked by lawyer Eric B. Meyer of The Employer Handbook blog. He suggests that some of the prohibitions in the policy violate parts of the National Labor Relations Act which protect employees who engage in protected concerted activity. Which is a legal term of art meaning “employees can’t be prohibited from discussing working conditions.”
Meyer’s point is that the social media policy prohibition against disparaging umpires inhibits that. For example, if two ballplayers were on Twitter discussing the state of umpiring — a condition which has a direct bearing on players’ ability to do their job — that the NLRB would find that to be protected employee speech.
I’m no labor lawyer so I don’t have any particular expertise here, but I suppose I can see that. I’m curious, though, about exceptions to that rule (there are always exceptions). Exceptions that cite other reasons — besides inhibiting employee communication — for the prohibition. For example, you know that two CIA agents wouldn’t be allowed to discuss the crappy food provided by the agency at the safe house where they debrief their Iranian double agents, right?
Baseball wouldn’t have a security argument, of course, but it would likely say that public discussions of the umpires would undermine the consumer’s confidence in the product, not that it’s simply bad for management that players are discussing it. Maybe there are other reasons that would invoke exceptions. Anyone with any NLRA insight here is invited to comment.
Probably moot anyway. Because most bitching about umpires is done solo, and as Meyer notes, just one person complaining on Twitter is not protected by the NLRA. And I’m really having a hard time seeing two players engaging in those kinds of conversations on social media.