Would this discourage employees from speaking up about safety?
March 18, 2009 by Fred HosierPosted in: In this week's e-newsletter, Latest News & Views, Lawsuits, What Would You Do?
In this age of Facebook and MySpace, some employers are requiring workers to sign agreements that they won’t speak out against the company in public. Does that stifle employee concerns about workplace safety?
“Silence clause aims to keep Turkey Point workers quiet” claims a recent headline in the Miami Herald about a nuclear power plant in Florida.
A former employee, Thomas Saporito claims that a clause in bonus agreements has caused workers to be afraid to make complaints about safety. Saporito has sued Florida Power & Light, the plant’s owner, numerous times claiming he was fired because of his persistent complaints about safety. FPL has repeatedly won in court.
The newspaper obtained one bonus agreement that contained this language: “The employee shall not, at any time in the future and in any way … make any statements that may be derogatory or detrimental to the company’s good name.”
An FPL spokesman says the utility encourages anyone working at one of its nuclear power plants to identify safety concerns without fearing reprisal.
What do you think? Could such language contained in a contract discourage employees from speaking up about safety? Let us know in the Comments Box below.
SafetyNewsAlert.com delivers the latest Safety news once a week to the inboxes of over 270,000 Safety professionals.
Click here to sign up and start your FREE subscription to SafetyNewsAlert!
Tags: Facebook, MySpace, nuclear power plant
Loading ...
March 23rd, 2009 at 12:35 pm
There are avenues to lodge a complaint without fear of reprisal such as Federal OSHA, or a state OSHA. These will get something accomplished, but the blog sights are nothing more than an opportunity for someone to vent. USE PROPER CHANNELS! That’s why they are there.
March 23rd, 2009 at 12:47 pm
I don’t believe those words would discourage workers from bringing up safety issues to internal parties. If the company is conducting the required training on Refusal to Work, the employees should be aware that they have a right to voice concerns to their supervisor (or above up through OSHA) without reprisal.
If the employee who has sued multiple times has lost every case, it shows there is not enough evidence that the company is barring them to voice safety concerns. I take the wording to mean, don’t bad mouth your supervisor / coworkers or talk about business practices to others outside the company.
Being a nuclear plant, any bad press could bring unwarranted problems for a site that may not be “welcome” in their community.
March 23rd, 2009 at 1:40 pm
I see nothing wrong with adding that to a contract. That entire phrase is saying to employees is, do not talk badly about the company in an open conversation that may be regarded as insulting to FPL. They don’t want people slandering the name of the company, if you have a problem go to management.
March 23rd, 2009 at 2:17 pm
There’s NO SUCH THING as grieving safety issues without repercussions of some sort, either internally OR externally!!
March 24th, 2009 at 2:32 pm
I can see building in confidentiality agreements but this seems a bit overboard. Personally if I had addressed some safety concerns multiple times with my chain of command and no action had been taken; I see no problem with releasing that information for public discussion.