????老法律和新技術(shù)的結(jié)合往往會產(chǎn)生怪胎。最近的例證就是：為了與時俱進(jìn)，美國全國勞資關(guān)系委員會（National Labor Relations Board）已經(jīng)把目光投向了公司員工對社交媒體的使用，結(jié)果出人意料。事實表明，1935年通過的、用于保護(hù)試圖結(jié)社的工人免受報復(fù)的《全國勞資關(guān)系法案》（National Labor Relations Act）同樣適用于保護(hù)在Facebook上發(fā)泄怨氣的員工。

????勞資關(guān)系委員會就其最近的案件、水牛城西班牙裔聯(lián)盟（Hispanics United of Buffalo, Inc.）所做出的裁決就印證了這一點。這份裁決受到了各大公司法律部門的密切關(guān)注，原因是，它是“首批針對基于社交媒體活動而遭到解聘的案件之一”。這起案件的裁決開創(chuàng)了一個先河，密爾沃基Arnstein & Lehr律師事務(wù)所勞動法律師杰西?迪爾（Jesse Dill）說：“不幸的是，結(jié)果對雇主不利?！?/p>

????事情的經(jīng)過是這樣的。西班牙裔聯(lián)盟是一家旨在幫助家庭暴力受害者的非盈利性機(jī)構(gòu)。這個機(jī)構(gòu)一位名叫莉迪亞?克魯茲-摩爾的雇員總是批評同事的工作，其中包括一位名叫瑪麗安娜?科爾-瑞維拉的同事。2010年10月，摩爾通過短信告訴瑞維拉，她準(zhǔn)備在高管面前數(shù)落瑞維拉。作為回應(yīng)，瑞維拉在Facebook上發(fā)了個帖子：“莉迪亞?克魯茲覺得我們（西班牙裔聯(lián)盟）的員工并沒有盡力去幫助客戶。我受夠了！親愛的同事們，你們作何感想？”

????有四名同事留言，并且都站在了瑞維拉這邊。因此，摩爾跑去向老板告狀。幾天后，瑞維拉和這四名同事就都被炒了魷魚。

????但勞資關(guān)系委員會對此事的裁決看起來有點怪，原因如下。首先，盡管勞資委員會保護(hù)員工為爭取“相互幫助和保護(hù)”所開展的活動，但是在這一案件中遭到解雇的人并沒有開展任何活動——或者，如同裁決的反對意見所說的那樣“僅憑討論的主題涉及工作的某一方面這一事實……還不足以構(gòu)成為爭取互助和保護(hù)而開展的協(xié)同活動，”迪爾說?！昂芏嗳讼矚g在社交媒體上發(fā)泄工作中受到的委屈，但是大多數(shù)人并沒有打算采取進(jìn)一步行動?！?/p>

????其次，很多公司——尤其是加入工會的雇員寥寥無幾的——從來沒有重視過勞資委員會，因為大多數(shù)法律的條款只跟工會密切相關(guān)。迪爾稱：“勞資委員會突然出手干預(yù)，嚇了用人單位一跳。如今，面對Facebook發(fā)帖、推文和其他在線活動有可能會受到保護(hù)這一新形勢，公司不得不重新審視自己的社交媒體政策。”

????至少眼下來看就是這樣。西班牙裔聯(lián)盟已經(jīng)宣布，打算抗訴，而這一決定也有可能被上訴法庭推翻。與此同時，迪爾稱，在社交媒體上說老板或同事的壞話依然不是什么明智的舉動，因為這對你潛在的雇主來說是一個危險的信號。他說：“跑到Facebook上發(fā)泄一番不費(fèi)吹灰之力。但是一旦信息被在線公布，要想收回來就很困難了，它們會永遠(yuǎn)都會留在那里。”這是大實話。（財富中文網(wǎng)）

????Old laws and new technologies make strange bedfellows. The latest proof: In an effort to catch up with the times, the National Labor Relations Board has turned its attention to employees' use of social media, with surprising results. It turns out that the National Labor Relations Act, passed in 1935, which protects workers from suffering reprisals for trying to organize a union, can also apply to people who are just venting on Facebook.

????So says the NLRB's decision in a recent case, Hispanics United of Buffalo, Inc. Closely watched by companies' legal departments because it was "one of the first cases to address a discharge from employment on the basis of social media activity," the ruling sets a precedent, notes Jesse Dill, a labor attorney at Arnstein & Lehr in Milwaukee. "Unfortunately, things did not turn out well for the employer."

????Here's what happened. At Hispanics United of Buffalo, a nonprofit set up to help victims of domestic violence, an employee named Lydia Cruz-Moore persistently criticized the work of colleagues, including one named Marianna Cole-Rivera. In October 2010, Cruz-Moore texted Cole-Rivera, saying she was going to take her complaints to the organization's executive director. Cole-Rivera reacted with a Facebook post that read: "Lydia Cruz, a coworker, feels that we don't help our clients enough at [Hispanics United]. I about had it! My fellow coworkers, how do u feel?"

????Four colleagues responded with their own posts, taking Cole-Rivera's side. So Cruz-Moore griped to their boss who, a couple of days later, fired Cole-Rivera and all four of her allies.

????The ruling against Hispanics United seems odd for a couple of reasons. First, while the NLRA protects employees' activities that are for their "mutual aid and protection," there was no suggestion that the people who were fired in this instance planned any activities at all -- or, as the dissenting opinion in the ruling put it, "[T]he mere fact that the subject of discussion involved an aspect of employment … is not enough to find concerted activity for mutual aid and protection." Says Dill, "Many people take to social media to vent their employment frustrations, but most have no intention of acting any further."

????And second, many companies -- especially those with few or no unionized employees -- never paid much attention to the NLRA, since most of the law's provisions relate specifically to unions. "The NLRB is really coming out of left field and surprising employers with this," Dill observes. "Companies now have to re-examine their social media policies in this new light of whether Facebook posts, tweets, and other online activities might be protected."

????At least for now. Hispanics United has announced plans to challenge the decision, which could be overturned by a court of appeals. In the meantime, Dill notes, it's still not smart to badmouth a boss or a colleague via social media, if for no other reason than that it's a red flag to prospective employers. "It's so easy to vent on Facebook," he says. "But once you put something online, it's hard to take it back. It's out there forever." Too true.