NLRB Ruling on Costco's Social Media Employee Policy
This paper examines the National Labor Relations Board's ruling that Costco's employee social media policy was unlawfully broad under Section 7 of the National Labor Relations Act. The paper argues in support of the NLRB's decision, explaining how Costco's policy could have chilled protected employee speech related to organizing, grievances, and mutual aid. It further analyzes the practical workplace effects of the ruling—including improved trust between employees and management—and concludes with policy recommendations, advising Costco to forgo drafting a new social media policy until clearer NLRB guidance on Section 7's application to social media is available.
- Overview of the NLRB Ruling Against Costco: NLRB finds Costco social media policy unlawfully broad
- Why the NLRB Decision Was Correct: Section 7 protects wide range of employee speech
- Impact of the Ruling on the Workplace: Ruling fosters trust and reduces employee fear
- Recommended Policy Response for Costco: Costco should drop social media policy for now
✍️ How to write this paper — guide, tools & examples ▾
What makes this paper effective
- The paper moves logically from summarizing the ruling to evaluating it normatively and then offering concrete managerial recommendations — a clear three-stage analytical arc.
- It grounds its argument in statutory language, directly quoting Section 7 of the NLRA to support claims about the scope of protected speech, which adds legal precision to the analysis.
- The final section adopts a realistic, pragmatic tone, acknowledging that a future social media policy is not inherently wrong but is premature given unsettled law — demonstrating nuanced reasoning rather than absolute positions.
Key academic technique demonstrated
The paper demonstrates applied legal analysis: it interprets a statutory provision (Section 7 of the NLRA), maps its language onto a specific enforcement action, and draws practical conclusions for management. This technique — statute → ruling → implication — is characteristic of business-law and labor-relations writing at the undergraduate level.
Structure breakdown
The paper is organized into four sections. The first summarizes the NLRB case and Costco's offending policy. The second defends the NLRB's ruling on free-speech grounds, drawing a parallel to First Amendment jurisprudence. The third explores workplace consequences of the decision for both employees and management. The fourth offers a two-part communications strategy and argues against reinstating any social media policy until Section 7 case law matures.
Overview of the NLRB Ruling Against Costco
The National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) recently ruled that Costco's policy governing social media usage by its employees was too broad. Specifically, the ruling stated that the wording of Costco's policy "could effectively stifle its employees' right to free speech" under Section 7 of the National Labor Relations Act. This section "protects employees who choose to take part in grievances, on-the-job protests, picketing and strikes" (Belicove, 2012). The case was brought to the NLRB by Local 371 of the United Food and Commercial Workers, who argued that the company's social media policies violated workers' right to free speech under the NLRA. The NLRB panel found that Costco's provisions were too broad, failing to exclude protected speech from the speech subject to penalty. The NLRB also struck down a number of other rules in the Costco Employee Agreement as either being too broad or in violation of employee rights.
Why the NLRB Decision Was Correct
The findings of the NLRB in this case are well founded. Section 7 of the NLRA explicitly grants employees the right to organize, including the right to "engage in other concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or mutual aid or protection." The Costco policy was ruled to not specifically exclude such speech, meaning that an employee could be entirely unsure of what speech fell under the company's policy and what did not. Employees might have reasonably feared that any speech critical of the company was subject to punishment, when in fact only certain kinds of speech are legally permitted to be penalized. In particular, the phrase "mutual aid or protection" in Section 7 is broad, allowing for a wide range of speech that is critical of the employer.
An important premise underpinning this decision is that social media is a likely forum for employee expression. Postings on social media, no matter how informally worded, can be construed as a means of communicating with other workers about grievances. First Amendment jurisprudence establishes that when a law or policy might have the effect of stifling protected speech, that law is likely to be struck down. The NLRB, in its decision against Costco, applied that same fundamental logic. Costco's policy was broad and failed to set clear definitions for what speech it covered, essentially failing to recognize that a category of protected speech exists under the NLRA.
Works Cited
Belicove, M. (2012). NLRB slams Costco on social media use policy: What it means for your business. Forbes. Retrieved November 7, 2012 from http://www.forbes.com/sites/mikalbelicove/2012/09/28/nlrb-slams-costco-on-social-media-use-policy-what-it-means-for-your-business/
National Labor Relations Act. Retrieved November 7, 2012 from http://www.nlrb.gov/national-labor-relations-act
Post, A. (2012). NLRB publishes first social media decision. Inside Counsel. Retrieved November 7, 2012 from http://www.insidecounsel.com/2012/09/18/nlrb-publishes-first-social-media-decision
Smith, A. (2012). NLRB takes sledgehammer to social media policies. Society for Human Resource Management. Retrieved November 7, 2012 from
Create your account
Always verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.