Employers and Social Media, a Quandary in Progress.

[Morcheeba]

Re: Getting a divorce

No sympathy for them. They are all at fault for either A) friending their bosses, or B) not making their profiles private

So you don't think there's anything wrong with a business associate creeping your page? Whether you've made it private or not, if you've mentioned your job is boring that's grounds for termination?

I think that's a bit extreme. To me it's the same as your boss hearing you out at a bar complaining of your job in one context or another. If your performance isn't hindered by your opinions, what grounds really is that?

People are expected to work with people they may not like or get along with, your place of work my cause the same distaste. Everyone can't be expected to like their job, and they choose to bitch about it then so be it. We all need to vent.

B@W here hears a lot of complaints specifically to do with work. What if by some crazy chance you find out a fellow gamer is a co-worker or superior. Should they then have grounds to hold all you've said in past conversations against you? It's a public forum.

I don't know. Again I'll end my arguement with 'I am an idealist'.

 

[alanon]

Re: Getting a divorce

So you don't think there's anything wrong with a business associate creeping your page? Whether you've made it private or not, if you've mentioned your job is boring that's grounds for termination?

That kind of a non specific story. For simply stating your job is boring, probably not. But if you are a temp/intern on your first day on the job and I am your employer I probably will not extend your position....

What if by some crazy chance you find out a fellow gamer is a co-worker or superior. Should they then have grounds to hold all you've said in past conversations against you? It's a public forum.

Yup. You don't like me because of our dealings here on the forum. You find out that I'm the quiet guy 2 cubes down from you. Are you saying it doesn't influence your opinion of me?

 

[Lucki]

Re: Getting a divorce

So you don't think there's anything wrong with a business associate creeping your page? Whether you've made it private or not, if you've mentioned your job is boring that's grounds for termination?

I see nothing wrong with a business associate creeping a public page on a social networking site. If the person is dumb enough to friend their boss(es) and keep it public, fault lies with them if they say/post something that could get them fired.

Like Alanon said, if you're a temp and you say your job is boring on your first day, you're foolish to think they won't fire you.

 

[Kotsu]

Re: Getting a divorce

Flat out, there are no monopolies in this world. If you're selling the same product as the next guy, it comes down to two things: Price and People. If you want an increased profit, you must increase price. If you want to justify the price, you must increase quality. Who represents you is what dictates your quality. If you have access to an insight into the people representing you and you can see that they are unhappy with your company, not representing you as you see fit, gallivanting on the internet during work hours, speaking ill of others in the company, or flat out breaking company policy... Well, what it comes down to then is the harsh reality that people tend to avoid accepting: Everyone's expendable, everyone's replaceable, and most of the time there's someone willing to do your job for less money.

 

[Morcheeba]

Re: Getting a divorce

Yup. You don't like me because of our dealings here on the forum. You find out that I'm the quiet guy 2 cubes down from you. Are you saying it doesn't influence your opinion of me?

Sorry I wasn't specific enough in what my point was. I do not think and dealings outside the workplace that are lawful should be held against you when it comes to your employment. Unless you are breaching a contract that's in effect, what you do on your own time is your business.

It's a conflict of interest for most corporations to have family members, siblings or spouses working close together. Why? Because their personal life should never be brought to the workplace, and visa versa. This is almost a double standard when I look at it that way.

*there are other reasons, if one happens to work on payroll and the other is just on the books etc.

 

[Morcheeba]

Re: Getting a divorce

Flat out, there are no monopolies in this world. If you're selling the same product as the next guy, it comes down to two things: Price and People. If you want an increased profit, you must increase price. If you want to justify the price, you must increase quality. Who represents you is what dictates the your quality. If you have access to an insight into the people representing you and you can see that they are unhappy with your company, not representing you as you see fit, gallivanting on the internet during work hours, speaking ill of others in the company, or flat out breaking company policy... Well, what it comes down to then is the harsh reality that people tend to avoid accepting: Everyone's expendable, everyone's replaceable, and most of the time there's someone willing to do your job for less money.

You put it the best way. I'm all about what's right and wrong, and I still say it's wrong lol.

But as I said, I'm an idealist. I recognize that, and I'll always argue for what should be just damnit!

*we really should have this split, I know I have diarrhea of the posts, and I'm not alone.

 

[Valandil]

Re: Getting a divorce

I feel that this is a relevant story to the discussion.

http://www.campusprogress.org/artic...ey_attacks_openly_gay_student_body_president/

So is this guy's personal business merely his business? Legally, he has a right to voice his own political opinions, but you cannot deny that even if he is performing his duties to a level of 100% accuracy and integrity, that the way he voices his opinion creates a environment of hostility for others. Now this guy works as a state employee, but would it really change anything if he were a lawyer at a private firm? Like Alanon said, everything you do defines you as a person. In my job, I don't have to deal with the general public and I am not a public servant, but our clients are some of the largest financial firms around the globe. If we ever hired someone to our team who went around acting like a complete moron in their off time, and then had the level of intelligence to go and discuss or post evidence of that behavior on a social networking site, as a teammate (not a supervisor) I would question their judgement skills and their level of responsibility and I would have serious concerns if I ever had to work with that person or rely on that person to complete a project that could make the difference between one of our clients renewing their multi-million dollar contracts or signing with one of our competitors. The things you do in your off time, when you think that no one is watching, are far more indicative of who you are as an individual than the things you do when you know the spotlight is on you, so to speak.

 

[Raesvelg]

Making a new topic for this, since I find that particular derailment oddly distasteful.

Anyhoo.

The argument a lot of people make is "If your employer fires you for something on your Facebook wall, it's your own fault for having it up there or not having the right privacy settings." And, to an extent, that's true enough. The problem here is the traditional slippery-slope argument. At what point does an employer snooping on the arguable private lives of its employees cross the line? If stalking someone's Facebook account is considered valid, what about other forms of social media?

Like this site, for example. Sure, most of us here post under aliases, but it wouldn't be that hard for an enterprising snoop to connect the dots on many of us.

How about listening in on private conversations? Bugging employee spaces in the office? Bugging employee phones, or monitoring company phones?

Moreover, what constitues a "fireable" offense? Saying your job sucks, or is boring? Because that's been done, for precisely that reason. ANd let's be honest, pretty much all of us have griped about our job at one time or another.

 

[alanon]

Re: Getting a divorce

You put it the best way. I'm all about what's right and wrong, and I still say it's wrong lol.

But as I said, I'm an idealist. I recognize that, and I'll always argue for what should be just damnit!

The problem with being an idealist is that it largely depends on your point of view. Let's flip this around. You are a proud new mother. When you go back to work, you hire a sitter to watch your kid while you are at work. After a week, you glance at your sitter's FB page and see that she posted something like, "My boss is a bitch, the brat just whines all day, and the house smells like shit."

-Or-

She posts a vid where she's partying, is sloshed, smoking, listening to loud music with a bunch of people you would consider 'shady', and you notice that her baby brother is in the pack-n-play in the background.

How do you react?

*we really should have this split, I know I have diarrhea of the posts, and I'm not alone.

Agreed. LOL

 

[Morcheeba]

Re: Getting a divorce

The problem with being an idealist is that it largely depends on your point of view. Let's flip this around. You are a proud new mother. When you go back to work, you hire a sitter to watch your kid while you are at work. After a week, you glance at your sitter's FB page and see that she posted something like, "My boss is a bitch, the brat just whines all day, and the house smells like shit."

-Or-

She posts a vid where she's partying, is sloshed, smoking, listening to loud music with a bunch of people you would consider 'shady', and you notice that her baby brother is in the pack-n-play in the background.

How do you react?



Agreed. LOL

Shit, you got me.

Though I still see it as extreme. A concerned new mother looking into the discretion of a potential sitter through their actions (especially if a young girl) is understandable. We're talking safety. Whereas a company looking into an employees discretion that apparently do not directly affect the company is a bit much imo, especially when there has not been a concern thus far with the employees work habits.

 

[alanon]

Re: Getting a divorce

Shit, you got me.

Though I still see it as extreme. A concerned new mother looking into the discretion of a potential sitter through their actions (especially if a young girl) is understandable. We're talking safety. Whereas a company looking into an employees discretion that apparently do not directly affect the company is a bit much imo, especially when there has not been a concern thus far with the employees work habits.

Sorry if I got too personal, and yes it was probably extreme, but I was trying to get you to see the other side and all I know about you is that super cute, chubby cheeked, bundle of happiness in the pic under your name LOL.

 

[Lucki]

How about listening in on private conversations? Bugging employee spaces in the office? Bugging employee phones, or monitoring company phones?

If you're on company time, using company property, that they pay for, it's fair game.

 

[Morcheeba]

Re: Getting a divorce

Sorry if I got too personal, and yes it was probably extreme, but I was trying to get you to see the other side and all I know about you is that super cute, chubby cheeked, bundle of happiness in the pic under your name LOL.

Oh no no, I didn't mean YOU were getting too personal lol. I meant the reasoning behind investigating an 'employee' is personal, you hire BASED on personal opinion of the candidate, where as in business, that's discrimination (IF it's provable of course, which it's extremely hard to do). If you get let go because you're boss has a problem with you personally, it's wrongful dismissal. That doesn't apply to babysitters or in-home nannys if I'm correct.

One person is in charge of guarding your most prize possession. The other wants you to perform well in your duties so they can cash out.

 

[Kotsu]

Who's to say the company isn't the owner's prize possession? Something he's poured his entire life into creating, and that is why he puts into place such strict guidelines for the type of person you hire. Who a person is, what a person is, and how a person is all carry as much weight with a company as what a person has done, how it was done, and why they did it.

 

[Morcheeba]

Who's to say the company isn't the owner's prize possession? Something he's poured his entire life into creating, and that is why he puts into place such strict guidelines for the type of person you hire. Who a person is, what a person is, and how a person is all carry as much weight with a company as what a person has done, how it was done, and why they did it.

Companies usually invest in key individuals that act as company reps. When buddy at the bottom of the totem pole gets a pink slip because he mentioned some fling he had over the weekend as his facebook status, that's just dirty. Buddy gets paid next to nothing, comes to work, maybe he hates his job, but he does it and he does it well. Who'd to say everyone is going to invest the same interest in a company as those paid to represent the company? Those with all the perks. Those who know they are likely to have a future should everything work out, and not the guy next on the chopping block.

 

[Hexx]

Since I see "common sense" being brought up a lot, people seem to forget that common sense just isnt common anymore.

On the topic of employers stalking facebook accounts. Yes it's your responsibility to keep your security settings high, or do whatever it is you have to to not be found as easily on the web. Depending on your job though, having your page snooped on may or may not be valid. If you're average joe workin the regualr 9-5 (or w/e 8 hour shift you work) getting paid by the hour, w/e time you're off should not count against you. Key word......"should"

 

[Miros]

So many great posts in this thread. I had so many tagged for multiquote but everyone else responded to them so I'll just get these last few sitting around...

Oh no no, I didn't mean YOU were getting too personal lol. I meant the reasoning behind investigating an 'employee' is personal, you hire BASED on personal opinion of the candidate, where as in business, that's discrimination (IF it's provable of course, which it's extremely hard to do). If you get let go because you're boss has a problem with you personally, it's wrongful dismissal. That doesn't apply to babysitters or in-home nannys if I'm correct.

One person is in charge of guarding your most prize possession. The other wants you to perform well in your duties so they can cash out.

Looking at the bolded statement, if you and I were to enter an at-will employment with me as your employer I could fire you for walking funny if I wanted to. A lot of the smaller companies around are considered at-will employment and there's not really a way around the ability to fire someone for basically no cause at all - unless of course that reason is proved to be under one of the "protected" groups. The major protected groups I know are ethnicity/race, age and sex/gender. Hell, I don't even think that sexual orientation is a protected class.

So basically, if I decided I wanted to look up possible candidates and have two people that are equals and one of them say has a graduation photo as their facebook page (but the rest of the page is private) and the other has a picture of him/her puking on the front lawn with a couple of friends or dancing on a stripper pole I think I'd go with the graduate photo.

Companies usually invest in key individuals that act as company reps. When buddy at the bottom of the totem pole gets a pink slip because he mentioned some fling he had over the weekend as his facebook status, that's just dirty. Buddy gets paid next to nothing, comes to work, maybe he hates his job, but he does it and he does it well. Who'd to say everyone is going to invest the same interest in a company as those paid to represent the company? Those with all the perks. Those who know they are likely to have a future should everything work out, and not the guy next on the chopping block.

I'd say it mostly goes back to who exactly is the person we are talking about. If it's somebody fairly high up, or an employee who is seen in the front face of the business a lot then you'd want to keep things fairly conservative. If it's a lower level accountant posting pictures of say...a drag queen show he went to then I don't think it would cause a lot of ruckus.

If we expand the topic a bit more and ask the what if in regards to what is said about a company then...come on. If you have a friend at work or even a boss on your facebook the number one rule should be to NEVER talk about work. It will only get you in trouble. Once you say something about your job then you can bet that someone is going to let someone in power know. And while they may not fire you outright, they could certainly make your whole job a living hell.

"Personal" life keeps coming up and while it's nice to think that while we are away from whatever it is we do that we'll be confined to our personal life, we have to realize that if we have a facebook, myspace or have even twatted on twitter (thanks Colbert) then we have signed away the ability to call it our "personal" life.

 

[Zaltana]

Re: Getting a divorce

The problem with being an idealist is that it largely depends on your point of view. Let's flip this around. You are a proud new mother. When you go back to work, you hire a sitter to watch your kid while you are at work. After a week, you glance at your sitter's FB page and see that she posted something like, "My boss is a bitch, the brat just whines all day, and the house smells like shit."

-Or-

She posts a vid where she's partying, is sloshed, smoking, listening to loud music with a bunch of people you would consider 'shady', and you notice that her baby brother is in the pack-n-play in the background.

How do you react?

that's what credible references are for. and your example while accurate crosses into a whole new set of bounds. what that person is doing in the second example is not only stupid, but could be actionable under law, child endangerment ect. but lets break this down even further.

you just described a common scene every sunday evening at my aunt's house, especially when the Saints win. in my family we get loud, we get roudy, and yes many get sloshed. And some of us have posted videos of our activities on our FB pages. kids are abound everywhere. babies to todlers to young adults. this is where your scenario splits. What about the people not in the video? the elderly that are just there for the family party? where are the people that don't drink and get sloshed? You know the ones that are usually designated to mind the youngins in such settings. and i have relatives that could be considered "shady" in my family, my brother being one of them.

Is this person firing material? maybe maybe not. how about we get the facts before we take action. discuss your findings professionally and you may just be surprised. Should said person be fired cause of what you THINK they do, and not what you KNOW they do, it can be actionable. lets not forget what happens when you assume.

 

[Zaltana]

"Personal" life keeps coming up and while it's nice to think that while we are away from whatever it is we do that we'll be confined to our personal life, we have to realize that if we have a facebook, myspace or have even twatted on twitter (thanks Colbert) then we have signed away the ability to call it our "personal" life.

can i fire you for having split personalities?

this is where the common sense issue comes into play. my step-sisters keep their FB profiles set to private for everyone, even me. one works for the UN and the other holds a high profile job in DC. and trust me they are a pair of party animals themselves. they use proper discretion and only reply to me, our mom, or their friends with messages, not posts. unless it something like "see you at xmas", or wishing me luck on something. our personal lives ARE our personal lives. the responsibility simply falls on us to keep them that way.

 

[Miros]

can i fire you for having split personalities?

this is where the common sense issue comes into play. my step-sisters keep their FB profiles set to private for everyone, even me. one works for the UN and the other holds a high profile job in DC. and trust me they are a pair of party animals themselves. they use proper discretion and only reply to me, our mom, or their friends with messages, not posts. unless it something like "see you at xmas", or wishing me luck on something. our personal lives ARE our personal lives. the responsibility simply falls on us to keep them that way.

I don't work for you though...

And everything you said after that is true. I should have been a little bit clearer when I posted about having a facebook. If you want privacy, you have to make sure you protect it.

Edit - Wow, didn't expect to get so many hate reps. <_<;