In 2011, you can post on FB, LI, and the like. In 1970, one could have taken out an ad in the New York Post.
What’s the difference? The cost? I think the concept, while not the law, should be that if you say bad things about the company, publicly,why would you do so? Just to hurt it? (I am not talking about illegal activities of the company).
Do you have no loyalty? Do you want to show your face there the day after?
Have common courtey and ocnsideration (something that disappeared decades ago). You work there, they pay you, you know people there. Be nice. Be kind. If you think something is not good (not illegal), talk internally. Don’t just blast the company in public.
Common courtesy and consideration have little to do with the law. If that were the case, political cartoons would be non-existent. Until the law states otherwise, as long as you are not slanderous towards your place of employment and your comments are factual, you are protected by the first ammendment.
I would say the difference is that social media is not looked at by individuals as a personal marketing forum.
It’s viewed as a more private, and less commercial setting. Imagine a journal that one can share with friends, etc. Comparing it to taking out an ad in the NYT is faulty logic. (Unless, of course, people used to take out ads in the NYT to document their trip to Door County, or show photos of their pets doing odd and potentially cute things.)
There’s also the issue of reprisal. If companies weren’t prone to vindictive reprisal to employee dissent/unhappiness, there wouldn’t be such things as whistle-blower laws.
Not to mention that whole 1st Amendment thing. This isn’t China.
Your articles are great and very informative, however, what’s with the copyright restrictions citing that Copyright 2011 Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
Email This Print Newsletters Share 5inShare11 and THEN you have all the social media, email, etc. buttons and gadgets to post, share, email, etc. We’re confused…please clarify
Employers facing this problem should treat employees better, and listen to their complaints. Then, do something about complaints with merit, and explain why others have no merit. Do this in a company newsletter, not in private with one or two employees.
This problem arises because arrogant managers believe they are infallible and they have more authority over people than is true under the US Constitution. ‘Employment at will’ applies in both directions.
This is not accurate. Facebook retains your data indefinitely- don’t listen to anyone or anything that says otherwise. If you live in the U.K. you can use an old U.K. data protection law to require Facebook to send you a CD-ROM of their full data file on you– it is much more thorough than you’d ever think or want it to be.
Companies and investigators have MANY ways to get access to “private” data. Heck, Facebook’s default security setting isn’t even HTTPS:// encrypted. Glitches in the database queries have meant people have been able to see people’s private pics and messages. Do you view Facebook on a work computer ever? How do you know they didn’t key log your password? What about on a Wi-Fi– how do you know the connection isn’t being sniffed? What about on a cell phone- how do you know your phone wasn’t compromised? Is it a work-issued phone?
And if you use Twitter instead of Facebook there is NOTHING preventing someone else from retweeting your message to a public setting.
IF companies are deemed to have the legal right to punish employees for exercising their first amendment right to free speech in a public forum (of course this does not include libel or improper dissemination of proprietary company secrets)– and I would unequivocally advocate against that right– then the only way to properly protect yourself is to abstain from exercising your right to speech entirely. This very real “chilling effect” is the reason that rights of individuals and employees must be protected.
I’m not sure if we’re confusing exercising a right with the consequences of exercising that right: I have the right to express my opinion, but should the target of my opinions be deprived of a response? Limiting or disallowing an appropriate response is just as “chilling” as limiting or disallowing the initial opinion. If the result is being fired, then the question of “wrongful” termination can only be determined on a case-by-case basis. Some firings are warranted and some are not.
Whistle-blower laws are somewhat different, in that they protect the employee in cases involving factual evidence of unethical or illegal activities. I don’t think whistle-blower laws are aimed at protecting someone from their own faulty or ill-conceived opinions.
If I express nasty opinions and experience negative consequences, I’d blame the person in the mirror. Just my opinion.
Why is this new law?
In 2011, you can post on FB, LI, and the like. In 1970, one could have taken out an ad in the New York Post.
What’s the difference? The cost? I think the concept, while not the law, should be that if you say bad things about the company, publicly,why would you do so? Just to hurt it? (I am not talking about illegal activities of the company).
Do you have no loyalty? Do you want to show your face there the day after?
Have common courtey and ocnsideration (something that disappeared decades ago). You work there, they pay you, you know people there. Be nice. Be kind. If you think something is not good (not illegal), talk internally. Don’t just blast the company in public.
Common courtesy and consideration have little to do with the law. If that were the case, political cartoons would be non-existent. Until the law states otherwise, as long as you are not slanderous towards your place of employment and your comments are factual, you are protected by the first ammendment.
Uh, no. The first amendment protects one’s right to political speech, not the right to tell off one’s boss without consequences.
You’re half right, and half wrong.
You are correct that it is not the 1st Amendment. But the 1st Amendement is not just about political speech.
And while the 1st Amendment may not protect you, the National Labor Relations Act does.
I would say the difference is that social media is not looked at by individuals as a personal marketing forum.
It’s viewed as a more private, and less commercial setting. Imagine a journal that one can share with friends, etc. Comparing it to taking out an ad in the NYT is faulty logic. (Unless, of course, people used to take out ads in the NYT to document their trip to Door County, or show photos of their pets doing odd and potentially cute things.)
There’s also the issue of reprisal. If companies weren’t prone to vindictive reprisal to employee dissent/unhappiness, there wouldn’t be such things as whistle-blower laws.
Not to mention that whole 1st Amendment thing. This isn’t China.
Your articles are great and very informative, however, what’s with the copyright restrictions citing that Copyright 2011 Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
Email This Print Newsletters Share 5inShare11 and THEN you have all the social media, email, etc. buttons and gadgets to post, share, email, etc. We’re confused…please clarify
Can the employer get on FB and complain about the employee?
Employers facing this problem should treat employees better, and listen to their complaints. Then, do something about complaints with merit, and explain why others have no merit. Do this in a company newsletter, not in private with one or two employees.
This problem arises because arrogant managers believe they are infallible and they have more authority over people than is true under the US Constitution. ‘Employment at will’ applies in both directions.
Simple Fix. make your FB page private. problem solved.
Very true.
Also, don’t accept any coworker “friend” requests. Reroute them to LinkedIn instead.
This is not accurate. Facebook retains your data indefinitely- don’t listen to anyone or anything that says otherwise. If you live in the U.K. you can use an old U.K. data protection law to require Facebook to send you a CD-ROM of their full data file on you– it is much more thorough than you’d ever think or want it to be.
Companies and investigators have MANY ways to get access to “private” data. Heck, Facebook’s default security setting isn’t even HTTPS:// encrypted. Glitches in the database queries have meant people have been able to see people’s private pics and messages. Do you view Facebook on a work computer ever? How do you know they didn’t key log your password? What about on a Wi-Fi– how do you know the connection isn’t being sniffed? What about on a cell phone- how do you know your phone wasn’t compromised? Is it a work-issued phone?
And if you use Twitter instead of Facebook there is NOTHING preventing someone else from retweeting your message to a public setting.
IF companies are deemed to have the legal right to punish employees for exercising their first amendment right to free speech in a public forum (of course this does not include libel or improper dissemination of proprietary company secrets)– and I would unequivocally advocate against that right– then the only way to properly protect yourself is to abstain from exercising your right to speech entirely. This very real “chilling effect” is the reason that rights of individuals and employees must be protected.
Very eloquently put. Thank you.
Facebook is the devil.Don’t write comments about people that are your”friend” Duh.
I’m not sure if we’re confusing exercising a right with the consequences of exercising that right: I have the right to express my opinion, but should the target of my opinions be deprived of a response? Limiting or disallowing an appropriate response is just as “chilling” as limiting or disallowing the initial opinion. If the result is being fired, then the question of “wrongful” termination can only be determined on a case-by-case basis. Some firings are warranted and some are not.
Whistle-blower laws are somewhat different, in that they protect the employee in cases involving factual evidence of unethical or illegal activities. I don’t think whistle-blower laws are aimed at protecting someone from their own faulty or ill-conceived opinions.
If I express nasty opinions and experience negative consequences, I’d blame the person in the mirror. Just my opinion.