Hacker News Reader

Comment by bluetidepro | Hacker News Reader

I completely agree that it was not right for the sexual misconduct to happen in the first place. Not debating that at all. That is wrong on all levels. But...

>LinkedIn is an extension of the workplace, similar to going into the office or attending a corporate networking event, the theory of the case goes.

I don't get how that could ever be legally enforced? Wouldn't a lawsuit like this would forever change LinkedIn if they won? Not even related to this sexual misconduct that started this, I could easily see so many people bailing from LinkedIn if it was somehow considered an extension of your workplace directly. This will be really interesting to see what happens next with this.

View on HN

It probably won't affect LinkedIn much, even if the courts were to rule strongly in favor of the plaintiff. Reason being is that this guy was using his work account, meaning he directly represented the company. If it was his personal account that he uses for himself only, I doubt there would be a case at all. But this fool was using the company's account and directly representing the company, just as would be the case if they were talking on the phone or face to face. If he's conducting company business, the general rule is that the company is responsible for their employee. That's pretty much always been the case. The fact that this happened on the internet or, specifically, LinkedIn, is largely meaningless. That's why I don't think it will affect LinkedIn at all. Employers already know the risks about choosing who represents them.

> Reason being is that this guy was using his work account, meaning he directly represented the company. If it was his personal account that he uses for himself only, I doubt there would be a case at all.

Ohhhhhh. Wow, yeah, if that's the case that definitely changes it more. I didn't realize that very distinct difference, I missed that part in the article. I didn't know LinkedIn had "work accounts." I just assumed all the accounts were "personal." I just thought it meant like they were messaging from their normal "personal" profiles and because he had "x" company set in his LinkedIn that meant he was "representing x company" in this context. This makes a lot more sense now knowing that detail. Good catch! :)

It's very unclear from the article. LinkedIn does have various services for companies but, in the context of this article, it's not at all obvious that this is something equivalent to a company's twitter handle.

While I certainly think of LinkedIn as largely a professional thing (and would never send these sorts of messages regardless), some of the discussion further down in the story seems off-base. At some level, I'm associated with my company in all non-anonymous or pseudonymous social media but beyond that level I'm not sure why LinkedIn would have some special status because LinkedIn likes to position itself for professional networking.

The article didn't make it clear if it was a personal or a company account, but the interaction began with him trying to recruit her. So clearly in this instance he's representing the company, regardless of what account he's using.

Oh agreed. Even if we were talking about a personal email account (which would admittedly be odd), the same would apply. I was more referring to some of the comments further down in the article that seem to argue for LinkedIn having some special status as a network only for purely professional interactions.

The information about account is in the sentence "received sexual messages from a banker—using his corporate account—who had been trying to recruit her."

Yes. I read that. I also know that LinkedIn has paid services such as company pages as well as for sharing content. And LinkedIn may have special paid accounts for recruiters that I'm not aware of. However, other comments further down in the article from the company suggest this was just a regular old LinkedIn account. Hence "unclear."

> I could easily see so many people bailing from LinkedIn if it was somehow considered an extension of your workplace directly.

I think it's important that in this case, the LinkedIn account being used was that employee's work account, used to represent the company for company business (recruiting), normally during work hours. It wasn't the employee's personal account.

I'd liken it to a uniform. A uniform is in the possession of the employee, it even has their name on it and is their size. It also has the company's name on it and it's clear that someone wearing it is representing the company.

This is like if someone wearing a uniform came up and started harassing you.

I don't think your uniform example follows. Is someone in that uniform who doesn't actually work for the company still representing them?

If they're employed by the company and off the clock, yes. If they're impersonating someone from the company, yes, but fraudulently.

I'm talking about another case, they are not employed by the company, and not pretending to be an employee, but are currently wearing the uniform.

This isn't possible. The act of wearing the uniform constitutes pretending to be an employee.

I too am curious about how they will define LinkedIn.

From a mannerism/general code of conduct - I agree that it should be treated like an office or work-related event.

Legally - it's a weird stance. If it's a direct extension of your workplace what will that mean for NDAs and corporate policies? Do they "own" the rights to all information you post while working there? What happens when you move on?

The owners of an office building or event venue don't get any of those privileges either, and yet the office and work-related events are unambiguously governed by workplace rules. The fact that LinkedIn is not your employer doesn't seem like a big problem.

Sort of - LinkedIn may combine things from different employers or seeking of a new employer, which your current employer may not at all approve of. So you can't really apply workplace rules to it directly.

You could say the same thing about hallways in an office building with multiple tenants, but I don't think it's legally ambiguous whether propositioning your coworkers outside the restroom is more appropriate than doing it in the office.

Definitely - heck, you could argue any interaction between coworkers like that could impact the job.

Just that many other such interactions that occur on linkedin might not, so job rules really don't apply just because it's work related but more because you're dealing with a coworker.

I disagree strongly. LinkedIn's primary purpose is connecting talent with people who want to hire that talent. Spending my work time looking for a new job would be bad. Recruiting people for a new venture I'm starting while at a work event would also be bad. Doing either of these on linkedin is more than acceptable, it's the whole point.

If you are using a company account under which you represent the company, you presumably are doing things the company wants -- such as recruiting others to come work for that company. You also are subject to the company's policies, just as if you were interacting with someone in the office.

None of this should be surprising to anyone.

It also can't possibly be true. You don't have to be employed to be on linkedin, ergo it cannot be the extension of a workplace under all circumstances.

This doesn't follow at all. You could just as well say, "You don't have to be employed to be in a business office, ergo a workplace cannot be a workplace under all conditions."

This is semantic gymnastics around the word "workplace," not a reasoned evaluation of the circumstances or whether it's reasonable to expect workplace-appropriate standards of behavior on LinkedIn.

>You could just as well say, "You don't have to be employed to be in a business office, ergo a workplace cannot be a workplace under all conditions."

False equivalency, the vast majority of people in a business office on a day to day basis are employees of that business office.

LinkedIn is a /recruiting website/. Unemployed people are a key part of it's core demographic.

The guy was using a company account.

That doesn't make the statement "LinkedIn is an extension of the workplace" true.

Acting in a disreputable way while wearing clothing that represents my company could get me fired, but that doesn't make the local supermarket an extension of my workplace just because I walk in there with a company shirt.

If you walk into a supermarket wearing clothing that represents your company, and you say "I am a representative of the company, acting here in my official capacity as that representative, and what I say and do here reflects the policies and positions of the company", then you better believe you'd get busted the same way this guy did.

Which is, metaphorically, what happened here: when using the company account you're not a private citizen in a t-shirt with a logo; you are the company.

>then you better believe you'd get busted the same way this guy did.

Yep, I /totally/ agree with you. Still doesn't make LinkedIn an extension of the workplace.

Please think about what that means for at least one second. For most software engineers, if LinkedIn is an extension of the workplace, then by the wording of their employment contract (which invariably includes IP ownership clauses for everything done in their capacity as an employee), their employer owns all their content on LinkedIn, and could request it any time.

That potentially makes it very hard for software engineers to use LinkedIn on a private account to look for a new job without their boss knowing.

Again, you gloss over the single most important phrase: when using a company account.

Absolutely no-one has expressed a desire to lay claim to your personal LinkedIn account. If you continue to argue that this is about personal rather than company accounts, I will interpret as a sign of explicit bad faith on your part.

See also: apparent authority, the agency law doctrine that deals with the situation you described.

This is mostly about shaming the guy. Whether or not the allegations are true (I didn't see the evidence), his name is forever besmirched. I did laugh a little when I googled the guy's name.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com