Social media is no longer a side technology, it is the main method of communication for a generate or more of adults.
Demanding workers adhere to a restriction on their inalienable right to free speech cannot continue.
Demanding workers adhere to a restriction on their inalienable right to free speech cannot continue.
The only issue social media brings I to the equation is that it makes it much easier for silly people to post silly things to wider audiences (and easier for employees to evidence that silliness too).
Now given this employees job is support and that she’s already named the client that her employees serves, this could theoretically impact her employers renewal as a supplier (because that client are just as much in their right to terminate their contract as the employees are). Which is a pretty serious problem and might even cost her employers more than one FTE in lost revenue — in fact I’d almost guarantee that would be the financial cost to her employer in such a scenario otherwise it wouldn’t make financial sense hiring that employees to begin with.
So what would you do? Keep an employee on the payroll who is costing you more than the value they add? Also bare in mind that they’re (if I read the article correctly) still within they’re probation and thus are still yet do demonstrate themselves.
In this instance the company’s approach is correct: review her case but make it explicit that a potential outcome might be dismissal. This is exactly how a well structured HR department should operate even within territories with much stricter employment laws.
The fact that she’s still sharing internal company discussions despite now being aware of the reach is has and the potential ramifications shows a lack of remorse. And that wouldn’t help her case during the review.
Why would companies want to pay people to publicly trash them online?
That may be true in America but it isn’t in other countries. Arguably some speech on social media should be protected and not a reason for employment termination.
If I stayed to insult my employer (wherever, including social media) they would have the right to fire me.
If I do not agree, I can go to court.
Of course, the nature of my comments matter. If I say that I like the color blue and they do not, they cannot do anything.
If I say that their products suck, they will fire me and the court will agree.
If I say that their products are dangerous (whistle blowing) then they can try to fire me but I will be protected by law.
you may also share your political opinions, something US companies seemingly often like to stop, as long as you are not disruptive.
Why? Not saying I disagree, but I find the selective support of this concept interesting. So I'm curious to hear your argument and the framework for determining what speech should be protected on a private platform.
Yes I do think employers do have reason to want to protect their image online, but I also don't like the situation where people are always under public watch. So either you should be allowed to say these things on social media without losing your job, or social media companies should be cracked down on for what they have done.
Significant difference in audience size and staying power of the comment. Telling a person privately stays private and is likely gone forever. Even if they blab to someone it's just second hand at that point. Posting shit about your employer on social media is more akin to putting it on a billboard or writing an op-ed in the paper trashing them.
I’m saying the system is at fault here. Either what the tech companies have done or the fact that a normal action is now a firable offence which has become a new problem.