4 ms·

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.

ubernostrum 9y ago
The guy was using a company account.
- Sir_Substance 9y ago
  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.
  - ubernostrum 9y ago
    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.
    - jbronn 9y ago
      See also: apparent authority, the agency law doctrine that deals with the situation you described.
    - Sir_Substance 9y ago
      >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.
      - ubernostrum 9y ago
        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.
chc 9y ago
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.
- Sir_Substance 9y ago
  >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.

ubernostrum 9y ago

The guy was using a company account.

Sir_Substance 9y ago
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.
- ubernostrum 9y ago
  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.
  - jbronn 9y ago
    See also: apparent authority, the agency law doctrine that deals with the situation you described.
  - Sir_Substance 9y ago
    >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.
    - ubernostrum 9y ago
      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.

chc 9y ago

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.

Sir_Substance 9y ago
>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.