5 ms·

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

by Clent 4y ago

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.

yucky 4y ago
This is not a free speech issue, the government isn't involved. Why would companies want to pay people to publicly trash them online?
- bryankaplan 4y ago
  You're conflating the 1st Amendment with free speech. The former is rooted in the latter. Free speech is a natural right, applicable to all situations. This is a free speech issue.
  - yucky 4y ago
    This is the argument used by people who think you should be able to say anything on Facebook, Twitter etc. And the response is always the same - you have the right to say what you want, but there are consequences. In this case, firing.
    - Gigachad 4y ago
      You made the same mistake as the higher comment. Yes, this is how it works legally in the US. But the concept of free speech is not tied to US law. It is a free speech issue and it’s perfectly conceivable that a countries laws would reflect these rights for social media protections.
      - xref 4y ago
        You’re agreeing with the op. You do have free speech on social media. You also have consequences. Same as on the street, work, school, playground, grocery store, car dealership…
        Gigachad 4y ago
        Employers should not and can not apply consequences for any reason they like. You could say “you are free to wear any color shirt you like, but if you pick the wrong one, you could be fired”. 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.
        yucky 4y ago
        >Arguably some speech on social media should be protected and not a reason for employment termination. 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.
        Gigachad 4y ago
        The problem in my view is tech companies have squeezed their way in to our lives and managed to get the majority to post their private conversations publicly. So posting a mild complaint about your place of work on social media has become today's version of complaining to a friend in person or on the phone. 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.
        yucky 4y ago
        >So posting a mild complaint about your place of work on social media has become today's version of complaining to a friend in person or on the phone. 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.
laumars 4y ago
It doesn’t matter if their main method of communication was crop dusting entire neighbourhoods with thousands of tattooed teddy bears. What matters is the content of that speech. If you’re publicly slagging off a company that you’re contracted with (whether that’s as a supplier or employee) then that company is reasonably within their rights to say you’re bringing their image into disrepute and thus terminate that contract. 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.

by Clent 4y ago

yucky 4y ago

This is not a free speech issue, the government isn't involved. Why would companies want to pay people to publicly trash them online?

bryankaplan 4y ago
You're conflating the 1st Amendment with free speech. The former is rooted in the latter. Free speech is a natural right, applicable to all situations. This is a free speech issue.
- yucky 4y ago
  This is the argument used by people who think you should be able to say anything on Facebook, Twitter etc. And the response is always the same - you have the right to say what you want, but there are consequences. In this case, firing.
  - Gigachad 4y ago
    You made the same mistake as the higher comment. Yes, this is how it works legally in the US. But the concept of free speech is not tied to US law. It is a free speech issue and it’s perfectly conceivable that a countries laws would reflect these rights for social media protections.
    - xref 4y ago
      You’re agreeing with the op. You do have free speech on social media. You also have consequences. Same as on the street, work, school, playground, grocery store, car dealership…
      - Gigachad 4y ago
        Employers should not and can not apply consequences for any reason they like. You could say “you are free to wear any color shirt you like, but if you pick the wrong one, you could be fired”. 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.
        yucky 4y ago
        >Arguably some speech on social media should be protected and not a reason for employment termination. 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.
        Gigachad 4y ago
        The problem in my view is tech companies have squeezed their way in to our lives and managed to get the majority to post their private conversations publicly. So posting a mild complaint about your place of work on social media has become today's version of complaining to a friend in person or on the phone. 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.
        yucky 4y ago
        >So posting a mild complaint about your place of work on social media has become today's version of complaining to a friend in person or on the phone. 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.

laumars 4y ago

It doesn’t matter if their main method of communication was crop dusting entire neighbourhoods with thousands of tattooed teddy bears. What matters is the content of that speech. If you’re publicly slagging off a company that you’re contracted with (whether that’s as a supplier or employee) then that company is reasonably within their rights to say you’re bringing their image into disrepute and thus terminate that contract. 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.