Slashdot Mirror
Social Networking Behavioral Agreements At Work?
r0nc0 writes "My company (a Fortune 15 company) has recently required everyone that accesses the company portal to accept or decline an 'agreement' that governs the use of social networking. It basically states that any discussion of the company or any of the work that you do, whether at the office or at home, must be governed by their rules of social networking. Naturally these rules are that you never say anything bad or negative about the company, nor do you say anything bad or negative about anything. It's presented like a EULA, but if you decline more than 3 times your manager is notified. Naturally I declined it each time until my manager complained to me about all the email he was getting about me not accepting the agreement, so I went ahead and accepted, knowing that anybody who cares would just post anonymously anyway. This is the first time I've run into a forced agreement about social networking, and the agreement is so broad that it can't possibly be enforced. I've tried pointing out that agreements like that only drive people away and aren't necessary anyway, but I might as well talk to a brick wall. Has anyone else out there run into social networking behavioral agreements like this?"
I think you just violated it. Oopsie!
They are getting a little annoyed by all the time I've been spending on GoatseSpace ("A place for rear ends").
That's less of an enforceable EULA, and more of an excuse to fire. This way the company will have a (more) legitimate excuse if they fire you for something said about the company. They'd fire you anyways, but this just gives them more 'grounds' in case you go back and try to sue them.
What actually happens if you would have kept declining? Does that actually impact your salary or continued employment? And do they consider /. to be a "Social Networking" site?
Personally, I think it'd be worthwhile to mail the text to the EFF.
If brevity is the soul of wit, then how does one explain Twitter?
Naturally I declined it each time until my manager complained to me about all the email he was getting about me not accepting the agreement, so I went ahead and accepted, knowing that anybody who cares would just post anonymously anyway.
Umm, congratulations on signing away those rights. You should have told him politely that you intend to keep declining the terms, and that he should talk to the people in charge of the system about the massive amount of pointless messages it sends out which prevent real work from getting done. Simply accepting the terms because it is annoying isn't a good idea in my book.
IIRC there are no laws preventing companies from subjecting employees to micromanagement even off the clock aside from those rendering any "indentured servitude" contracts void.
Given the proliferation of electronic surveillance tools I think it's time to pass some, and we have a progressive president who is likely to be receptive if enough public momentum can be built.
If you have a decent CV, i'd dump that job of yours as soon as the economy picks up, and tell them exactly why. Encourage others who are talented contributors to do the same. When the company sees its most productive members going byebye they will cease with the policy.
Btw, grow a pair and name the company so i can avoid applying there.
VLC FOR MAC IS DYING! IF YOU DEVELOP, PLEASE SAVE IT!!
Don't use social networking at work.
Secondly, don't use social networking at home with information or pictures that could identify you at least to the public.
If you want to talk about things without retribution, you need to do it anonymously or without your real name.
And as an aside...
Back in the late 90's when the internet first took off, most of the internet users never used their real name for anything. Maybe we were all geeks and loved being able to role play bad asses (aka trolls) on IRC, forums, and online games, but I'm just shocked these days on how people use their real names for just about everything.
It was assumed back then, the only way people could get to you was if they knew your real life info and now today it seems that people give it out by default without giving a second thought.
"I am the king of the Romans, and am superior to rules of grammar!"
-Sigismund, Holy Roman Emperor (1368-1437)
Working for a well-known retailer in the UK part-time while at University, one person I know lost their job because of (or at least partly because of, there *were* other factors) comments about the company and some people working for it on a social networking site. Shortly afterwards, the guidelines on computing were revised, and everyone asked to sign them, including a section on not posting negatively about the company or its employees "for example social networking sites or web-logs (blogs)"
Go home and post anonymously. You can't hold corporations to be accountable if you do not speak out.
This is my sig.
You're taking their money, right? In that case, bend over and take it like a r0nc0.
What Would the Fab Five Do?
I believe they have increased boldness because the high unemployment makes them less concerned about how they will replace people they fire for one or another petty infraction of the rules.
And most of them are just excuses to get rid of "problem" elements should an issue arise. (proprietary data leaks come to mind)
My employer makes us sign a code of ethics that's really just common sense - nothing really intrusive (if you end up on the front page of the local paper with your company badge on robbing an orphanage, or if you're stealing from the company or if you're falsifying paperwork, you're probably going to be fired). Other companies see it as a broad license to exert control over things they ought not.
The only problem I've had with it is the "agree to this new requirement to keep the job you've been doing" approach. (I know, I know - fairness and uniformity)
I wish folks would keep these agreements in mind when they get on their soapbox about "anonymous" posters being "cowards" for not putting their names to their comments. (that attitude always sounded to me like someone who was trying to figure out who to exact revenge on anyway)
DISCLAIMER: This post was not checked for speling and grammar- if you complain- you're a whiner
Ass covering exercise. If you (the worker) call $famous_person a $bad_thing it ain't their fault - it's yours.
Only three things are certain; death, taxes, and apocryphal quotations - Ben Franklin.
If possible, you could have avoided it. Where I work, the web-based resources I need aren't part of the same site and could be accessed without going through the portal.
And if this "agreement" was only on the front page of the portal, you may have been able to bypass it by navigating to a different page within the portal.
Seems pretty straight forward to me. If you use their network, you play by their rules. Not discussing work outside of work is nothing new. You wouldn't go downtown and post internal information about your copmany on a bulletin board or telephone pole, why put it on Facebook or Twitter? Seems like this is mostly just common sense. They probably need just to have it in writing so when they fire you for being on Facebook all day they have something to cover their asses. C.Y.A. That has always been policy in any business.
Whoever the attorneys are for this outfit are fools. It is likely they didn't do so well in law school and had connections.
Seriously, this is a stupid legal move for all of the reasons presented by the original poster.
Ah well. I guess bad law students have to eat, too.
Either that, or the managers wrote a legal-like document without understanding the law. Good for anyone who then needs to sue them later, but bad for the company.
If it really says that you can't say anything negative about anything publically, then wow.
Most employers have clauses about saying things in public about the company that are negative, or that would, by association, put the company in a bad light.
It's rather a tough call. For example, you're at a conference, holding court in the hallways, telling people what a crock of poop the competitions product is, in terms that are perhaps "less than professional". This calls the professionalism of your company into question.
Whenever you're operating under your corporate persona, you are generally bound by the rules of conduct. If that is spelled out in your employment agreement as "behave nicely in public", then I think that they're merely covering all their bases by being explicit about social networking sites.
But to broaden it, to include public statements made by you under your non-corporate persona is stretching things. If my private self spouts off about what a moron my ex wife is in a public forum, the company can hardly claim that I was speaking on behalf of the company in that context.
The fact is, that you can contractually bind yourself to giving away some of your free-speech rights. It has been the cost of having a "mega corporation" job for a long time, since long before the Internet was big, and social networking sites were around.
You don't say where you live, so I assume you're in the USA, partly because you mention the Fortune 15. I know little about US employment law, but my perception is that it's heavily weighted in favour of the employer.
Your employer would be on very tricky ground in the UK. Unilateral variations in your contract of employment can't enforced over here, I'm happy to say. Sometimes employers make contract variations a condition of benefiting from a pay review, but even that's fraught with difficulty. We also have a concept of unfair relations in contracts that your employer would probably be breaching unless they could demonstrate that good chat room behaviour was critical to your ability to do your job. Finally, your employer would be likely to receive claims of discrimination unless the rule were enforced unifomly against all employees.
In the UK... it would almost certainly be worthless. Fancy moving to a real country?
I worked for a company that had an off duty conduct policy. It was intended, I think, for people who get arrested or convicted for things that happen while they are not at work, eg drunk driving. However (comma pause for effect) it was generally used against people who complained about their boss or work on their own time. Kind of like this.
That company is IPC International Corporation. It's a contract security firm, so I doubt many people here would work for them, but throwing it out there just in case. It wasn't the way I would have liked to leave, but I thank G-d every day that I never have to deal with them again. It may seem like I have a lot of resentment toward them. Maybe I do... hindsight being 20/20 I should have taken unemployment and finished my degree. (which I am doing now.)
Also that policy applied to the guards, maybe not management. Or it may be even more restrictive for management.
An agreement such as this likely covers two areas: first, badmouthing the company on social sites (it wants to protect itself) and second, using social sites for personal reasons, rather than for work-related reasoning.
If anything is the case, sooner or later, workplaces will have to accept that social media blurs the lines between work and life even further. I'm on Facebook Causes for my workplaces, although my personal account is linked to the Facebook Causes.
Social media policies are the knee-jerk reaction put in place by individuals who don't yet see that blurred line, nor understand how to work with, rather than against, social media services. It's still something that's being figured out, anyway, so there's an excuse (so they say).
Cheers,
--Dave
1. If it it bothers you enough to post on /. find another job. Seriously, if it's not a good personal fit, then find a place that is a better fit.
2. While you can probably work there for quite a while in this state, at some point the tension will probably do bad things to your overall physical/mental health.
3. that you never say anything bad or negative about the company, nor do you say anything bad or negative about anything.
I make mistakes and I'm not human perfection, so... Someone please explain how that works because I don't get it.
4. Please, tell me the name of this glorious organization so I can steer clear of this distopia.
http://www.maxineudall.com/2010/02/should-economists-be-sued-for-malpractice.html
Let's face it the moment you were hired you were presented with the same/similar document outlining what you could and could not say about the company. This is just a friendly pop-up to remind all the kiddies just out of college that Facebook is not exempt from the NDA they didn't read.
As far as I know it is quite normal that an employment contract forbids you to talk negatively about your company in public (during and after your employment). So they have a legal means of firing you if you simply expose corporate malpractice to the public. That can make it difficult for employees to defend themselves especially if they depend on their income.
There's no way I'd agree to something like that, I have a right to freedom of speech!
Are YOU using the TOOL, or is the TOOL using YOU? Think about it!
My employeer(?) asks me to not mention who I work for on any kind of social networking site/chat rooms, but the reasoning for this is my work has implications which may lead people to believe that I am able to access things which I can't, and its a blanket request for the whole company, who I just happen to be covered with (I work in IT... lol, so unless its a request for data they are out of luck anyway)
I'm sure if people actually read their contracts this kind of thing is pretty normal/standard but sometimes presented under another light of "I wont do anything to make the company look bad, be it while I'm working, or while im not".
Even in my previous retail roles as a shop assistance all the contracts I've signed had this sort of agreement - covers them if you say something stupid/incriminating and they suddenly need you to "disappear" out of the company.
- http://www.milkme.co.uk
Prior to handing it in to your manager/HR person, ask them to clarify the bit about bribing foreign officials. Tell them you want to make sure that it's only for company purposes and you can still bribe foreign officials for non-company-related business. Hilarity ensues...
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
Looking at the current Fortune 15, a whole lotta those companies have been in the news. I can imagine his company wanting to minimize any amount of bad publicity they can, right down to the musings of their employees. Citigroup, in particular, who received a fair amount of bailout money, may not want it known if its rank and file employees are using extragent perks. Just an example.
Karma: Can only be portioned out by the Cosmos.
seriously, that's how MBAs see it. what it comes down to is this: if you talk, use no name. if you don't talk, you could use your name, if you could have talked.
or you can post using library computers requiring no check-in procedure, and under the CEO's name.
if this is supposed to be a new economy, how come they still want my old fashioned money?
See, "your fired" is the possessive, whereas "you're fired" is an abbreviation for "you are fired": so, my fired what? Ceramics? Weapons? Inquiring minds want to know!
Do you really, seriously, legitimately believe that a judge is going to fall for that?
Does this apply to your working hours and/or use of the work network, or does it bind you in your own time and on your own hardware?
Exceptions are like STDs. You really don't want to catch the ones you can't recover from.
1) Never give your real name or address to a one night stand, and 2) Never say anything online that can be traced back to your work persona. If you criticize your own company, it carries more weight because you are an "insider". If you criticize another company, they can sue your company because it has deeper pockets than you as an individual. Also, if you have stock in the company you work for, anything you say about the company online is probably subject to SEC rules. Conclusion: if you absolutely have to facebook, create a separate private and career persona. Don't associate any information with the private persona that links it to your real name or career (trust me, you wouldn't be the first person that has ever lied about their personal details in their facebook profile!).
Not that it applies to anyone here, but the Michael Phelp's Corollary also applies: If millions of people recognize your face, you should be extremely careful about where and with whom you engage in embarrassing practices like taking bong hits. And the Paris Hilton corollary: Never, ever, under any circumstance, allow yourself to be recorded while having sex, or even while displaying your naughty bits. Think about it: is a cheap necklace of mardi gras beads really worth the embarrassment of showing up in a "Girl geeks gone wild!" video?
I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
African or European?
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
One company I worked for required that we list all our copyrights, websites and other intellectual content to avoid any conflicts with the company policy that any idea that pops into your head at work or at home belonged to the company. Several people offered to quit outright over the policy, others got clever by listing the URLs of every Slashdot they ever posted, and some threaten to sue. This soon became an unmanageable mess that the company was forced to drop the policy.
Ask if the "social networking" restrictions apply while playing golf.
Would that include speaking disapprovingly of negative comments about the company? Or natural and man made disasters?
Seems to me you protest that you simply can't in good conscious refuse to NOT say anything bad about either 9/11, or your supervisor's tragic and daily bouts with STD's. But you *will* cheerfully agree to their terms when they give you a specific list of things, actions, situations, ideas, and adjectives about which are not to say negative things about - and given you adequate time to commit the list to memory.
Your choices should be:
1. Don't do any browsing at work at all
2. Bring your own gear (Say like a nice Dell mini 9) and use mobile wireless. If this isn't allowed at work, go to choice #1 and get over it.
The right way to handle company policy is NOT to have you sign an "agreement" but rather have you sign an acknowledgment that you have read the policy. By taking their check, you've already agreed to comply with any and all legally enforceable company policies.
Wrong:
"I agree not to speak negatively about the company. Sign one of these: ___Yes ___no"
Right:
"It is against company policy to speak negatively about the company. Violations of company policy can result in disciplinary action including termination. Sign here: ___ Acknowledged"
It's a bit heavy-handed but at least there's no pretending you "agree" to anything.
If your company's way of doing business bothers you, circulate your resume. Just use a headhunter who can do it anonymously and don't be so detailed that your own company's recruiters spot you.
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
Why is this not in the YRO section?
1 Exxon Mobil
2 Wal-Mart Stores
3 Chevron
4 ConocoPhillips
5 General Electric
6 General Motors
7 Ford Motor
8 AT&T
9 Hewlett-Packard
10 Valero Energy
11 Bank of America Corp.
12 Citigroup
13 Berkshire Hathaway
14 International Business Machines
15 McKesson
My guess is the author is talking about IBM considering the douche bag things they've doing to their employees lately - like canning them and sending the jobs overseas. Then telling them that they can keep their jobs if: 1. They move to India. 2. At an Indian salary.
Maybe we should start a pool?
Restrictions on social networking may be an example of the "new" technology-driven world reflecting what has always been policy at many large companies.
Thirty years ago, my boss forced me to fire someone who was a member of a social group (outside of work that) my boss found to be objectionable. Mind you, this employee never opened his mouth or said anything unprofessional at work.
My boss took me aside and explained to me that like it or not, every employee's "personal life" could always be construed as a representation of the employer and so any publicly controversial image was grounds for termination.
What I found out then and is even more true in the US today, is that as long as your reason for firing someone is not directly based on their age, race, officially recognized religion, country of national origin, or recognized handicap, that you can pretty much fire them for any other reason (or non-reason), work-related or not.
Some of the freedoms for the "pursuit of happiness" in the US are reserved for the unemployed and entrepreneurs.
I accepted this reality early in my career. It is not the bravest position. Then again, I am not the bravest of people.
Live Long and Prosper - Thanks Leonard. You are missed.
You went ahead and accepted even though you knew it was wrong.
Its people like you that make employers think that this sort of shit is even a possibility.
Good luck with whatever even more restrictive crap they now put you through just because you caved like a pussy the first time.
The policy is so broad as to be unenforcable?
This says to me that anyone at a suitable rank in your company can initiate disciplinary action against an employee who uses social networking. The policy isn't designed to be enforced or even to change anyone's behavior. It almost seems designed to be abused.
When the axe came to the forest, the trees said, "Look out - the handle was once one of us."
Well, I print out a copy of the agreement. They take the opportunity to unilaterally present terms, which is exactly what I turn around and do, so it's equitable. If they don't HTTP POST the entire agreement back to themselves and review it, that's their problem.
Do you seriously think a judge is going to fall for such a non-negotiated, coercive "agreement" truly being a binding contract?
Just accept the damn thing and then try to route your data out somewhere the blue coats aren't. Or maybe they are some other proxy but I heard they are blue coats. At least they don't do the MITM thing with them to see all your SSL traffic. BTW, ssl vpn works outbound so you can also connect to your house and go from there. I thought about declining just to make waves and see what happens but I just don't care enough.
Veridian Dynamics, Forcing you to do what's right... ...for us.
He's an Australian crayfish? You did know that's what a marron is, did you not?
Or perhaps you meant to say that you are a moron?
Down With Slashdot BETA!!! I've been around the corner and seen the oliphant; you can only abuse me from your perspecti
The string cheese incident with the Domino's employees is going to have quite a number of employers adding social networking to their "acceptable use" boiler plate.
The company I work for has a similar policy and they basically stopped me from working until I agreed to it.
So, here you go:
The person next to me is named Jim, on the other side Flo.
Our main product uses TCP/IP and slows to a crawl if you telnet to the control port. Our R&D budget is non-existant.
Enjoy trying to find me, because I'm not an idiot and I posted this anon via a proxy that you won't be finding anytime soon.
Just curious.
So your company doesn't want to hear about bug reports, UI problems, security issues, etc.
How dumb can a company's management be?
On numerous occasions, I've bought something partly because the vendor was open about problems. If a company pretends that there are no problems with its products, I suspect that they're suppressing news about something really awful.
(Note that I've avoided any Microsoft bashing. ;-)
Those who do study history are doomed to stand helplessly by while everyone else repeats it.
What is the corporate workspace? If the corporate workspace includes social networking sites, then the corporation damn well better try to regulate employee behavior on those websites. If it doesn't, then the corporation may find itself liable for the acts of its employees on those sites.
Besides, any business has a right to fire anybody who contradicts the company line and thereby damages the company. Companies don't need to clutch vipers close to their breasts, that's for sure.
All the complaining wage slaves posting in this thread ought to put themselves in the shoes of an entrepreneur running a new company. If THEIR business was threatened, then they'd look at things in a different light.
While I'm ranting, it's the same thing with the copyright complainers. If THEY independently created something productive, useful and profitable, you can be darn sure that they'd be ranting against the thieves stealing their work.
The FA of the US Constituition regulates the government, specifically the Congress but after interpretation the whole federal gov. The gov can't stop you from talking, especially about the gov itself. It has nothing to say about private parties, who can say what, where, when, and what the consequences are if for instance, you badmouth your boss while off work and he finds out about it.
Here is a decent summary.
Good judgement comes from experience, and experience comes from bad judgement.
- W. Wriston, former Citibank CEO
corporations have policies to cover their corporate asses in legal situations. aside from that, nobody in the management chain gives a damn about this policy or most of the others you've agreed to.
It's about time some folks with spines showed up.
Good judgement comes from experience, and experience comes from bad judgement.
- W. Wriston, former Citibank CEO
Whatever it is, if you don't go along, then your boss gets harassed because his people are not in compliance with corporate policy. His pay might be affected and it will be YOUR fault. This kind of pressure works well because you are likely to be friends with your immediate supervisor. Show me where to sign on the petition to resume clubbing baby seals (only the cute ones).
Sorry, but gray text on gray background is making my eyes bleed.
Slashdot does have a "friend" concept. I'm sure it's underutilized (and hopefully all dev time is spent elsewhere if that's true), but that gives it a social aspect.
Slashdot "friend" isn't a social tag. It's just the word they used for setting a bit that says "I'm more likely to want to see what this poster has to say than the general users' moderation would predict. So:
- show it to me at a lower moderation level,
- tag it with a colored dot to attract my attention, and
- also tag other posters that THIS poster has similarly tagged that HE wants to see."
That doesn't necessarily translate to the social meaning of "friend" (though it's likely to be positively correlated). For instance: While most of the people I've tagged as "friends" are, based on their online statements, also people I'd probably want to actually befriend, there are a couple that I tagged because they have opinions that diverge wildly from mine but are interestingly reasoned and/or phrased.
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
I work for a 'too big to fail' financial company, and they have a similar policy.
The policy is that if you mention you work for the company(in your facebook or linkedin profile, say), you have to behave like you're representing the company.
This means(and this was mentioned specifically in the training, but not in these terms) that if you say "I'm a financial adviser with X company" it wouldn't be appropriate to have a photo of you doing bong hits in college on that same public profile.
On the one hand it's them trying to control what employees do in their off hours. On the other, I can see where it could negatively impact the company's image and reputation. Not that they're all that stellar right now anyway.
For me, I don't mention where I work on my facebook profile anyway. And I won't be posting the bong photos to linkedin.
I would not accept that kind of rule. What I do outside my work hours is my own business, and nobody else's. As long as I am not slandering or libeling my company or the workers there, it is nobody's business what I do on my own time. (And if I were, that would be legally actionable anyway.)
This is how I would present it to management: If they want to tell me what to do when I am "off work", then they can pay me for that time too. If they want to do that, fine. If they don't, too bad.
If they are telling me what to do, then I am at work. Period. I would not let them have it both ways.
First thing I did was firewall off most of the major social networking sites. Which for the most part cures the problem for everyone concerned. Anyone trying to get around that, would be fired anyway just for trying.
Second, I notified anyone I catch using one of those sites from my network that they get three strikes and they are fired, unless they have express permission. Accidentally ending up on one for whatever reason does happen. Just don't hang out there at work.
Third, I really don't care what they do on social networking site on their own time, but I definitely care what they disclose about my buisness on the social networking site. They need express authorization to discuss anything work related on the internet, or anywhere else for that matter.
This is not about censorship, this is about security and violation of their confidentiality agreement. None of my employees are qualified to make judgments about what can and can not be disclosed on the internet about my buisness.
I don't want to Google things related to my buisness and find out I got knocked off the top of the search engines with a bunch of comments from employees. That includes flattering comments.
What is our number one hands down tried and true technique for breaching any sort of security? SOCIAL ENGINEERING!!!
So, you want freedom of speech, you can have all you want at the next job; but, you still will not be able to discuss my company because it is also in the confidentiality agreement. The one I pay employees for complying with not just as a condition of employment, but as a major part of the job description.
Living in Chile
The agreement doesn't have to be enforceable, they just have to be willing to spend more on lawyers then you are. That's a fight they're pretty sure they can win.
They wanted to know if any employees had been *lobbying* for anything.
I responded that I had no lobbying aspects to my position with the company, and that anything I did outside of the company was none of their damned business.
If I was asked to do this by a start-up, I'd feel I have a right to be annoyed. But not a Fortune 15 company. Managing such a large number of employees requires specific contracts and agreements.
is there any whistle blowing legislation the agreement violates?
There are good policies and bad ones.
The characteristics of good ones are:
- They're framed in terms of protecting the employee FIRST (coming to a mutual understanding of acceptable behavior), *then* the company.
- They don't insult the employee's intelligence.
- They're simple.
- They don't attempt to squelch free speech and *only* seek to put guidelines around online behavior of-or-concerning the company (which isn't an unreasonable request).
- They're *integrated* into current HR policies and handbooks, not treated as an inelegant bolt-on.
- They don't fall prey to the fallacy that the online world excuses behavior that is reasonably considered bad form in the offline world.
It's not unusual for a company to have a code of conduct that isn't part of your official contract. The rules in it may not mention social networking, but the principles are the same - non-binding guidelines on being a "good corporate citizen".
And to be frank, anyone publicly airing "insider" information about their employer doesn't have leg to stand on. With the exception that if it was someone acting as a whistleblower concerning illegal events. But there are laws for those cases in western nations at least.
Not sure what the issue is ... corporate IT resources, and how they are used, are always! within the control of the company. And, in most states in the U.S., high tech employees can have their employment terminated at any time for any reason. So ...not sure why you need work access to internet postings that would put you in this situation. But I think people are just not happy about having to agree to an agreement. To me the real issue is that you can have your employment terminated when you state your own [negative] opinion about a company on your own nickel!
I wish folks would keep these agreements in mind when they get on their soapbox about "anonymous" posters being "cowards" for not putting their names to their comments.
Obviously you shouldn't sign the company name unless your working for them at the time. However your company does not own rights to the name you where given at birth. How people choose to identify themselves is a personal choice.
An SQL query goes to a bar, walks up to a table and asks, "Mind if I join you?"
Why was this modded funny? I absolutely don't get the joke.
The range of MV of any round is dependent on lots of things; in full-pressure loadings, mostly the bullet weight and barrel length. But there are dozens of factors that can come into play. So the question is legit. "If you fire a .223 through a chonograph, what range of readings can you expect?" is a reasonable, if esoteric, question.
In the U.S., the answer would normally be expressed in feet per second. I assume that in both Europe and Africa, the answer would be expressed in meters per second. So what's the humorous contrast between Africa and Europe?
The GP was listing esoteric questions to illustrate a point and this one seems to fit that bill. So I don't get why the "African or European" response was modded funny. I just don't get it. Somebody help me out.
BTW - Who said "Analyzing humor is like dissecting a frog. No one enjoys it and the frog dies."?
how do they expect your comments to turn out after the whole firing thing... Now you have someone who was already pointing out flaws online who is actually pissed at the company and not having his career held over the fire.
Not sure if you're being brilliantly disingenuous, but your aside at the end leads me to believe that there's a possibility you honestly don't get it. (That and the fact that I met someone in real life who'd never seen, nor even heard of, "The Princess Bride" two days ago, and who was being utterly serious with me.) It's funny because it refers to a running joke in Monty Python's The Holy Grail:
Scene 1, swallow carrying a coconut
And spoiler alert if you've not seen the movie, don't read this (it really is much better to experience the dénouement by watching the film): Scene 23, the Bridge of Death
if they fire you for not signing it you are free to say or do whatever you like in regards to the company so long as it isn't defaming or libelous, that is to make things up and as long as you don't violate any NDS, so if you wanted to you could start a website or blog based on it if you so desire, as well it might just be a good idea to start a site for ppl to post about shitty experiences that they have had working with companies. So long as there is an EULA that you sign when signing up to post (that states that you are not responsible for anything said) you could not be held for anything that others post. Personally I would love to see a comprehensive database of companies and worker experience/ratings/comments that you could search before working at a job.
There are libraries that don't require you to log in? Al the ones here (University, Major city, and town where my daughter's school is) require that you have a library account, reserve the computer, and log in. One even requires that you have less then $1 in fines.
IANAL, but by the sound of it, you could probably make the case that because your boss complained to you about it that you were under duress - the implication being that you would have lost your job had you not accepted the agreement, thus nullifying the agreement itself. Furthermore, I assume you signed a contract when you started working for your company stating "I will show up to work in accordance with these measures for the compensation of $x per year." This agreement would be an amendment to the previous agreement, but since you're not being compensated additionally in any other way, there's no consideration on your part, thus further nullifying the agreement itself. Honestly, we should have to take basic classes in contract law. I'd argue that these days it's almost as important as balancing your checkbook.
The safest bet is to just not use your real name when blogging, and not let the company find out.
OK, mark it. Loss of human dignity occurred at 18:29 Tuesday.
I'm sorry, did they want to hire a human or a robot? If they wanted a robot, they should build one. Oh, they can't get a current robot to do everything they need done? Well, I guess they have to hire a human then. And that means they GET a human and not a robot.
I'm human, dammit. The company can replace me with a less problematic robot once one exists. Until then, they can take their dehumanizing bullshit and cram it.
You say you work for a fortune 15 company. Well, from this link (http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune500/2008/full_list/) #15 is IBM. I find it likely that is where you work. If you had said a fortune 100, or even 50 it wouldn't be so obvious. The only more obvious thing you could say would be "I work for a fortune 17 company that I can't name" or "I work for an undisclosed fortune 1 company."
Ninjas don't carry tic tacs
At a Fortune 500 company I was at early this year near the end of my stay they suddenly came out with a few regulations during our group's sexual harassment "seminar":
1. You are not allowed to do ANY social networking while at work
2. Anytime you are in public and anyone can recognize you as an employee (even if there is no visible or audible means), you need to talk and behave as if you are an employee
3. And they removed any non-regulated means of electronic communication from the internal networks.
I'd already realized the company was no good for me, but this just seemed insane! Even if it is just an excuse to be able to fire people... this is not a business practice, this is discrimination and, well, I'm not sure what all. Fascism?
8-PP
If you live in a right-to-work state, also known as a right-to-fire-without-cause state, your job is pretty much at the whim of your employer unless you are under a union or individual contract.
There are a few things you can't be fired for, like gender or race, but if you don't follow legally enforceable parts of company policy they can get rid of you without cause, and can make a pretty good case for a for-cause termination for insubordination if they don't want to pay you unemployment benefits.
By the way, the "agreement" can be as simple as HR telling you before you start "here's the employee manual. You won't be allowed to clock in until you turn in this sheet acknowledging that it's policy and that we can fire you if you violate it. Furthermore, we can amend policy any time with reasonable notice. If that bothers you we can rescind your job offer right now, or you can resign at any time." The minute you clock in you've just agreed to abide by the policy subject to for-cause termination if you do not.
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
... drinking the corporate Kool-Aid. It's institutionalized groupthink.
Just say no to that shit, and yes to freethought, honesty, and full disclosure.
I ran into the EXACT same issue (I can only assume the company he's discussing is the same as my own). I tried to find contact info for out legal department so I could discuss my concerns, but was unable to find any contacts. I ended up finally accepting the agreement when the system wouldn't let me access any of the data on our intranet that I needed to do my job (ie: look up coworkers' email or phone #).
FYI, the company is McKesson
Oh snap, did I just violate it!?
AC shield, save me!!!