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?"
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.
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)
Go home and post anonymously. You can't hold corporations to be accountable if you do not speak out.
This is my sig.
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
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.
Wrong attitude.
You have a business agreement of equals with your employer, you're not their slave.
You give them time, they give you money. At no point do you have to or should you ever be subservient to them or give up any of your human rights, or anything else they haven't already agree to pay you for.
Yet for some reason especially in the USA employees let their employers walk all over them, which sends the message that we're all a bunch of pussies that will put up with anything, so the employer does it even more. Basically its the fault of every employee with an attitude like yours that it can happen in the first place.
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.
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?
...and because you signed an employment contract that you have broken because of your free speech, then they have the right to dismiss you.
Unfortunately, these stupid rules on social networking get enforced because some people are severely lacking in any common sense. Some 30 years ago whilst I was at school, a teacher whom I admired greatly said one of the most important things that has ever been said to me:
"You are free to do anything you like in life but you must face up to the consequences of what you do."
And that sums up one of the major problems with society today. Here in the UK we have rampant youth knife crime because one kid will bad mouth another kid without thinking first that he might get stabbed if he says it, for example...
As for the Internet, it has made that situation worse - these same unthinking people get far too openly opinionated when they think that they're hidden behind a wall of anonymity, plus they're actively *encouraged* to voice opinions about every trivial thing that goes on when, in reality, very few people give a toss about their opinion.
So yes, you have the right to say what you want - but it's no bad thing to stop and take a deep breath to think about what you are saying first...
Gentoo Linux - another day, another USE flag.
You can narrow it down more than that - No one describes themselves as a "fortune 15" company unless they failed to make the top ten... So that leaves:
On top of that, I'd rule out IBM and BRK, just as a gut feeling that they have a bit more sense than to reduce morale with such a useless policy.
Wrong attitude.
You have a business agreement of equals with your employer, you're not their slave.
Indeed. And, as an equal, if my employer were denigrating me in public (or semi-public), I would not hesitate to terminate all agreements with them. Thus, I do not fault them if they would do the same to me.
You give them time, they give you money. At no point do you have to or should you ever be subservient to them or give up any of your human rights, or anything else they haven't already agree to pay you for.
Indeed. And under no religion, or charter I am aware of is the right to be abusive without consequence a human right.
Yet for some reason especially in the USA employees let their employers walk all over them, which sends the message that we're all a bunch of pussies that will put up with anything, so the employer does it even more. Basically its the fault of every employee with an attitude like yours that it can happen in the first place.
I, for one, am not a pussy. I wield the ultimate power over my employer: the right to walk away if I am dissatisfied in any way, at any time. And I see nothing in the summary that would make a reasonable person exercise that right.
Or he'd just get fired. And that's a black mark on your career, especially as the court case drags-on and gets published in papers. I think there are better ways to handle it such as:
- Instead of signing the agreement just scribble some illegible scrawl. That way if it goes to a court of law (very unlikely), you can deny signing the contract, "Huh? That's not my signature. It's obviously been forged. My signature looks like this..."
- or - Cross-out the part you find objectionable, specifically the "outside of work" section. A company can control what you say on the clock, but off the clock they can not. And then sign it using your customary signature. I do this with those stupid patent agreements - what I invent in my basement, on my time, is MINE not theirs.
You have to stand-up for liberty, else they'll take it away. Don't make it easy for them.
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
How do you cross out a portion of a web form with 'I agree' and 'I do no agree' buttons?
Like it or not that is what is happening.
It's not like human beings haven't been drinking, doing drugs and flashing naughty bits since before recorded history. Only now we can create permanent, accessable records of all of it.
I won't argue that this is a good change, just that it is an inevitable one.
When the time comes that a Google search will find naked pictures of 1/5 (1/3, 1/2, 3/4) of the population then those activities will no longer be viewed in the same way that they are viewed today.
I didn't think of that. My employers always made me sign an actual piece of paper with an actual signature. Is an agreement checkmarked on a screen binding? How do they prove that *I* did the checkmark, and not some HR flunky, or the pointy-haired boss? I don't think they can.
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
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
False. Signing is not enough. They must also be able to prove the signature is tied to a specific person, and if you made an illegible blotch of ink across the page, then there's no verifiability. The contract is null and will be rejected by the courts.
One assumes you're not going to lie to cover your own ass (whether in court or otherwise) -- I like to believe that most folks learned to stop doing that sometime in their teens. If your honor means so little to you (or if not that, than your trustworthiness to others), then have fun with that.
When did 'denigration' and 'abuse' enter into this? Any 'denigration' or 'abuse' can be addressed by slander and defamation laws. The post clearly said 'negative'. A corporation could easily consider the TRUTH to be 'negative'. While they (corporations) have a definite right to protect certain proprietary and confidential information, they have NO right to cover up immoral and / or illegal acts. It is not only the right, but the responsibility of a member of a free society to question authority. As long as you have a choice, yes, you have that right. However, when one corporation gets away with something, then others follow suit. When virtually all the corporations have the same draconian policy, then your choice, along with your right, gets taken from you. I, for one, refuse to be a sheep or a tool. * - I originally posted this anonymously, and as a result my reply was hidden. That is an answer to the people who say 'just post anonymously'. Even /. seems to frown on anonymity.
One of these days I'm going to cut you into little pieces. - PF
>>>One assumes you're not going to lie to cover your own ass
Why not? Politicians lie all the time. Ditto corporations. So too do cops, and courts have stated cops are allowed to lie. ("No I'm not recording this," even though they are.) If they are allowed to lie, then I'm allowed to lie too. That makes it an even playing field in the adversarial legal system, where virtually anything goes.
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
Both my direct manager and the head of HR know our passwords.
There's a sure sign of a problem right there.
But neither can your signature really be used to link you, handwriting analysis is only so good after all...
That's why people witness other people's signatures, because otherwise there really isn't any reason to trust even well-formed marks on paper.
But ultimately, it's just even-more marked-up paper.