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?"
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!!
Perhaps most importantly, is it even legal for them to force an existing employee into new terms of employment in his jurisdiction?
A good practice for the employee is to never say anything regarding your employer's business that you have not been authorized to say on your employer's behalf, period. Another is to never allow your personal opinion about something outside your company be mistaken as a company statement. The usual "these thoughts do not necessarily reflect the views of my employer" disclaimer is usually effective for the latter.
It's scary that they are having people agree to something through harassment, though. Everyone should have notice and a chance to show it to their own counsel before signing it.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
I don't know why they force you to agree to it. Unless there's some sort of union agreement or tenure issue, most people are at-will employees, at least in the US, and can be fired at any time for any reason.
Maybe the issue is firing for cause, which allows companies to get out of their obligation to pay unemployment, as I understand it, but if it's just a matter of separating the wheat and the chaff, they don't need an agreement to do this.
It goes like this: "Hey, look, this employee clearly isn't happy, and instead of dealing with their manager or colleagues, they're airing their dirty laundry to the world. This isn't the kind of person we want to trust with our trade secrets. G'bye!"
A better company would have identified the problems sooner by using good performance management methodologies which would encourage open and honest communication among the ranks, but many companies can't be bothered. There's a growing sector of the talent management software market that deals with this because some companies do realize that they can save a lot of cutter by keeping their good employees happy and not resorting to these sorts of punitive measures.
The CB App. What's your 20?
Sounds like if he did not accept the EULA-style agreement a few times and they keep asking him, he's being harassed at work. A good lawyer would put a stop to it. And if he did get caught out, then a good lawyer could definitely make a case that he was badgered into agreeing.
XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve the problem, use more.
most people are at-will employees, at least in the US, and can be fired at any time for any reason.
You mean, can be fired at any time for _no_ reason.
It's an important distinction (since there are reasons you _can't_ be fired for). See also FMLA, ADA, etc.
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.
That's reasonable.
That's not. It defeats the purpose of, you know, engaging with the society through networking: how you have an identity and you identify as part of the group? Socially?
Sure. But anonymity is a precious commodity, and very hard to come by these days. The point of social networking sites is to encourage openness and communication.
One should not have to adopt the tactics of the (literally) secret society in one's spare time. Your approach reminds me of Agent Smith asking Mr. Anderson what good a phone call will do him.
>>>is it even legal for them to force an existing employee into new terms of employment in his jurisdiction?
Probably not. Just because you sign an agreement, does not make it binding. During the Paypal trial, most of their user agreement was declared "null" on the basis that citizens can not sign-away rights/privileges enforced by State or U.S. law. So eventually I think you'll find most of these corporate-enforced EULAs that forbid discussing the job while at home will be nullified by the courts - probably on the basis of Constitutional law - we just haven't reached that point yet.
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
I used to work for a GOV contractor at a Nuclear Site. They had us sign something similar about safety. Basically saying we would be safe all the time even when not at work! How do you even drive your car after signing something like that?
What's the proper pressure through your car's PVC valve? Your mechanic probably knows.
No he doesn't. He looks it up in a manual, if for some unknown reason he would need to check it. More likely, he'll do a few tests that rule out other parts and then replace it if it's bad.
How long do you cook a 2" thick steak on a 675F flat grill to get it medium rare? I bet some high school kid in your town can tell you from his job at a restaurant.
The answer is, "HOLY FUCKING SHIT! GET A FIRE EXTENGUISHER!" There's no way in hell you'd have a flattop grill at 675F. With flattop grills, the use of oil to keep product from sticking is mandatory. Even the highest high-temp oil will smoke at 500F. Other oils will smoke at about 400F-450F (including beef fat). As such, flattops are generally kept between 350F and 425F. (I've seen a few people go to 450F but that's usually the grills max temp, and it requires a lot of dilligence to keep shit from scorching.)
Anyway, at a more reasonable temp of 425F, a two inch steak will take like forever. No one cooks two inch steaks on a flattop grill. You'd blacken the piss out if it before the center hit room temperature. Instead, you sear them on a flame-broiler and finish them in the oven. It'd still take forever though. Probably two minutes a side on the broiler and ten minutes in a 450F convection oven.
What's the best type of broom for cleaning up a spill of damp gerbil food? Is it nylon, polyester, horsehair, palmyra, PVC, or straw?
Corn.
What's a typical range of muzzle velocity of a Remington .223 rifle?
Depends on bullet weight. Probably somewhere between 2000 and 3000 ft/s.
How do you write a 32-bit adder in 6502 assembly language?
You don't. An adder is a peice of hardware.
Whats the technical flood stage of the Mississippi river at St. Louis, MO's official measuring point?
Zero. Flood stage is always at the zero mark on the measuring device at a river.
What's the third note of the melody in Wagner's Ride of the Valkyries?
F# Alright, I didn't know that one off the top of my head, but I could have figured it out with a CD of a performance of the Ring and a piano.
So there, I'm educated.
Also, I've never read a comment and thought to myself, "hmm, that was insightful, maybe we could play together."
/. it for discussing news stories.
That's too bad actually. I've actually made friends on the Dot who I've actually been able to even meet in Real Life(TM) on occasion. There are many here who actively write journals, I do occasionally, but you can actually meet some very cool people through them. So, if you come across a comment that is funny, insightful, or worthy of extra reading, I'd encourage you to see if they journal, too.
True, which is why I think the prohibition on speaking poorly about your company would carry more import here than on on MySpace, Facebook, or Twitter even. If your company ends up in the news for all the wrong reasons, an employee posting negatively about it to slashdot would likely carry more weight than someone doing similarly on MySpace. I'm not saying that slashdotters are automatically credible, just that commentary on a news site will carry more credibility than a message on someone's "Wall."
If brevity is the soul of wit, then how does one explain Twitter?
Funny, for me it's been the reverse--from a young age I felt that it was very wrong to lie and almost never did (and always felt bad about it). Only later did I discover (much to my surprise and, when participating in it, discomfort) that being disingenuous and even lying outright is not only widely accepted in the adult world, but very often expected.
This is especially common in business, I've found, where being perfectly honest on a résumé and/or application will practically never land you a job, especially on those "why do you want to work here"-type question (let's face it, 99% of the time the real answer is "I want money and this job sounds like it won't suck too much"). Then there's "networking" which often involves creating a whole false persona. It's sickening, but damn-near unavoidable, and certainly considered to be normal and acceptable.
Strangely, I have never had to fire anyone for it. In fact I have only had to warn one or two people, and that was mostly back when I discovered it had the potential to be a problem.
People got along just fine before social networking sites. You really can live without them for a few hours out of the day.
Living in Chile