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!
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
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.
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.
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
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.
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?
Is it still ok for them to police your personal conduct when you're at home using your own network?
African or European?
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
...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.
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.
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.
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
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