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.
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.
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 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.
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.
Btw, grow a pair and name the company so i can avoid applying there.
You don't have to worry. Best Buy security doormen are not subject to this new policy.
African or European?
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
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.