Slashdot Mirror
Ask Slashdot: Companies That Force Employees To Join Social Networks?
First time accepted submitter rubeon writes "Companies can get a lot of mileage out of social networking services from the likes of Google or Facebook. Chat, document collaboration, and video conferencing using services like Google+ Hangouts or Facebook's Skype are seductive additions to an IT arsenal. But a lot of people have privacy concerns about these services, and there's no shortage of horror stories how these sites track and exploit their users' habits. Would you work for a company that forced its employees to join a social network?"
Create a @ Work account, simple This also means you can easily avoid problems such as this: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-16338040
Other than Facebook itself, and Google, has anyone actually been asked to join a Social Network by their employer?
(No, Gmail does not count).
I've heard of people being asked to follow twitter, but that's hardly a social network, and its far from bidirectional.
Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
If I were looking for work, I'd take the job, and just add the bare minimum of details to the site. Get a bit of political clout with the supervisors, then conveniently forget to log in for a week, or a month, or "oh dear, I forgot my password, and I don't know what email account I used to sign up".
Having been unemployed recently, I'd much prefer a paycheck to a bit of already-compromised privacy.
You do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want.
Just introduced here - no-one seems to be 'forcing' us rank-and-file to use it though. I imagine it will disappear in a year or two, as soon as the people who's bright idea it was to introduce it get another bright idea...
"The greatest lesson in life is to know that even fools are right sometimes" - Winston Churchill
Why would I have any problem working for a company that forced me to join a social network? I wouldn't join with the same profile that I used personally. I would keep my business activities with the site strictly segregated from my personal persona (if any). But if the cost of losing your privacy as an employee to a google or a Facebook accrues almost entirely to your employer, not to you.
Maybe they can make it a condition of your job to join, but can they really make you use it? Just telling them that you don't post much because you're not that kind of guy or gal would be a hard argument for them to refute.
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
grab the Diaspora source and host your own internally.
Grab your coat, and exit the building.
There are tons of collaboration packages, and even Google Docs, without the need to join a social network.
Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
There are so many things an employee can screw up online, I though most of the corporate and government employers would prefer you not be on a social network.
As for the question - who cares? Business accounts are business accounts. You can blog and facebook and plus all you want for the company with a company account. Just to let your business and personal life (accounts) mix. What's so hard about that?
Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
You just create a "work account". The same way I have a company email account, phone extension, business card. I've carried a pager or been "on call" for certain work-related things in the past.
There are likely other better things to make a big deal out of.
sign up for any other online service like video conferencing etc.
Create account Company_X_employee_2843753875 and use it for work purposes ONLY. Nobody is forcing you to use it at home, do they?
When you leave the company you give them the account and password so there is no BS like this http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-16338040
After all, why can't all us "infidels" and "philistines" demand equal respect for our beliefs? Just because ours are based on the real world (and provable) doesn't mean that they are less deserving of respect than other people's fantasies.
Or join- and to make it interesting, make the first one a suggestion about how the company really needs a better sexual harrassment policy.
And make your second post about how you wonder how the company makes a profit when certain managers are taking 4-hour lunches.
And make your third post ... IF they let the experiment go that far ... about the obvious drug problems.
Let's call it what it is, Anti-Social Media.
I dont think that joining a social network means you are required to post personal information or opinions, I have joined alot of the current and past social networks but it doesnt mean I post private stuff to any of them
Seems obvious that your employer can require that - why not?
Just make sure that you maintain a really clear separation between work data that put into this account and your private life and accounts.
I'd opt for no linkages whatsoever between the two.
I'd also ask specifically what happens to that account and the associated data if you leave the company. You'll want it to be nukeable when you go.
Three Squirrels
You two are really obsessed with each other.. you should really get a room.
I know what you're thinking: that's stupid.. we're both guys, and I'm not gay.
You're confused about your sexuality, and you're feelings for each other. You're concerned about your repressed latent homosexuality.
But this 2012, and most people are ok with other peoples sexual orientation.
So please, will you two just hook up already? The rest of us are getting tired of this BS.
I think you're the one who's asleep. Skype is owned by Microsoft.
Disclaimer: I work for Jive Software, one of the leading vendors (if not the leading vendor) of Social Business Software, so take it for what you will. I'm just a hosting engineer though - not a marketer.
That said, I think this question actually entails two separate issues. The first one is, will having their employees collaborate socially save them time, money, and energy? I've seen many, many examples of companies coming to depend on social software - there are plenty of examples on Jive's site (and it's not just blowing smoke, I've seen firsthand evidence of this and have even talked to some people on the sales floor who swear by it). Some customers I work with have grown so dependent on social software that they cannot tolerate even a minute of downtime. Social business is, in many ways, the wave of the future, and to criticize companies for trying to get on the bandwagon and realize the benefits for themselves is not something I'm prepared to do.
The other question is: Should the company provide a sandboxed environment for this kind of collaboration, or should they force their employees to use solutions that potentially violate their privacy or have other issues? I'm not going to say that any of the solutions out there such as Facebook have those issues necessarily, but they are obviously very much less sandboxed and do not have the interests of corporate and personal privacy in mind near as much as a vendor whose software can be sandboxed to provide some safety for personal information and company secrets.
At Jive we eat our own dogwood, and we use a social instance of our own software in the company, and I can't imagine working without it. But if a company were to force me to collaborate on publicly available sites where my grandmother (for example) would also post, I'd seriously wonder what they were smoking.
For linux tips: http://www.linuxtipsblog.com
Why any company would trust sensitive internal information to Google is beyond me.
Let's call it what it is, Anti-Social Media.
I'm fairly young and I already start getting reactions along the line of "Are you a criminal or what?" when I tell people I don't have a facebook profile. Also, I'm pretty sure the police would be watching people without public social network presence for they are hiding something for sure. Fortunately for me, they're probably too lazy to get up from facebook.
I don't use social networks, so don't know a lot of their details. But one complaint that I commonly hear is that people can tag photos of you, and even if you don't have an account, Facebook will link this information together to create a hidden profile of you.
If your employer requires you to use your real name and information when signing up for an external social network, and your friends who use that same social network post pictures and other information about your personal life, is it possible that the network will associate this information with your work account, which will then bring it into your bosses radar?
If it is a private company network, then no problem. But if it is a public social network, it seems like it could create the same sort of problems that occur when bosses force you to friend them with your personal social network account.
Like in areas of what groups you are part of and other areas that a job can not ask you about.
Now maybe linked in is ok as long as it stays professional and they don't want you to post / talk about lot's of non work stuff that falls under ares covered by discrimination laws.
I wouldn't join with the same profile that I used personally.
Exactly. My work email address is different from my personal one, and likewise for social networks. The profile set up by my employer is used for work purposes only - it's got nothing to do with my personal life.
One could just use the account for promoting the company or whatever they want you to use it for while leaving any personal stuff out of it. What would really worry me is not being hired because when they try to do some facebook based background check on me they come up with nothing and figure I must have "something to hide" because "everyone is on there" and only antisocial oddballs are not on facebook
I could not disagree more with every single component of what you just posted.
For linux tips: http://www.linuxtipsblog.com
On rereading, except for the first sentence before the comma.
For linux tips: http://www.linuxtipsblog.com
Despite what Fox News might say, we're not a fascist, socialist country here in the United States and you still have the right to tell your employer to go fuck themselves and get another job. There's no monarch/dictator/cabal/regime telling you where you can and cannot work. An employer in the United States CANNOT force you to do anything that you don't want to do, because you can leave the company and get another job. The whole issue is ridiculous. Even if you did not want to quit, the state in which you live may have labor laws to protect you from such abuse of personal privacy making it impossible for them to enforce such an offensive policy. So, no, a company cannot force you to do anything you don't want to, and you can possibly defend yourself and keep that job if you want.
Exactly what I said, here http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2680545&cid=39095997 But, with the included caveat that you may be able to keep the job as the policy may violate labor laws (or privacy laws, now that I think of it) in your state. This is a non-issue as unless OP lives in a country with no labor or privacy laws, and a totalitarian regime that tells you where to work, you don't have to work for them, or you can fight back legally and keep the job.
You should get a job as a Community Manager. They indeed can make up all the details. Including the name
For linux tips: http://www.linuxtipsblog.com
Sign up with a new account and compartmentalize your activities appropriately.
Unless a network enforces one account per individual.
With different emails, profiles, behaviors, etc how would they notice? Likes, interests, posts etc should be completely segregated between professional and personal. Maybe use different names as well, for example the formal Michael on the business account and the familiar Mike on the personal account. They can't really tell from IP. Maybe Michael is a father's account and Mike is a son's - again, avoid personal info like birthday's etc on the business account. A business account at a particular company has no need to contain birthdays, schools, etc.
Facebook uses skype for Video chatting. So you have your regular skype and Facebook's skype.
I'm asking an honest question here... can anyone elaborate on how a social networking site (not the users of such sites) have "exploited their users' habits"?
The blurb is making it sound like Anne Frank was discovered because she posted on Facebook. I'm just looking for justification of how bad the submitter makes this out to be. For me the closest I've ever felt to "exploited" on any of these sites is a random ad for something I'm a fan of/group member of.
Oh noes! Teh evil Facebook is raping me because I shared my interest in Pink Floyd with them! Someone call the police!
Remember way back to earlier this week, when a Saudi expat tweeted something and is now going to be executed for it?
On the other hand, people on Facebook are encouraged to play Farmville, which is another type of punishment.
"I zero-index my hamsters" - Willtor (147206)
Why any company would trust sensitive internal information to Google is beyond me.
Why not? They already have it, anyway - I just did a search and found it.
No joke - one place I worked, the best way to find out what was really going on was stick some key executives' names in Google and see what turned up. (No, no criminal records, amazingly enough.)
This has come up twice so far. Both times have been to require all full time employees (49% or less are exempt, as well as intermittent are exempt) to create a Facebook and Twitter account using their real names (if they do not already have one), provide real company contact information, and follow/join corporate groups. We have been very lucky that it has been shot down each time it has been brought up. I fear that it is only a matter of time before a VP decides to push the issue himself and then will be pushed through. Half the group didn't blink an eye about it, the other half are deeply entrenched against it. I fall on the side of completely against forcing an employee to join a public social network with their real identity.
I cannot say strongly enough how horrifically bad this advice is.
If you make a habit of going to HR when they ask you to do something that is even tangentially related to your job duties and essentially demand a payoff, if you last years it's pretty much a miracle. Hallelujah.
For linux tips: http://www.linuxtipsblog.com
I distance my work and personal stuff, but they wanted me to follow them, so I did.... no big loss. I've got sufficiently non-mainstream opinions on enough stuff that they really don't want me tying things tight anyway... what with my whole (9-11 was an inside job, Ron Paul for President, Cold Fusion really works, Back to the Gold Standard, we're in the Greater Depression) view of the world... it's non-corporate friendly (besides, corporations aren't people anyway).
I'll patiently wait for JPM and the FED to implode while I read back issues of the stuff from the time monks for a very long time before anyone wants me to be their corporation's friend. ;-)
Be sufficiently human, and only other humans will want to around.... and some will value you highly. Heck, one might even help you make other humans. ;-)
With different emails, profiles, behaviors, etc how would they notice?
For one thing, correlations between people tagged in the same photo.
avoid personal info like birthday's etc on the business account.
As I understand it, all major social networks operating in the United States collect date of birth to be COPPA compliant.
As long as they let me be Rumpelstiltskin.
...damned if you don't?
So, first people complain that their employer is blocking or limiting their internet access because they spend too much time on Facebook, now they're complaining that they're forced to sign up for a Facebook account? Oh boy...
Bitten Apples are still better than dirty Windows...
This exact topic recently came up at a local Inn of Court, and after a bit of discussion, the consensus among the judges and attorneys present was that the company would be liable for all the stupid things the employee did with that social network account.
There is a real reason companies typically have one single spokesman and many have a PR department.
If the company wants to use such systems for collaboration, fine. Who am I to tell them how misguided they are? But the company account will be for company business only.
Have gnu, will travel.
I've told ya once, if you would look at my comment history you would see that i'm Australian.
Judging by the fact you've included me in your list of 'Known puppet accounts' i highly doubt the credibilty of the rest of your list.
i spent five minutes thinking and all i got was this crappy sig
I'd tell them that I have no interest in so-called "social networking" nonsense, and that I'm not going to waste my time with it -- which is the truth, and they can go search all those sites all they want, and they won't find any accounts of mine on any of them, and it's going to stay that way.
Are YOU using the TOOL, or is the TOOL using YOU? Think about it!
I would not.
I've told ya once, if you would look at my comment history you would see that i'm Australian.
Judging by the fact you've included me in your list of 'Known puppet accounts' i highly doubt the credibilty of the rest of your list.
Unless you are a puppet without knowing it. Ever seen the Manchurian Candidate?
lucm, indeed.
or a cylon!
If the pay is right, this isn't an issue.
> Honestly, that's all just hyperbole. There's nothing wrong with Facebook.
It's not what Facebook does with your data, it's that Facebook gives employers excuses to fire you, universities to expel you, etc, etc.
Ever gone to a pub *WHILE ON VACATION OVRSEAS* and bought some alcoholic beverages? A teacher has been fired for that http://www.gadailynews.com/news/61845-teacher-ashley-payne-fired-for-posting-picture-of-herself-holding-beer-on-facebook.html
For a whole lot more horror stories, do a Google search
http://www.google.com/search?q=g+fired+facebook+post
"About 53,100,000 results (0.10 seconds) ".
And it's not just about angry rants and compromising photos
Ever indicated support for a politically liberal position? If your boss is a political conservative, they'll look for reasons to fire you. Ever indicated support for a politically conservative position? If your boss is a political liberal, they'll look for reasons to fire you. Your religion and sexual orientation are obvious targets. What about idiot "friends" who post racist remarks on your wall?
Ever reached for your mouse and accidentally clicked "like" on a porn site... oops... that now shows up on your wall.
Ever applied for a loan, mortgage, or credit card? Your Facebook friends can screw up your credit rating. See http://www.pcworld.com/article/246511/how_facebook_can_hurt_your_credit_rating.html
and
http://www.betabeat.com/2011/12/13/as-banks-start-nosing-around-facebook-and-twitter-the-wrong-friends-might-just-sink-your-credit/?show=all
Simple risk-management... don't touch Fecesbook with a 10-foot pole.
I'm not repeating myself
I'm an X window user; I'm an ex-Windows user
Would your employer be allowed to give out your name/birthdate/address/etc/etc to a 3rd party like a marketing company? (I'm not talking about a court order or subpeona). If the answer is "no", then they should not be able to make you do so. If they want "an internet presence", they can damn well get a corporate account (Fanpage) on Facebook.
I'm not repeating myself
I'm an X window user; I'm an ex-Windows user
What's the difference between creating a work account with facebook, and creating a work account for webex?
You just put the minimun info necessary to register, and don't need to share anything, or use it outside work, so there's no tracking that can be done really (just your working hours, but any other web-based third-party too use your can have the same privacy issue).
Grab your coat, and exit the building.
Absolutely. I have asked my employer to "f**k off", when they asked me to put my personal mobile number on business card. I am not on Facebook and if my prospective employer is going to judge me based on that and not by my coding skills, I better not work for him/her.
hilarious
I think it's hilarious you got modded troll for this post. Just goes to show that they seem to be up to the same tactics they're claiming of other people.
Since I only ever used the business cards for self-promotion (you're not giving them out to people that will call with actual problems unless forced, and then make sure you give *their* number a different ring tone so you can block them) I never had a problem with putting my own numbers on them. My company did, but I never did :)
Someone asked me once why I didn't answer the phone in the weekend. I told him that since it was a private phone, I could turn it off any time I liked, so if he wanted to reach me on that number he'd best stay within normal work-hours. Never got another phone call after hours from that guy.
Fun fact: business cards from one of the best known companies in the world open a lot of doors in China (and likely, other countries as well).
In the vein of Dilbert: learn to use corporate resources to your advantage, not your detriment :)
Therefore, by the (faulty) logic you're using, you're just a cow with a keyboard - osu-neko (2604)
I was once told that 2 out of every 1 people working at the BBC has a multiple personality disorder
da da da dum indeed.
Hi,
I just want to let you know that you'll probably get modded -1 flamebait, troll or off-topic for these types of posts.
That has nothing to do with your annoying posts or the fact that they are completely offtopic.
It's because most of us are actually puppet accounts by this guy you're bitching about and negative moderations only proof you are right.
You're not paranoid, we (by which I mean all the puppet accounts, which are really just one person) ARE out to get you.
Thank you for your time.
Slashdot social media options: AIM, ICQ, Yahoo, Jabber and Mobile Text. Why no MySpace?
I always wondered where Anonymous Coward works.
now we need to go OSS in diesel cars
Employers cannot tell me what to do in my private life with my own name (besides telling me not to do illegal things or things that do involve the company). My job function would never be that kind of thing. Maybe some kinds of jobs would need it (TV news personality, HR investigator, etc ... but I don't do those kinds of jobs). I did set up a Skype account for teleconferencing, but that was in the company name, not my own (the company owns it, not me). But my company has no rights to my identity. Firing me over this means I have to pick which one of my 5 lawyers friends is going to make a boatload.
now we need to go OSS in diesel cars
I still like to imagine that no sensible European employer would force me to do so. If it happened, I would quit. Immediately. For fear of being associated with the ridiculous, the mundane and the modern FB-proletariat.
Religous speak to God. Insane are spoken to by God. When all shut up, one can finally hear Shostakovich in peace
So what is the penalty for flat-out lying to them?
A permanent ban should your lie be discovered, perhaps. Your accounts will get blocked, and should you try to create a new one, the provider might press charges of theft of service.
That was probably back in the same era when you walked uphill both ways, in six feet of snow and across broken glass to school. Right?
I've only got one birthday left between me and fifty - and I've been practicing information compartmentalization practically all my life. Even as a pre-teen I was up to things (like heaving rocks through the windows of an empty house) that I didn't want my parents to know about. On the flip side, I didn't want my friends to know that I played with Barbie dolls with my sister. Etc... etc...
Not to mention things that society found objectionable while I was growing up... Being gay, or dating someone not of your race, or religion, or that you weren't married to for example. You sure as hell compartmentalized those.
Just because we didn't have a term for it doesn't mean we didn't practice it.
I can't believe I am saying this, as I think FB is evil, but I don't see what the problem is as long as the organization doesn't want you on their social network after hours, on your own time.
It is going to be for the job, work related, so anything you post about is going to be about work........not your personal life. Just make a separate account.
I have several friends who work for non-profits that require them to have Facebook accounts. Each friend has a separate account for their personal lives. Nobody would find anything aside from informational postings about what their org is doing on their work accounts.
My employer has an electronic communications policy that forbids employee's from participating in the company's social networking sites unless it is their job to do so. We can't "like" their posts, or respond to tweets etc. I work in the financial industry, and the company is very protective of their credibility. We do have an internal social networking site to promote collaboration.
I think any company that tries to "stuff the ballot box" by making employees sign up for accounts is barking up the wrong tree. They'll have an active looking social networking presence, but it won't yield the benefits that having a real community of clients will.
You can force a horse to water but he might prefer a cold glass of Pepsi; therefore I would join but do it in such a way as to make it a worthless effort on their part. If they have to police everyone to get them to make it useful then it is very expensive. But that is the rebel in me talking... I don't know how the corporate me would respond.
Force me to sign up for a social network? Sure thing. That's way less invasive of my privacy than asking me to pee in a cup.
I went to eat some animal crackers and the box said, "Do not eat if seal is broken." I opened the box and sure enough..
Here in California no problems whatsoever.
If Pandora's box is destined to be opened, *I* want to be the one to open it.
I have a stalker situation and any company that couldn't respect that would be immediately "fired".
Personally I am not on facebook or any social networking site; I would refuse to join any social networking site even if the company demanded it. It just goes to show that any company who requires you to do such a thing is "lower than a snakes belly" and quite frankly wants more PR, will most likely sends out spam email and treats employees like shit!
All cows eat grass!
I don't even have an account here on /.
When would they be expecting you to post on it? During or after work hours?
I work at a major corporation, and we have an internal social network that we might actually sell as a product (it's a big corporation!). It is nowhere near as polished as Facebook or Google+, and I simply don't use it. Our marketing and sales people do, but I'm not one of them. Thy start to force you to use it for entering in paid-time-off and holidays and stuff, and it's the only reason I use it.
If it were something hosted outside the company, I'd definitely be concerned about what is written.
I'm starting to think I'd really like to work for one of these employers that requires its employees to join a social network, albeit briefly. I'll start posting confidential information to the service, publicly, using it to communicate that confidential information to my cow-orkers. If they complain, I'll just say "hey, you wanted us to use this social networking service for our communications, so obviously you trust it to be secure".
This would probably be an easy wrongful termination lawsuit for people in some states.
He never claimed otherwise, he just said Facebook uses Skype for video chatting (which may or may not be true, I don't know as I don't use Facebook's video chatting, and almost never even log into my account there).
My Lenovo laptop computer uses a hard drive from Western Digital or Seagate or Hitachi, but it doesn't own any of those companies either.
yah that would go over quite well unless something in your contract/employee handbook could be used.
Any person using FTFY or editing my postings agrees to a US$50.00 charge
Swiggle D. Leggboan. Go ahead, look me up. I don't know the direct-to-profile link, sorry no clickie-poppie.
Pavlov wouldn't be so famous if he'd used a can opener instead of a bell.
"Would you work for a company that forced its employees to join a social network?"
Of course not.
It's really sad how (based on responses to this story) there are apparently lots of slashdot posters out there who are so desperate for a master to pull their chains, and toss them a cookie every now and again, they will sign or do anything to get a job. We live in a society full of slaves.
Heh. I'm a supposed sockpuppet, too. Is this Bonch? I guess I'm on his enemies list.
i think it's hilarious that i got added to the list of known 'puppets'
oh how i've wished for a hand up my ass...wait i didn't really say that did i...WHERE'S THE CTRL-Z BUTTON FOR REAL LIFE?
captcha: rampage ... wait that only makes it worse doesn't it.
i spent five minutes thinking and all i got was this crappy sig
well yes, thank-you. i have been working out.
i spent five minutes thinking and all i got was this crappy sig
Rhineland was occupied during that year. Austria & Czechoslovakia hadn't been annexed. Tirpitz and Bismark were barely started. Molotov-Von Ribbentrop pact not in place.
So it still wasn't the finished product and there was time to turn things around, had the will been there.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
I wouldn't mind joining a social network with my work email, and posting work-related stuff. I WOULD object to joining with my personal account with all the non-work stuff and wondering if I unfriended/deleted that old HS guy that posted racist stuff before the boss saw it.
Slow down, cowboy! It has been 4 hours since you last posted. You must wait another few hours.
The real question is; "Can they make you agree to the EULA?"
Competition Good, Monopoly Bad.
They force you to do it. Then there are the ones who thrive on it like Chambers. Remember- they guy who 100% botched the mobile Flash announcement?
quis custodiet ipsos custodes