Discussion on:
View:
Show:
This is why I don't have co-workers as Facebook friends. Former co-workers yes. I also don't make it a practice to pop off about things at work. There are way too many people on Facebook that need to get a life...
I have a number of friends at work, some who I socialize with outside the office.
But I don't have them on Facebook. Not one.
I also don't feel the need to vent my spleen on Facebook. I have many relatives, former co-workers, friends from TR etc on Facebook, and I don't share anything I wouldn't share with the world. If you feel the need to vent, do it in another medium, like email to one or two friends, not your whole facebook universe.
But I don't have them on Facebook. Not one.
I also don't feel the need to vent my spleen on Facebook. I have many relatives, former co-workers, friends from TR etc on Facebook, and I don't share anything I wouldn't share with the world. If you feel the need to vent, do it in another medium, like email to one or two friends, not your whole facebook universe.
In the United States of America, you do have the right to freedom of speech; however, there is a law of nature called cause and effect. And laws trump rights.
The report talks about the NLRB, then states the Court ruled against the non-profit. I assume the writer means the NLRB and not a court. It would be helpful to know the case names - to check out the logic (or not) in each case. Rights are protected when the government makes a move, but those rights are not necessarily protected from the moves of private (even non-profit) enterprise.
Maybe I'm just oversimplifying things here, but I'd say just don't complain about your job online in a place where the comments can be tracked back to you. If you want to complain around the water cooler, you can always deny you said anything later (unless the boss actually heard you). If you post it on your Facebook, it's a little harder to deny. Does it seem like this post is harmful? Not really. But it's probably better to err on the side of caution.
"If you want to complain around the water cooler, you can always deny you said anything later"
WOW!! Really??? So, just do whatever you want but if you get called on it, LIE??? That is some truly repugnant advice. I guess it WASN'T you I saw crashing that Ethics101 course at the local community college huh?
WOW!! Really??? So, just do whatever you want but if you get called on it, LIE??? That is some truly repugnant advice. I guess it WASN'T you I saw crashing that Ethics101 course at the local community college huh?
I think what we should take away from this is that, whether making online or in-person comments, the law is apparently going to be applied equally.
As for the "grey area" the author listed, I don't see it. The first group commented about their work conditions... a very common occurrence, I'm sure, in any office. The reporter, on the other hand, was making comments that, had they been made at work, would have initiated an HR investigation for possibly violating workplace violence policies. "You stay homicidal"? Really? That's appropriate to say in a workplace situation?
And that's the kicker. Additional information is found here:
http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/cutline/no-recourse-reporter-fired-over-tweets-employers-found-185525719.html
Apparently, since his Twitter account identified him as an employee of the newspaper, but apparently didn't include a disclaimer (i.e. they were his personal opinions, not the opinions of upper management), they asked him to temporarily stop tweeting while they developed a social media usage policy. This is no different than any office situation when management or HR realizes they need to have a policy to address a situation that hasn't arisen before. The employee's response, however, was to remove his supervisor & managers from his follower list, & continue to make the posts. He deserved to be fired for that.
As for the "grey area" the author listed, I don't see it. The first group commented about their work conditions... a very common occurrence, I'm sure, in any office. The reporter, on the other hand, was making comments that, had they been made at work, would have initiated an HR investigation for possibly violating workplace violence policies. "You stay homicidal"? Really? That's appropriate to say in a workplace situation?
And that's the kicker. Additional information is found here:
http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/cutline/no-recourse-reporter-fired-over-tweets-employers-found-185525719.html
Apparently, since his Twitter account identified him as an employee of the newspaper, but apparently didn't include a disclaimer (i.e. they were his personal opinions, not the opinions of upper management), they asked him to temporarily stop tweeting while they developed a social media usage policy. This is no different than any office situation when management or HR realizes they need to have a policy to address a situation that hasn't arisen before. The employee's response, however, was to remove his supervisor & managers from his follower list, & continue to make the posts. He deserved to be fired for that.
1. In the height of passion, type your comment into a text editor. e.g. Notepad
2. Wait five minutes.
3. Read.
4. Consider your audience and possible consequences for you or someone else.
5. Read again - edit if necessary.
6. Would you like this on the front page of the New York Times?
7. Choose between copy-paste to online or the delete key.
--- PS, personally learned the hard way... B^)
2. Wait five minutes.
3. Read.
4. Consider your audience and possible consequences for you or someone else.
5. Read again - edit if necessary.
6. Would you like this on the front page of the New York Times?
7. Choose between copy-paste to online or the delete key.
--- PS, personally learned the hard way... B^)
Should also apply it to any online communications as well: emails, forum postings, blogs, etc.
Of course, then we'd never have to dig out our flamethrowers to deal with trolls...
Of course, then we'd never have to dig out our flamethrowers to deal with trolls...
Trolls live for confrontation. They want to get noticed. They would be over the moon if the NYT published their childish rants.
I have this image of Elmer Fudd, M9A1-7 strapped to his back, whispering, "Be vewy, vewy quiet, I'm hunting trolls..."
Rule #1: Don't be a(n) (tw)idiot.
We teach that rule in class all the time. If you wouldn't say what you're about to say to an auditorium of the same people with press coverage, then don't publish it online. 'Nuff said?
We teach that rule in class all the time. If you wouldn't say what you're about to say to an auditorium of the same people with press coverage, then don't publish it online. 'Nuff said?
When you walk into any Court the entire thing is a Crap Shoot.
You never know the outcome before the case is ruled upon and most times it depends on other things than what is proported to have happened in the complaint.
In this case the person complaining about actions of the staff seems to have gone more than a bit overboard by claiming that they had a heart attack as a result of this and then not having the Medical Evidence to backup that claim.
I don't know about others but when I was doing Legal Work and even now when I appear to give evidence I always work on the idea that it's Very Bad Practice to Piss off the Judge. I've seen numerous cases where a Pissed off Judge choses which evidence to give more weight to and which evidence to ignore.
Of course getting listed by any Judge as a Vexatious Litigant who is apt to bend the truth to suit their own ends is never a good thing to have happen.
Col
You never know the outcome before the case is ruled upon and most times it depends on other things than what is proported to have happened in the complaint.
In this case the person complaining about actions of the staff seems to have gone more than a bit overboard by claiming that they had a heart attack as a result of this and then not having the Medical Evidence to backup that claim.
I don't know about others but when I was doing Legal Work and even now when I appear to give evidence I always work on the idea that it's Very Bad Practice to Piss off the Judge. I've seen numerous cases where a Pissed off Judge choses which evidence to give more weight to and which evidence to ignore.
Of course getting listed by any Judge as a Vexatious Litigant who is apt to bend the truth to suit their own ends is never a good thing to have happen.
Col
- Keyboard Shortcuts:
- Prev
- Next
- Toggle
