Support NeoGAF

[DragoonKain]

...unless those posts were illegal like bomb threats, death threats, exposing personal information or child porn or some shit of course.

But anything that isn't illegal, an employee can't be fired for it.

I was thinking recently that if I ever started a company I would implement that policy. I think it promotes allowing employees to speak their mind and promote a diverse set of ideas without worrying about losing their means of earning money. Now the one obvious counter argument to this would be "What if they went on some type of a hateful or bigoted tirade on their social media account?" And yeah, that's the one thing that made me go back and forth on this one, but ultimately I decided that as shitty as that would look, I think firing someone for that sets the precedent to allow people to go "Oh, well this person got fired for this hateful post... this other hateful post is just as hateful to some people" and opens up the door for people to be fired for whatever someone deems offensive. So I think you take the bad with the good and just implement a policy where you can't lose your job over it. And plus, you can also argue that if someone is really that hateful some of that stuff would leak into the work place and then at that point you fire them, but their social media account is their business in their own personal time.

Would you support a policy like this if you ran a business or just generally?

 

[Cattlyst]

Interesting. There's a degree of self regulation here with regards to what people might post. If, as in your example, an employee posted bigoted/racist content and it became known within the organisation, surely it would do the poster more harm as other employees would see it and it would make life difficult for them perhaps? In most companies I've worked for, workforces have been quite diverse and everyone just gets on. Having an openly racist/bigoted mindset is incompatible with that as far as I can see. And if it were a person in authority posting stuff then I could see the firm suffering once it was known about. But yeah, interesting question.

 

[DragoonKain]

Interesting. There's a degree of self regulation here with regards to what people might post. If, as in your example, an employee posted bigoted/racist content and it became known within the organisation, surely it would do the poster more harm as other employees would see it and it would make life difficult for them perhaps? In most companies I've worked for, workforces have been quite diverse and everyone just gets on. Having an openly racist/bigoted mindset is incompatible with that as far as I can see. And if it were a person in authority posting stuff then I could see the firm suffering once it was known about. But yeah, interesting question.

Yeah, I thought about that. But my thing ended up being that say someone went on a bigoted rant on a single social media post. And then they were fired for it. Well, then that opens the door eventually for someone being fired for saying "a man can't get pregnant" or "I think non-binary is a social construct." Just two examples, it could be anything like just making a post that says "Socialism is for losers" or "Fuck Christianity." Ultimately I think if an employee was hateful in his core or was racist or a bigot, that would show at work. And then would lose their job for work-related rants or incidents. But a lot of nasty online rants(like Roseanne's for example) are sparked by drugs/alcohol or a combination of both, and may be a one time incident, not indicative of who they truly are. Plus generally, I wouldn't like being responsible for setting a precedent that people should be judged based on posts. I think that moves us farther away from reality. I think you judge people for how they are in person, not on social media.

It is an interesting debate though, yeah.

 

[Taxexemption]

Ok, and then you discover that HR didn't check potential employee's social media history now your employees include Christopher Cantwell and Andrew Anglin, and you have to hire additional security because there are protests.


I don't like the current state of our society, but it is easily possible to become kicked out of polite society for holding the wrong opinions. There are people that didn't say or do 1/10 of what Cantwell did and they find themselves with few employers and when they get jobs people call their bosses and try to get them fired. You start this policy at a company they'll call you the secret nazi.

 

[haxan7]

The company would be singled out and demonized.

 

[nush]

If the social media posts broke NDA's sure.

If it was someone letting off steam about a bad day at work or a shitty manager, unless they don't name anyone. Fine.

 

[Kenpachii]

Yeah, I thought about that. But my thing ended up being that say someone went on a bigoted rant on a single social media post. And then they were fired for it. Well, then that opens the door eventually for someone being fired for saying "a man can't get pregnant" or "I think non-binary is a social construct." Just two examples, it could be anything like just making a post that says "Socialism is for losers" or "Fuck Christianity." Ultimately I think if an employee was hateful in his core or was racist or a bigot, that would show at work. And then would lose their job for work-related rants or incidents. But a lot of nasty online rants(like Roseanne's for example) are sparked by drugs/alcohol or a combination of both, and may be a one time incident, not indicative of who they truly are. Plus generally, I wouldn't like being responsible for setting a precedent that people should be judged based on posts. I think that moves us farther away from reality. I think you judge people for how they are in person, not on social media.

It is an interesting debate though, yeah.

That's not how the world works.

A boss of a company is a slave towards his biggest client(s). If those client(s) start to pull contracts because a employee starts shit which could bankrupt him or kills his profits entirely then guess what's going to happen. Dude gets culled. The boss option is frankly not much interesting on that matter, he does what's best for the company.

Even if you are the boss, u are nothing but a employee towards your biggest client that decides your faith at the end of the day.

Example

If tomorrow a nike employee says, he liked the slave time period. deal with it!.

And 90% of nikes are sold in america towards the black community and some activist group picks it up + media.. U will cull the guy the next day and start to donate large amount of money towards black community or get into there good grace again with all kinds of projects. U won't back that employee up even remotely.

They thing is, if you want to voice your opinion on the internet u better of not using your normal name. The best solution to run a social media account is have one with barely any information on other then absolute positive, then use a alias and that's where u really start posting your opinion with. This concept is sadly towards many people alien which also explains there lack of intelligence on that matter.

 

[GreyHorace]

Hell no. Any company is perfectly within it's rights to fire an employee for social media posts. Especially if that employee proudly wears their job description on their profile on Twitter or even Facebook. Need we have a repeat of the Arena Games fiasco with Jessica Price?

If you want your employees to have a free mindset and promote their ideas, allow them that privilege but keep it within company grounds. Public spaces like the internet are not the place to discuss company policy and complete strangers have no business butting in. That's why I rarely post on social media nowadays and I don't mention where I work.

 

[Elektro Demon]

Nobody should use social media at work.

 

[DKehoe]

Nope. If an employee is going to publicly talk shit about clients or partners we work with then they are going to cause problems. You can’t just give them free reign to say whatever. It’s good to allow people to express themselves for sure. And I do think employers shouldn’t expect their employees to be in work mode 24/7. But there’s some responsibilities that come with being an employee.

 

[lil puff]

I may be concerned if my direct boss were found to have particular biased thoughts on social media. I think it would cause some issue when you start to wonder if you were be treated fairly at work compared to someone else. Most companies have policy around these issues.

It opens up cans of worms. I probably would rather not open that and focus on keeping business separate from personal.

However, I don't use social media (aside from closed forums under moderation), so my ignorance would be bliss. I frankly wish my co-workers would stfu in general chit chatting about all the newest shallow twitter headlines and hot topics during work. It's like Twitter live up in here. People do not listen to how stupid and manipulated they sound around here sometimes.

 

[-Arcadia-]

It’s time to embrace anonymity again.

We tried an experiment with real names on the internet, figuring that linking our online and real lives with an unprecedented level of transparency would be cool, but people weren’t able to handle that.

Everyone should be embracing 90s internet rules, and not leaving a trace of personal information on the internet. If you put something in permanent writing, you should assume that it can and will be used against you, and protect yourself thusly.

 

[Tesseract]

sounds like the kind of company i'd run

 

[Nester99]

I would think it would not be a large company for much longer

 

[poppabk]

Hard and fast rules tend to have bad consequences. Why not just have a lenient case by case policy rather than an anything not illegal is fine policy.

 

[xrnzaaas]

It would be an empty promise, if you want to fire someone you can always find a reason.

 

[Mihos]

Unless they are trying to use their position in the company for some 'verified' bullshit to amplify their dumb ass opinions, I don't care what they do.

 

[lil puff]

Hard and fast rules tend to have bad consequences. Why not just have a lenient case by case policy rather than an anything not illegal is fine policy.

I agree with common sense policy, but things are always going to be subjective depending on one's perspective.

It's just messy, and if you were a company, why bother throwing a wrench in it.

 

[Barsinister]

 

[poppabk]

I agree with common sense policy, but things are always going to be subjective depending on one's perspective.

It's just messy, and if you were a company, why bother throwing a wrench in it.

Because someone posting racist vitriol or a message counter to your companies stated goals all over the internet is going to kill your company. What do you as an employer gain from giving your employees freedom to post what they want?

 

[lil puff]

Because someone posting racist vitriol or a message counter to your companies stated goals all over the internet is going to kill your company. What do you as an employer gain from giving your employees freedom to post what they want?

Not only that, it sets up a potential hostile environment where factions start to create.

The only thing you gain as a company would be some bizarre ulterior motive, showing acceptance of an unpopular or controversial ideal. This is why our company specifically updated our Code of Conduct to emphasize a no politics rule in the workplace. We are a very large international company.

If I have a company, my bottom line is $$ only - completely disconnect your personal business from here, or work somewhere else..

 

[StormCell]

I hate don't enjoy social media. It has wrought much destruction upon society.

 

[DragoonKain]

That's not how the world works.

A boss of a company is a slave towards his biggest client(s). If those client(s) start to pull contracts because a employee starts shit which could bankrupt him or kills his profits entirely then guess what's going to happen. Dude gets culled. The boss option is frankly not much interesting on that matter, he does what's best for the company.

Even if you are the boss, u are nothing but a employee towards your biggest client that decides your faith at the end of the day.

Example

If tomorrow a nike employee says, he liked the slave time period. deal with it!.

And 90% of nikes are sold in america towards the black community and some activist group picks it up + media.. U will cull the guy the next day and start to donate large amount of money towards black community or get into there good grace again with all kinds of projects. U won't back that employee up even remotely.

They thing is, if you want to voice your opinion on the internet u better of not using your normal name. The best solution to run a social media account is have one with barely any information on other then absolute positive, then use a alias and that's where u really start posting your opinion with. This concept is sadly towards many people alien which also explains there lack of intelligence on that matter.

What you say is true about a company being at the whim of those who drive their bottom line. But say a company has an employee go on some weird rant on Twitter. One fear would obviously be that advertisers and such would run for the hills.

For one, I don’t think they would. I think this is more of a fear than it is a reality. It usually takes something significant for a company to lose major clients. Something incredibly significant, and when these clients do back out for something like a social media posts, it’s usually only after large, ironically, social media outcry.

And I think that has only happened because we’ve allowed people to be judged by isolated social media posts so much that it has become accepted and we’ve also allowed angry mobs to get too much power and influence. My logic is this policy at least attempts to restore some normalcy. Even if it’s a bit radical. A nudge to move things in the other direction.

I’m not saying it would work. I’m not saying it’s perfect. I’m not saying it’s something companies should do. It’s just an idea I had that I was curious about.

People brought up posting company secrets, now yeah that’s a problem. I guess it’s not technically(though can be if an NDA is involved), but I would fire an employee for that too, so that can be an exception.

 

[zeorhymer]

I think it's silly. If you have disgruntled employees just slandering their employer, I'd fire them on the spot. You never know that one employee that you told not to bring coffee to their desk and started to make a ruckus on social media which can affect current and future clients.