This week we've read up on social media policies, security, and privacy. Our assigned readings spanned from setting guidelines for employees in the workplace, to Facebook privacy settings, and a step-by-step social media handbook.
For this weeks blog post, let's focus on the article posted on the National Law Review about the National Labor Relations Board's (NLRB) nine most important principles and how they can impact your business.
 |
| source:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Chairs_of_the_National_Labor_Relations_Board |
The article points out very contrasting points between what employers can legally prohibit employees from posting: company logos in labor related discussions, company trade secrets, and sexual harassment/work place violence (Halpern, 2012). Employers have every right to try and protect their businesses from garnering a negative reputation and maintaing a positive work environment. Especially in this day in age, where one comment can ricochet into a national headline in the blink of an eye.
But even with all these legal prohibitions, employees still have legal freedoms. Employees can openly discuss workplace conditions, wages, and company performance. They are also legally protected if if they post personal opinions that are not factually correct (Halpern, 2012). It seems that with every legal restriction employers can place in the workplace, employees are also protected to seemingly say what they want, too.
With that being said, here are my questions for you (please provide specific examples and citations to support your points):
Discuss why (or why not) you believe it is important for employers to have social media policies.
Out of the nine principles discussed by the NLRB, chose two that you either agree or disagree with implementing in the workplace, and provide specific examples on why.
Reference:
Halpern, S. (2012, Dec 3). When is Your Company's Social Media Policy an Unfair Labor Practice" Recent NLRB Decisions offer Long-Awaited Guidance for Employers. Retrieved from http://www.natlawreview.com/article/when-your-company-s-social-media-policy-unfair-labor-practice-recent-nlrb-decisions-
I think it is very important for employers to have social media policies. As Shana says, today “one comment can ricochet into a national headline in the blink of an eye.” On the other hand social media is a great outlet for employees to share information and sensibly discuss unclassified company information. Section 7 of the National Labor Relations Act “protects an employee’s right to engage in concerted activities for the purpose of mutual aid and protection (Collins, 2012).” It is important that both employers and employees are protected in the wild world of social media so information can be shared without unfairly harming the organization or the employees. Therefore, it is important for employers to have social media policies that follow the guidelines set up by the NLRB. It is also important that organizations clearly inform their employees about the rules of social media engagement. With thorough and fair guidelines, information will flow smoothly and employers and employees will be protected.
ReplyDeleteThe NLRB has identified nine important edicts regarding social media policy that dictate “whether and how employers can restrict their employees’ use of social media (Halpern, 2012).” I believe the two most important principles discussed by the NLRB are 1.) Employers may prohibit employee rants and 2.) Confidentiality clauses should be narrowly tailored. I think that employers should be able to prohibit employee rants when the employee is posting inappropriate comments. There is some gray area left in this principle but the seventh edict says that opinions are largely protected. So as long as the employee is posting an opinion and not being obscene, they should be allowed to post. “Prohibiting this behavior in a social media policy does not violate the Act as long as it does not chill protected speech (Halpern, 2012).” The second edict I mentioned says confidentiality clauses should be narrowly tailored. I think it is permissible for organizations to keep some information confidential especially when it involves trade secrets or individual’s safety. The U.S. Army’s social media handbook says “it is important to outline unit policy and make sure all soldiers know what they can and cannot do when using social media platforms (U.S. Army, 2013).” Of course the U.S. Army does not want soldiers to post sensitive information that will endanger an operation or someone’s safety. I also agree that organizations should not be allowed to keep employees quiet about wages, conditions or company performance because these are basic rights that all individuals should be allowed to share. I think the NLRB does a good job of laying out the guidelines about what employers and employees are allowed to share on social media. Good question Shana. I am looking forward to your response.
Halpern, S. (2012, Dec 3). When is Your Company's Social Media Policy an Unfair
Labor Practice" Recent NLRB Decisions offer Long-Awaited Guidance for Employers. Retrieved from http://www.natlawreview.com/article/when-your-company- s-social-media-policy-unfair-labor-practice-recent-nlrb-decisions-
Collins, J. (2012, Feb 1). NRLB Report: Employers' Social Media Policies Must be Narrow, Must not Restrict Right to Engage in Protected Activities. Retrieved from http://www.natlawreview.com/article/nrlb-report-employers-social-media-policies-must-be-narrow-must-not-restrict-right-t
U.S. Army. (January, 2013). The United States Army Social Media Handbook. Retrieved from
http://www.arcent.army.mil/docs/default-documentlibrary/social_media_handbook_version3-1.pdf?sfvrsn=2
ahh. My format got all messed up when I pasted it into the comment box. At least I actually published it :)
ReplyDeleteEverett,
ReplyDeleteAwesome response! I really like how you said "it is important that both employers and employees are protected in the wild world of social media so information can be shared without unfairly harming the organization or the employees". I feel the exact same way. I think it's safe to assume that there's no possible way to restrict employees from social media. If they can't access it on their work computer, they can on their cell phones and personal computers. So setting guidelines is definitely the best bet for at least attempting to control what people say and do. But, remember what Scott said? "Employees do silly things" (Scott, 2013).
I think it's interesting on why you agreed with employers may prohibit employee rants. I do agree with you, but I feel like this particle principle can bring a lot of trouble with it. The principle states "however, individual employee rants (e.g., when one employee posts inappropriate comments without engaging in dialogue with other employees), are not protected under the Act" (Halpern, 2012). It's clear that if employees engage with each other about work place conditions, they are legally protected and entitled to do so. But if it's just one person, forget about it. Like you said, theres a lot of gray area left in the principle. And while the 7th edict tries to clear it up by saying opinions are largely protected, it kind of contradicts it even more! Who determines what the difference is between a rant and an opinion? It just seems this could lead to a lot of "he said. she said" and cause a mess for all parties involved.
But that's just my take away from it.
-SB
References:
Halpern, S. (2012, Dec 3). When is Your Company's Social Media Policy an Unfair Labor Practice" Recent NLRB Decisions offer Long-Awaited Guidance for Employers. Retrieved from http://www.natlawreview.com/article/when-your-company-s-social-media-policy-unfair-labor-practice-recent-nlrb-decisions-
Scott, David. (2013). The New Rules of Marketing and PR. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley
I think you are right. There is a lot of gray area when defining an employee rant vs an opinion. I think the biggest difference is that an employee rant is obscene while an opinion is polite and thoughtful. It is hard to deny that there will be some discrepancy as to when an employee would be protected vs. when they wont be protected. It will take careful deliberation and responsibility when judging the content of an employees message. I'm not sure if clear boundaries can be established. Thanks for the comment Shana.
ReplyDeleteEverett