Should a employer have a right to fire someone for venting on a social site or is it free speech?

[redirish28]

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/09/business/09facebook.html?_r=1&hp



Company Accused of Firing Over Facebook Post


In what labor officials and lawyers view as a ground-breaking case involving workers and social media, the National Labor Relations Board has accused a company of illegally firing an employee after she criticized her supervisor on her Facebook page.

This is the first case in which the labor board has stepped in to argue that workers’ criticisms of their bosses or companies on a social networking site are generally a protected activity and that employers would be violating the law by punishing workers for such statements.

The labor relations board announced last week that it had filed a complaint against an ambulance service, American Medical Response of Connecticut, that fired an emergency medical technician, accusing her, among other things, of violating a policy that bars employees from depicting the company “in any way” on Facebook or other social media sites in which they post pictures of themselves.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

IMHO-- When you are off the clock on your own time. I should be allowed to say what I want to whom I want without my job being at risk. Now granted Inside trading and illegal activities are wrong. But someone who have a hard day at work or some crappy rule comes into play at the workplace someone should be allowed to voice displeasure without any retribution.

[Bluebear]

1. If you publish something that harms the company, they have the right to let you go.

Sorry! :)

[redirish28]

4. Interesting point of view. And I'm not trying to insult you I'm just trying to get

a better view of this view point.


So if I am hired by Company A to work for them than I'm not allowed to vent about what I don't like on a page like facebook?


Okay-- let's take it one step further. Does a company have a right to place a microphone in an employee's house and listen to everything they say and if in private of a employees kitchen he/she tells the spouse they do not like such and such at the workplace or doesn't feel they are getting paid right. They are going to look for another job. Does the company have the right to fire that employee for thinking about looking for a different job?


Does a company have a right to spy on employees when they go out to eat? Talking to a group of friends at a bar about how they don't like their job?


Where does a person's freedom of speech begin and end?

[Bluebear]

6. No, a firm can't bug your house. But if I post "ACME Blenders suck, they electrocute people!"...

...that is not 'venting'. That's what I mean about posting frivolous information that could harm a company. As well, most employee codes of conduct include privacy clauses so you can't divulge company secrets. Free speech does not protect your job if you indeed divulge it.

[melm00se]

22. there is a HUGE difference

between saying things in kitchen and publishing things on a social media site (for this let's call it Facespace or FS).

In your kitchen you have an expectation of privacy afforded by the 4 walls of your abode. Inside those 4 walls, is your private personal space and no one can intrude upon this without some level of probable cause and a valid search/surveillance warrant. Additionally, how many folks can you directly reach from inside your kitchen? I don't know about you but the max I can fit in my kitchen is 5 or 6 and if those 5 or 6 spread what was said, it falls away to heresay.

Publishing on FS, OTOH, does not afford any measure of an expectation of privacy. You are publishing information that can (and does) reach hundreds, thousands or more and and with the ability to use your own, direct, words.

All in all, if you are going to run your mouth about your employer you are far better off doing so in your kitchen rather than screaming it out at the top of your lungs in the town square, something that FS has, effectively, become.

[tavalon]

29. True that

Many a time I've wanted to vent online about my work. I generally refrain. But, just because it's prudent not to, doesn't mean the company necessarily has the right to fire you.

[melm00se]

39. If you spread information that is

A) confidential
B) slanderous/libelous
C) damaging to the company (but NOT illegal activity)
as well as others, the company should have the ability to terminate their employment.

I have heard the comment that a rising tide lifts all boats...you can't be the guy pulling the plug and draining the water.

additionally, I am not clear whether or not this activity is occurring on company time and using company resources (kind of like what I am doing now LOL) or not. If done on company time and equipment then that falls into the category of theft (not doing what you are being paid to do). Fortunately I work for a company that has a very liberal policy regarding use of company resources and as long as you get the work done you are not actively monitored.

[lukasahero]

41. You have a right to do and say what you want -

as long as you are willing to accept the consequences of such.

You can sit in the lunchroom and call the CEO a jackass but you shouldn't then expect a long and prosperous career with that company.

As far as equating bugging your house with reading your postings on a public website, if you don't understand the difference, well, what can I say to that?

[tavalon]

27. What if that company feels like your gayness harms them?

It's a damn slippery slope, I'm thinking.

[lukasahero]

42. There are Federal laws against discrimination eom

[tavalon]

55. There are federal laws protecting freedom of speech, too.

[lukasahero]

58. Yes - that says you can't be arrested

not that you have to be allowed to keep your job regardless.

[datan]

2. hm...

does that include the Michigan assistant AG who was recently fired for exercising his first amendment rights?

[redirish28]

5. Refresh my memory please. I'm drawing a blank.

[Systematic Chaos]

11. Come back when you've learned the difference between "venting" and "stalking."

k? :)

[pepperbear]

30. actually, the michigan DA was utilizing his office inappropriately in order to affect a college...

...election.

And it appears as if you're going to be here for exactly 5 more minutes before the pizza arrives. Most DU'ers are willing to respect any argument....except one made of straw.

;)

[old mark]

3. I know someone who delights in posting stuff critical of her boss on facebook...

I think she is being remarkably stupid and will be fored for it eventually. Free speech applies to the government not being aboe to arrest you for it, it has no bearing on your job - especially if you go out of your way to dis your boss...that's just dumb!

mark

[littlewolf]

7. first question

are you using company computers when you do this ??

[Selatius]

8. Yes and no. If the person divulges company secrets, fair game. Otherwise, I would like no.

If you simply post that your boss is a bastard, I cannot see how it would have devastating consequences for the company.

[pipoman]

24. There is no such language "devastating"

all the employer has to have is a policy against "publishing" ANY information about them anywhere and dismissal for violation is completely predictable and acceptable. What kind of person needs to vent in a public venue anyway?

[ipaint]

9. No.

If the employee is lying the company can go after them legally. If the employee is telling the truth about an asshole supervisor, well maybe the supervisor needs a new job.

[pipoman]

25. Maybe

but truth or no truth the employee has no inherent right to publish either about their employer and not be dismissed. They certainly have a right to say it, tyhe employer has a right to dismiss because of what was published.

[ipaint]

35. Yes we seem to accept more readily the imbalance of power in the

workplace along with the rights of owners trumping labor. The lack of unions illustrates that pretty clearly.

My answer to the OP's question is still no.

[Citizen Worker]

10. This will make for an interesting case if it goes all the way to the supremes. The Constitution

protects, well not much of late, against encroachment of your civil liberties by government not encroachment by an employer. I found this out when I called the local chapter of the ACLU to ask if they were going to take on the issue of drug testing. When I was informed of just what and who the Constitution protects I offered up the idea of a private employer that derives most of its revenue through government contracts. The person I was speaking with thought that this was a novel idea but said, "there just isn't the public support to oppose drug testing." From that I concluded that a vigorous defense of the Constitution rests on public sentiment.

[pipoman]

28. It won't make it beyond initial arguements

if this is brought as a first amendment issue. Not knowing the angle being proposed here, it is impossible to tell, but a simple "free speech" case this is not.

[Riftaxe]

12. Should a employer have the right to fire a pedophile

if he does not molest on company time?

kinda see where i am going with this...?

[ashleyforachange]

13. ....

If you was hired by Company A then one day you decided to vent about the company they can fire you if they have a clear policy outlining the use of public and social sites. My advice would be to get an anonymous blog that no one knows about and vent there in private.Now your second situation, yes and no.

I have heard of people taking work computer's or other electronic mediums only to discovered they were being spied on...legally. No they do not have a right to fire you about thoughts of looking for a new job but at the same time they will be looking at you more closely than others to find a way to get rid of you.

Now the third prompt is where things get iffy. They might be able to depending on how strong the laws are. Your last question says "Where does a person's freedom of speech begin and end?" well it used to be where a person, define as a human, rights ended where another begins. But know many laws are being defined the corporations and companies with a large number of people can be defined as a person in the eye of the law. So in those instances any employee words can be seen as treading on the "person's" (in this case the corporations) rights, which can legally be grounds for dismal.

[Riftaxe]

15. Actually they can fire you for any reason,

There are no laws forcing employers to maintain employment outside of protected classes, and even protected classes can be fired with cause.

I have no idea on even how you would write a statute that would require an employer to be subservient to an employee.

[Arkansas Granny]

49. They can also fire you for no reason. Our employee handbook statesthat we are

at will employees and that employment can be terminated by either party at any time, with or without reason.

[Turborama]

14. " generally a protected activity" - Protected by what?

[Brickbat]

37. The first amendment.

[AngryAmish]

52. Wrong. The National Labor Relations Act.

read the dang article. Protected activity" is a term of art.

[Brickbat]

53. Yeah, WTF was I saying?

That's what I get for posting before breakfast. Aliquando bonus dormitat Homerus.

[treestar]

16. I have to wonder about taking the time to check one's employee's

facebook. Anyone who'd do that - you're working for a control freak of gargantuan proportions.

Any boss not a loser would just consider how well you do the job.

[OKNancy]

21. In order to see the facebook message, one would have to be their

"friend". So either the message was sent to the boss by someone else and therefore they weren't looking for it, or they were "friends" and the employee was an idiot. Third case would be the employee had the security set so that all could read it which is also dumb.

[ixion]

17. depends on the contract you signed

For example, if I post a public bitch about the company I work for, I'd get canned for talking about it outside work.

[Skittles]

18. in theory, no

the reality is, though, that you'd have to be stupid to trash your supervisor online, under your own name

[Scuba]

19. Most of these corps have training for their managers.....

...that might as well be called "how to fire people". If they want to get rid of you, they can. They can build a false case against you in a week, perhaps less. You'll have no recourse for any grievance.

If you're posting ANYTHING on a social site under your own name, you're putting yourself at risk.

[OKNancy]

20. I'm retired now, but when I ran my own business...

If one of my employees posted something nasty about me on facebook or twitter...damn right I would fire them.
Especially since I bent over backwards to be a thoughtful boss.
Also, my business was totally personality driven, ie your reputation was everything.

[pipoman]

23. "Free speech" only applies to

criminal prosecution or persecution by the government. It can get you sued civilly, and face other civil consequences for what you say or write...including being fired, as it should be IMHO.

[Rebubula]

26. Free Speech

Free Speech simply means that you cannot be arrested for non-slanderous speech.

If you speak badly about your company - well, they have the right to fire you. You work at a company at their pleasure and they can fire you at any time for any reason (obviously not for discriminatory reasons).

Seriously people - the world does not need to know your every gripe. Show some discretion and you will be fine.

[pipoman]

31. Actually you can't even be arrested for slanderous speech

the only speech I am aware of you can be arrested for is inciting criminal acts.

[WinkyDink]

32. Interesting. Meanwhile, students can slam teachers on "Ratings" websites.

[JustABozoOnThisBus]

50. School districts usually avoid firing their students

without a serious cause.

Students are more like "customers". Teachers are "employees". Students bring money in. Teachers take money out.

Does a "Ratings website" result have any impact on a teacher's pay or continued employment? If so, it sounds like a fucked-up school district policy. Kids can swarm a site and produce any result just based on a few tweets from an in-clique.

[alc]

33. 1st amendment limits the government

It doesn't limit individuals or businesses. So if you mean the 1st when you say "free speech" then it is not a free speech issue.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

34. The question(s) that I keep having whenever I hear about stories like this are

How and why are employers accessing people's private Facebook accounts in the first place, I mean, unless people are getting online during work hours on their work equipment? Are people making their employers their "friends" and adding them to their accounts or simply not securing their accounts? What's really going on?

Things like Facebook, Twitter, et. al, while used on a public platform (internet), are not things that employers are not just going to have thrown in their faces and they actually have to go hunting for it, presumably? I mean, it's not like things like porn ever just "accidentally" shows up on people's computer screens, right? ;-)

[redirish28]

46. Welll, I know with facebook unless you place your setting to Friends

only people can look you up and see what's posted on the wall.


I'm not sure about twitter.

[SoCalDem]

36. "...criticized her supervisor..."...no brainer..dumb move

That's the kind of stuff you say to a close friend, a spouse, maybe the kids..but NOT online...

It never ceases to amaze me when people get "upset" over retributions because of the dumb-ass stuff the PUBLISH ONLINE ..:)

[Brickbat]

38. I see this as an organizing issue, and so does the NLRB. If I create a private group called

"Kittens!!!!1!!" and use it to network with my co-workers about shitty working conditions and the possibility of organizing, and somebody tells the boss, that group would violate the above company policy and I could be fired. I'm all for being smart online and minimizing your own liability, but I'm glad to see the NLRB step in here.

[quaker bill]

40. One might like such freedom

but in fact, you don't have it. This is the private sector at work "protecting our freedoms".

[stray cat]

43. If a general badmouths the administration in public does the administration have the right

To let them go? Or should Obama have kept him so as not to violate his freedom of speech and let him keep venting

[rainbow4321]

44. Our company has gone a step further

They send out frequent emails telling us that we are to avoid any social sites or local media blogs that are covering not so nice (but true) stories about our company scandals...and have also threatened that they can get and track our computer addresses thru those local blogs posts. One such blog reports frequent hacker attempts when there are posts against the company.
They follow it up with "you will be terminated if found to be posting things about us"
The kicker, it is a county owned company so it is taxpayer money funding their IT people who are hunting us down.

[-..__...]

47. That's what proxies and public/unsecured wireless connections are for.

If a sign-up/registration confirmation is required, use a free offshore email account and post under a one-time username that can't be connected
to any of your other accounts.

[Ikonoklast]

59. I wonder if they think all those employees really live in Latvia?

"Damn, boss, all of our Latvian employees talk some real crap about the company! Should I fire them all for you?"


"We don't have any Latvian employees, you IT geek!"

[redirish28]

48. See to me that is invasion of your privacy. It they are hacking into the

wesite to look at the IP address (something I understand you can't do unless you have administrative controls of the website) than they are in the wrong. What if a person is going there not to post but to read and only read? Are they fired? And really they are using your tax dollars to spy on you... sounds too Big Brotherish to me.

[rainbow4321]

54. They are a tad paranoid

Because they are being investigated by several federal agencies..DOJ, OIG, government third party payors...take your pick from the governmental alphabet soup and they are in hot water with them. So the thought of any employee sharing ANY in-the-know information has them making threats non stop about any media contact, even blogs.

Right now, they are fighting the FOIA to keep their dirty laundry out of the press, to the point where they are also using up taxpayer dollars in court to keep information suppressed.

[GrpCaptMandrake]

45. In the middle . . .

It's certainly not a "free speech issue," as the First Amendment doesn't apply to non-governmental action.

This, more than any other, is probably THE single legal issue that most Americans get wrong. The First Amendment (which, now, is little more than a life support system for the Religion Industry)is a guarantee against governmental suppression of speech. Business suppresses speech all the time. No swearing at the customers, no talking about CEO Jones' little fling with Donna from Accounting, no trash-talking the company, no use of company computers for personal e-mails, etc.

[Odin2005]

51. Absolutely NOT. Corporations need to keep their noses out of people's private lives.

I swear they want to turn us into serfs and force us to get approval for everything in our daily lives.

[w8liftinglady]

56. I live in a "right-to-work" state.They can and do that very thing

even to employees in highly-sought industries.

[Lucian]

57. If you're off the clock and venting, the company should have no say with what happens...

with you.

It's YOUR time. If I want to say my supervisor is an asshole on facebook, I better be allowed to say it when I'm off the goddamn clock.

[TBF]

60. The answer of course is no,

but I wouldn't count on a company to be honest about why they're firing you. The court decision is important, but companies are still going to do what they want and cover it up.