Essay on Facebook Comments

A growing hot topic, and cause for concern is the increasing use of social media in the workplace. The landscape for communication has changed, and the line between personal and professional communications has been blurred. How will your employer manage the risks associated with the use of social media and at the same time, gain the benefits that this media form provides? While many employers were initially concerned that employees would use company time and equipment for socializing with friends, they are quickly learning that many social networks can also be used directly for work purposes.

According to a survey report done by the Kelly services with 170,000 people from 30 different countries, 55% of all the participants believe that the use of social media for both the personal and professional posts can cause problems in the workplace (Bennett, 2012). According to a study done by the proof point, many US companies that have hired the employees more than 1000 in number face a real problem with their employees to use social media (Ostrow 2009). Almost 17% of these companies had faced serious disrepute due to the offensive comments on the social media websites (Ostrow 2009). Almost 13% of the US companies have investigated the use of personal text messages that have been found to infringe the company’s law (Ostrow 2009).

The NLRB ruled in favor of the employees because of a few reasons. The first reason was because the Board inferred that the employees contemplated group action for their mutual benefit or protection, even though the employees never discussed bringing the employee’s comments to management or taking any action at all. The Board reiterated that the employees’ objective of group action does not actually have to be expressed during the communication. Although the actions of the employees were found to be protected by the NLRB, I believe that social media and public forums are not the place for employees to communicate with one another regarding anything related to their person employment relations. I make it a point to not befriend any coworkers on any social media platform and I suggest to my staff to do the same. There are other places coworkers can voice concerns regarding issues within the workplace. There should be a way for the employees to voice concerns with one another that is not on a public forum on the

The regulations on social media policies limit the employer’s ability to place restrictions on the staff

These employees aired their frustrations on social media about the manager. The decision rendered in this matter was that Social media comments are protected concerted activity according to Section 7of National Labor Relations Act. Furthermore, because their postings were a continuation of the employees’ efforts to address concerns.

In the article that I have read it states over the years they have been advising their company that the punishment of the employees will be on social media it has developed an uncertain professional business. The National Labor Relations Boards has made the position that the worker’s comment on the social media is very often protected concerted activity under the National Labor Relations Act even after the verbal used is unsuitable or

The NLRB has made findings regarding the use of employee posts on Social Media sites to discipline or terminate those employees. Typically these cases occur when an employee posts “negative” information about their current employer or boss. Sometimes these are “public” and other times the employer uses “spies” or “fake friending” to see the Facebook page of the employee.

When I was a manager at a company, I had to administer many policies as they related to my employees. On of these policies was called the Social Media Policy. This policy was meant to protect the company from malicious posts regardless of the intent. To summarize this policy stated that if you in anyway identified yourself as an employee. So if an employee wanted to they could rant about the company or other employees as long as they did not identify the company, list the company as an employer or list the names of employees that are know to work for the company. This policy was created solely because of individually that lacked a filter or the common sense to think about what they were posting.

NLRB found a way to reprimand or even fire employees based on social media posts. These can occur when an employee decides to post inaccurate or negative information about the person in charge or boss. These comments are usually public, or the employer will use a fake account to view the employees social media page. In 2010 a California Contractors worksite terminated four workers for posting comments on social media in regards to hazardous working conditions. The blog was posted in 2010 showing four employees commenting and exchanging pictures. The employees were expressing their concerns with social media how it was to work for this company. Three weeks later the four employees were fired. Their work place conditions were horrible. The four employees were not properly trained with the hazardous material they worked with but they were told to state at the worksite they were trained and certified to work with them. NLRB determined the blog was protected because the employees stated concerns about safety, (Protected Concerted Activity). A complaint was issued for the case to appear in court. The second day of court the company settled with the employees.

Although the Privacy Act and PIPEDA exist to regulate what personal information is collected in order to protect the employee, these legal means are not enough. The common thread between the two is that the information collected should be collected and used for the stated purposes. The Privacy Act applies to federal institutions, whereas PIPEDA applies to the private-sector, yet neither specifically state social media. As mentioned in this article, the person’s privacy rights should not end simply because the technological advancements are not incorporated into our legislation. However, privacy laws should be able to incorporate social media as it is one of society’s most common method of communication. As society changes, our laws should accommodate. I believe the current criteria are not specific enough, if just cause can be proven and if there is no discrimination, that is seen to be enough for termination. I think that the better option would be the proposal set in this article.

Employees need to know and adhere to the [Company’s Code of Conduct, Employee Handbook, and other company policies] when using social media in reference to [Company

While social media platforms present avenues for the freedom of expression, the rules or regulations that guide the privilege may sometimes be curtailed or applied wrongly. Employees and organizations are facing the dilemma on what to post or not to post on these platforms. An employee may decide to air something through these public arenas without the knowledge that their actions may surpass their rights and thus infringe on others’ rights or cause damages to other people (Boyce, 2014). On the other hand, an organization may control the communication of employees on social media platforms to the extent that it violates their rights and privileges. It is in this respect that this paper explores the Facebook and Praxel cases as they are related to these matters.

In our digital age, people are increasingly using social networking sites like Facebook and MySpace to share personal experiences, relati onships, opinions, and accomplishments with family and "friends." They view their Web sites as private and their right to voice their opinions or post pictures of themselves as protected free speech. Should employers have the right to terminate employees based on personal information that the employee has posted online? In most cases, the answer to this question is "no."

This document outlines my office policies related to use of Social Media. Please read it to understand

Social networking sites such as Twitter or Facebook have created a new ethical dilemma for many businesses. Corporations, small businesses, and even universities are struggling create policies to manage their employees social networking behaviors. Social networking access, particularly for recruiters, can provide personal information about potential employees, which would otherwise not be available. A business must follow statutes and guidelines when disclosing information to the public. Individuals on social networking sites have no such constraints. Employees can and do make comments about their employers online. Employers can and do watch what employees post online. Any individual can send or post potentially damaging information