Slashdot Log In
Social Networking Behavioral Agreements At Work?
Posted by
kdawson
on Tue May 12, 2009 04:06 PM
from the in-case-they-need-another-reason-to-fire-you dept.
from the in-case-they-need-another-reason-to-fire-you dept.
r0nc0 writes "My company (a Fortune 15 company) has recently required everyone that accesses the company portal to accept or decline an 'agreement' that governs the use of social networking. It basically states that any discussion of the company or any of the work that you do, whether at the office or at home, must be governed by their rules of social networking. Naturally these rules are that you never say anything bad or negative about the company, nor do you say anything bad or negative about anything. It's presented like a EULA, but if you decline more than 3 times your manager is notified. Naturally I declined it each time until my manager complained to me about all the email he was getting about me not accepting the agreement, so I went ahead and accepted, knowing that anybody who cares would just post anonymously anyway. This is the first time I've run into a forced agreement about social networking, and the agreement is so broad that it can't possibly be enforced. I've tried pointing out that agreements like that only drive people away and aren't necessary anyway, but I might as well talk to a brick wall. Has anyone else out there run into social networking behavioral agreements like this?"
Related Stories
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
Uh (Score:5, Funny)
I think you just violated it. Oopsie!
Re:Uh (Score:5, Interesting)
Sounds like if he did not accept the EULA-style agreement a few times and they keep asking him, he's being harassed at work. A good lawyer would put a stop to it. And if he did get caught out, then a good lawyer could definitely make a case that he was badgered into agreeing.
Parent
Re:Uh (Score:4, Insightful)
Or he'd just get fired. And that's a black mark on your career, especially as the court case drags-on and gets published in papers. I think there are better ways to handle it such as:
- Instead of signing the agreement just scribble some illegible scrawl. That way if it goes to a court of law (very unlikely), you can deny signing the contract, "Huh? That's not my signature. It's obviously been forged. My signature looks like this..."
- or - Cross-out the part you find objectionable, specifically the "outside of work" section. A company can control what you say on the clock, but off the clock they can not. And then sign it using your customary signature. I do this with those stupid patent agreements - what I invent in my basement, on my time, is MINE not theirs.
You have to stand-up for liberty, else they'll take it away. Don't make it easy for them.
Parent
Re:Uh (Score:4, Insightful)
Parent
Re:Uh (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re:Uh (Score:4, Insightful)
Both my direct manager and the head of HR know our passwords.
There's a sure sign of a problem right there.
Parent
Re:Uh (Score:4, Informative)
Parent
Re:Uh (Score:5, Interesting)
Funny, for me it's been the reverse--from a young age I felt that it was very wrong to lie and almost never did (and always felt bad about it). Only later did I discover (much to my surprise and, when participating in it, discomfort) that being disingenuous and even lying outright is not only widely accepted in the adult world, but very often expected.
This is especially common in business, I've found, where being perfectly honest on a résumé and/or application will practically never land you a job, especially on those "why do you want to work here"-type question (let's face it, 99% of the time the real answer is "I want money and this job sounds like it won't suck too much"). Then there's "networking" which often involves creating a whole false persona. It's sickening, but damn-near unavoidable, and certainly considered to be normal and acceptable.
Parent
Re:Uh (Score:4, Funny)
Holy shit, I've been here quite a while and I don't think I've ever had a goatse troll post in response to me!
Do I get a prize?
Wait, never mind, even if I do I doubt it's anything I want to know about.
Parent
More like a safeguard (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:More like a safeguard (Score:4, Interesting)
Maybe the issue is firing for cause, which allows companies to get out of their obligation to pay unemployment, as I understand it, but if it's just a matter of separating the wheat and the chaff, they don't need an agreement to do this.
It goes like this: "Hey, look, this employee clearly isn't happy, and instead of dealing with their manager or colleagues, they're airing their dirty laundry to the world. This isn't the kind of person we want to trust with our trade secrets. G'bye!"
A better company would have identified the problems sooner by using good performance management methodologies which would encourage open and honest communication among the ranks, but many companies can't be bothered. There's a growing sector of the talent management software market that deals with this because some companies do realize that they can save a lot of cutter by keeping their good employees happy and not resorting to these sorts of punitive measures.
Parent
Re:More like a safeguard (Score:5, Insightful)
Al Capone, the notorious gangster at whose feet practically all of organized crime in the 1920's was lain, was indicted for the one crime they could effectively make stick ...
Income tax evasion.
Not murder or extortion or any other crime that you'd associate with Capone. Tax evasion. With that conviction in the bag, they threw the book at him.
The poster's company's Social Networking agreement seems to be prep for the same kind of action. For whatever reason they might *want* to fire him, or penalize him, or just overlook him for a benefit, they can set him up for failure to comply with a confounding, overly-broad rule that he signed his intention to obey.
It streamlines the bureaucratic process for them, because all they need is *one* reason.
Every time HR asks me to generate a report on the surfing habits of an employee, I know exactly where it's going, and sure enough, I'm deactivating accounts soon afterward.
People don't *really* get fired for surfing the net. It's just easier to make the case that way.
Parent
Re:More like a safeguard (Score:5, Funny)
Well now, if you're wearing the company's logo on your head, you're not naked now are you ?
The problem with these overreaching contracts is we let them get away with it, because people are goddamned chickenshits when it comes to money. When faced with the choice between getting a shit job with a shit contract, or turning it down and looking for a more respectful employer, people always go with #1. Well sure enough, as time goes by, option #1 shoves its hand farther up your ass and before you know it, clause #36 of your employment contract has you giving daily handjobs to the entire executive board.
At some point, we gotta grow some balls and tell these bastards "NO! I am not your bitch! Fuck your contract and fuck you!", or start investing in the personal lubricant industry.
If you still want that shit job, if you somehow enjoy being treated like a child and chastised for every little shred of humanity you have left in you, by all means move to Britain, they love your kind! The rest of us would much rather have our private lives unhindered by the fine print of wage slavery.
Parent
So... (Score:5, Insightful)
Personally, I think it'd be worthwhile to mail the text to the EFF.
Re:So... (Score:5, Interesting)
Perhaps most importantly, is it even legal for them to force an existing employee into new terms of employment in his jurisdiction?
A good practice for the employee is to never say anything regarding your employer's business that you have not been authorized to say on your employer's behalf, period. Another is to never allow your personal opinion about something outside your company be mistaken as a company statement. The usual "these thoughts do not necessarily reflect the views of my employer" disclaimer is usually effective for the latter.
It's scary that they are having people agree to something through harassment, though. Everyone should have notice and a chance to show it to their own counsel before signing it.
Parent
Re:So... (Score:4, Insightful)
>Everyone should have notice and a chance to show it to their own counsel before signing it.
What is this with involving lawyers at a simple decision point?
He should be grown up enough to make his own, educated decision. He is educated, isn't he?
Parent
Re:So... (Score:5, Insightful)
You know that educated is not the same thing as omnipotent right? I know a lot about computers, security, etc. Don't know much of anything about medicine though. That's why I go see a doctor when I have questions.
Parent
Re:So... (Score:5, Insightful)
What's the proper pressure through your car's PVC valve? Your mechanic probably knows.
How long do you cook a 2" thick steak on a 675F flat grill to get it medium rare? I bet some high school kid in your town can tell you from his job at a restaurant.
What's the best type of broom for cleaning up a spill of damp gerbil food? Is it nylon, polyester, horsehair, palmyra, PVC, or straw?
What's a typical range of muzzle velocity of a Remington .223 rifle?
How do you write a 32-bit adder in 6502 assembly language?
Whats the technical flood stage of the Mississippi river at St. Louis, MO's official measuring point?
What's the third note of the melody in Wagner's Ride of the Valkyries?
Come on, you should know all of these things without looking them up or asking anyone. After all, you're educated, aren't you?
Parent
Aaaargh! (Score:5, Funny)
African or European?
Parent
Re:So... (Score:4, Interesting)
>>>is it even legal for them to force an existing employee into new terms of employment in his jurisdiction?
Probably not. Just because you sign an agreement, does not make it binding. During the Paypal trial, most of their user agreement was declared "null" on the basis that citizens can not sign-away rights/privileges enforced by State or U.S. law. So eventually I think you'll find most of these corporate-enforced EULAs that forbid discussing the job while at home will be nullified by the courts - probably on the basis of Constitutional law - we just haven't reached that point yet.
Parent
Re:So... (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
Re:So... (Score:5, Informative)
From your "profile":
coolsnowmen (695297) is all alone in the world.
Slashdot does have a "friend" concept. I'm sure it's underutilized (and hopefully all dev time is spent elsewhere if that's true), but that gives it a social aspect. I've added a couple of people as friends because I've found things they said to be in line with my views and having a similar interest. I haven't really tried to contact them, but I will occassionally look to see what they are commenting on in case I missed an article that would be of interest to me.
Parent
Big Mistake (Score:5, Insightful)
Naturally I declined it each time until my manager complained to me about all the email he was getting about me not accepting the agreement, so I went ahead and accepted, knowing that anybody who cares would just post anonymously anyway.
Umm, congratulations on signing away those rights. You should have told him politely that you intend to keep declining the terms, and that he should talk to the people in charge of the system about the massive amount of pointless messages it sends out which prevent real work from getting done. Simply accepting the terms because it is annoying isn't a good idea in my book.
It's time for new laws to protect employees. (Score:3, Interesting)
IIRC there are no laws preventing companies from subjecting employees to micromanagement even off the clock aside from those rendering any "indentured servitude" contracts void.
Given the proliferation of electronic surveillance tools I think it's time to pass some, and we have a progressive president who is likely to be receptive if enough public momentum can be built.
If you have a decent CV, i'd dump that job of yours as soon as the economy picks up, and tell them exactly why. Encourage others who are talented contributors to do the same. When the company sees its most productive members going byebye they will cease with the policy.
Btw, grow a pair and name the company so i can avoid applying there.
Re:It's time for new laws to protect employees. (Score:5, Funny)
Btw, grow a pair and name the company so i can avoid applying there.
You don't have to worry. Best Buy security doormen are not subject to this new policy.
Parent
Simple Solution (Score:5, Insightful)
Don't use social networking at work.
Secondly, don't use social networking at home with information or pictures that could identify you at least to the public.
If you want to talk about things without retribution, you need to do it anonymously or without your real name.
And as an aside...
Back in the late 90's when the internet first took off, most of the internet users never used their real name for anything. Maybe we were all geeks and loved being able to role play bad asses (aka trolls) on IRC, forums, and online games, but I'm just shocked these days on how people use their real names for just about everything.
It was assumed back then, the only way people could get to you was if they knew your real life info and now today it seems that people give it out by default without giving a second thought.
Re:Simple Solution (Score:4, Informative)
In the 80s and early 90s, you saw quite a lot of real names, addresses, and phone numbers in peoples' USENET signatures. Of course most people had their accounts through school or work (or the military) and may not have had a choice of username, but it was definitely a different mindset.
Parent
I've had similar (Score:3, Informative)
What's the name of the company? (Score:5, Insightful)
Go home and post anonymously. You can't hold corporations to be accountable if you do not speak out.
Let's see... (Score:4, Funny)
You're taking their money, right? In that case, bend over and take it like a r0nc0.
Re:Let's see... (Score:5, Insightful)
Wrong attitude.
You have a business agreement of equals with your employer, you're not their slave.
You give them time, they give you money. At no point do you have to or should you ever be subservient to them or give up any of your human rights, or anything else they haven't already agree to pay you for.
Yet for some reason especially in the USA employees let their employers walk all over them, which sends the message that we're all a bunch of pussies that will put up with anything, so the employer does it even more. Basically its the fault of every employee with an attitude like yours that it can happen in the first place.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
You have a business agreement of equals
Yes, a single man is the "equal" of a $100+ billion corporation.
Re:Let's see... (Score:5, Insightful)
Wrong attitude.
You have a business agreement of equals with your employer, you're not their slave.
Indeed. And, as an equal, if my employer were denigrating me in public (or semi-public), I would not hesitate to terminate all agreements with them. Thus, I do not fault them if they would do the same to me.
You give them time, they give you money. At no point do you have to or should you ever be subservient to them or give up any of your human rights, or anything else they haven't already agree to pay you for.
Indeed. And under no religion, or charter I am aware of is the right to be abusive without consequence a human right.
Yet for some reason especially in the USA employees let their employers walk all over them, which sends the message that we're all a bunch of pussies that will put up with anything, so the employer does it even more. Basically its the fault of every employee with an attitude like yours that it can happen in the first place.
I, for one, am not a pussy. I wield the ultimate power over my employer: the right to walk away if I am dissatisfied in any way, at any time. And I see nothing in the summary that would make a reasonable person exercise that right.
Parent
It's the economy (Score:3, Insightful)
I believe they have increased boldness because the high unemployment makes them less concerned about how they will replace people they fire for one or another petty infraction of the rules.
Lots of companies have codes of conduct/ethics/etc (Score:5, Insightful)
My employer makes us sign a code of ethics that's really just common sense - nothing really intrusive (if you end up on the front page of the local paper with your company badge on robbing an orphanage, or if you're stealing from the company or if you're falsifying paperwork, you're probably going to be fired). Other companies see it as a broad license to exert control over things they ought not.
The only problem I've had with it is the "agree to this new requirement to keep the job you've been doing" approach. (I know, I know - fairness and uniformity)
I wish folks would keep these agreements in mind when they get on their soapbox about "anonymous" posters being "cowards" for not putting their names to their comments. (that attitude always sounded to me like someone who was trying to figure out who to exact revenge on anyway)
Fun Code of Ethics Exercise (Score:4, Funny)
Parent
Do you really need to use the portal itself? (Score:3, Interesting)
If possible, you could have avoided it. Where I work, the web-based resources I need aren't part of the same site and could be accessed without going through the portal.
And if this "agreement" was only on the front page of the portal, you may have been able to bypass it by navigating to a different page within the portal.
Giving away your free-speech rights (Score:4, Interesting)
If it really says that you can't say anything negative about anything publically, then wow.
Most employers have clauses about saying things in public about the company that are negative, or that would, by association, put the company in a bad light.
It's rather a tough call. For example, you're at a conference, holding court in the hallways, telling people what a crock of poop the competitions product is, in terms that are perhaps "less than professional". This calls the professionalism of your company into question.
Whenever you're operating under your corporate persona, you are generally bound by the rules of conduct. If that is spelled out in your employment agreement as "behave nicely in public", then I think that they're merely covering all their bases by being explicit about social networking sites.
But to broaden it, to include public statements made by you under your non-corporate persona is stretching things. If my private self spouts off about what a moron my ex wife is in a public forum, the company can hardly claim that I was speaking on behalf of the company in that context.
The fact is, that you can contractually bind yourself to giving away some of your free-speech rights. It has been the cost of having a "mega corporation" job for a long time, since long before the Internet was big, and social networking sites were around.
Off duty conduct policy (Score:3, Interesting)
I worked for a company that had an off duty conduct policy. It was intended, I think, for people who get arrested or convicted for things that happen while they are not at work, eg drunk driving. However (comma pause for effect) it was generally used against people who complained about their boss or work on their own time. Kind of like this. [abajournal.com]
That company is IPC International Corporation. It's a contract security firm, so I doubt many people here would work for them, but throwing it out there just in case. It wasn't the way I would have liked to leave, but I thank G-d every day that I never have to deal with them again. It may seem like I have a lot of resentment toward them. Maybe I do... hindsight being 20/20 I should have taken unemployment and finished my degree. (which I am doing now.)
Also that policy applied to the guards, maybe not management. Or it may be even more restrictive for management.
Interal Needs vs. Externalities (Score:3, Interesting)
An agreement such as this likely covers two areas: first, badmouthing the company on social sites (it wants to protect itself) and second, using social sites for personal reasons, rather than for work-related reasoning.
If anything is the case, sooner or later, workplaces will have to accept that social media blurs the lines between work and life even further. I'm on Facebook Causes for my workplaces, although my personal account is linked to the Facebook Causes.
Social media policies are the knee-jerk reaction put in place by individuals who don't yet see that blurred line, nor understand how to work with, rather than against, social media services. It's still something that's being figured out, anyway, so there's an excuse (so they say).
Cheers,
--Dave
Already under NDA? (Score:5, Insightful)
Let's face it the moment you were hired you were presented with the same/similar document outlining what you could and could not say about the company. This is just a friendly pop-up to remind all the kiddies just out of college that Facebook is not exempt from the NDA they didn't read.
Employment contract (Score:3, Interesting)
As far as I know it is quite normal that an employment contract forbids you to talk negatively about your company in public (during and after your employment). So they have a legal means of firing you if you simply expose corporate malpractice to the public. That can make it difficult for employees to defend themselves especially if they depend on their income.
My employeer (Score:3, Informative)
My employeer(?) asks me to not mention who I work for on any kind of social networking site/chat rooms, but the reasoning for this is my work has implications which may lead people to believe that I am able to access things which I can't, and its a blanket request for the whole company, who I just happen to be covered with (I work in IT... lol, so unless its a request for data they are out of luck anyway)
I'm sure if people actually read their contracts this kind of thing is pretty normal/standard but sometimes presented under another light of "I wont do anything to make the company look bad, be it while I'm working, or while im not".
Even in my previous retail roles as a shop assistance all the contracts I've signed had this sort of agreement - covers them if you say something stupid/incriminating and they suddenly need you to "disappear" out of the company.
Looking at who's in the Fortune 15 (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Looking at who's in the Fortune 15 (Score:4, Insightful)
You can narrow it down more than that - No one describes themselves as a "fortune 15" company unless they failed to make the top ten... So that leaves:
On top of that, I'd rule out IBM and BRK, just as a gut feeling that they have a bit more sense than to reduce morale with such a useless policy.
Parent
sure it's enforceable. you're fired. (Score:3, Insightful)
seriously, that's how MBAs see it. what it comes down to is this: if you talk, use no name. if you don't talk, you could use your name, if you could have talked.
or you can post using library computers requiring no check-in procedure, and under the CEO's name.
An Employers view (Score:4, Insightful)
First thing I did was firewall off most of the major social networking sites. Which for the most part cures the problem for everyone concerned. Anyone trying to get around that, would be fired anyway just for trying.
Second, I notified anyone I catch using one of those sites from my network that they get three strikes and they are fired, unless they have express permission. Accidentally ending up on one for whatever reason does happen. Just don't hang out there at work.
Third, I really don't care what they do on social networking site on their own time, but I definitely care what they disclose about my buisness on the social networking site. They need express authorization to discuss anything work related on the internet, or anywhere else for that matter.
This is not about censorship, this is about security and violation of their confidentiality agreement. None of my employees are qualified to make judgments about what can and can not be disclosed on the internet about my buisness.
I don't want to Google things related to my buisness and find out I got knocked off the top of the search engines with a bunch of comments from employees. That includes flattering comments.
What is our number one hands down tried and true technique for breaching any sort of security? SOCIAL ENGINEERING!!!
So, you want freedom of speech, you can have all you want at the next job; but, you still will not be able to discuss my company because it is also in the confidentiality agreement. The one I pay employees for complying with not just as a condition of employment, but as a major part of the job description.
Re:An Employers view (Score:4, Insightful)
So how many people still work for you?
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Is it still ok for them to police your personal conduct when you're at home using your own network?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
...and because you signed an employment contract that you have broken because of your free speech, then they have the right to dismiss you.
Unfortunately, these stupid rules on social networking get enforced because some people are severely lacking in any common sense. Some 30 years ago whilst I was at school, a teacher whom I admired greatly said one of the most important things that has ever been said to me:
"You are free to do anything you like in life but you must face up to the consequences of what you d