Social Media Policies Essay Sample

Question 1:
In my hunt for an article incorporating cases affecting employee stations on societal media webs. I was rather surprised to larn how much of job this has become. Harmonizing to Melanie Trottman ( 2011 ) of the Wall Street Journal. employees that have been badly disciplined or terminated due to their activities on societal media web sites have been revenging by usage of the National Labor Relations Act of 1935. This jurisprudence provides employees that work in private-sectors the right to voice their sentiment in respects to employment conditions. such as wage and safety.

The National Labor Relations Board is the organisation that has the concluding say when finding whether or non an employee has a valid ailment. If the employee’s ailment is found to be valid the NLRB will register a civil ailment against the employer on behalf of the employee. In these instances the ailment is so heard by a NLRB justice who suggests a solution to the employee’s ailment.

One case Trottman provided that caught my involvement involved a paramedic from Connecticut that was fired for naming her employer a “scumbag” on her place computer’s Facebook page. As stated by Trottman this was the NLRB’s “first of all time affecting a fire related to societal media” ( Trottman. 2011 ) . The findings of the NLRB were that the employee was wrongfully terminated. because the employee made the remark to other employees about the actions of their supervisor. It was besides deemed “protected concerted activity” by the NLRB. because the supervisor had provoked the remarks by denying brotherhood representation during a meeting affecting a client ailment in respects to the kicking paramedic.

Question 2:
I have to hold with the findings of the NLRB in the instance I mentioned above. Normally. I would ne’er warrant naming my employer names in any state of affairs. and I would seek to decide the state of affairs in a more appropriate mode. However. in this instance the employer should non hold denied the employee brotherhood representation when she requested it. Employees pay brotherhood dues for a ground. and in any instance where a ailment has been made against them they should hold the right to hold person at that place to support them if they need it.

In my sentiment. by denying the employee her right to brotherhood representation the employer initiated a hostile work environment. In a sense. the employee was warning her fellow colleagues that the same thing could go on to them if there was of all time a ailment made against them. I besides think that the employee’s remarks made outside of work on her personal computing machine should non hold been viewed by her supervisor in the first topographic point. Social webs are used to voice personal positions and thoughts to household and friends. and unless the supervisor was allowed by the kicking employee to see the page he should non hold been descrying on her in the first topographic point.

In decision. although I feel that doing derogative statements about an employer in any scene is morally incorrect. I don’t experience that an employee should be reprimanded for “hurting someone’s feelings” outside of work. In this instance. no menaces were made to the employer and cipher was earnestly hurt by the state of affairs. The employee was merely using her freedom of address rights. and venting her defeats.

Question 3:
If something like the instance I mentioned happened at my workplace I think the employee dealingss in respects to our supervisors would go worse regardless of the determination made by the NLRB. In the company I work at most of the employees already feel as if they can’t trust many of the members of direction. because they act as if they are merely looking out for themselves. If one of my supervisors began descrying on an employee’s outside activities it would make a hostile work environment. and the workers would likely go less productive and morale would be compromised.

The determination made by the NLRB in the above instance was in favour of the employee. However. that employee did non acquire her occupation back. and is still
unemployed harmonizing to the article. In the country I work employment is non easy to come by. and merely cognizing that they could lose their occupation by doing statements such as these would discourage many of my colleagues from that kind of activity. I don’t believe many people know what type of effects they might confront if they engage in this type of activity outside of work. and I believe many would alter their wonts after reading some of these articles.

Question 4:
To guarantee that state of affairss like this don’t occur once more in the hereafter I would propose to my employer that they need to work with the employees and non against them. particularly when the state of affairs requires more grounds before convicting the employee of guilt. I would besides urge holding more grounds of insubordination available. alternatively of trusting entirely on societal media remarks. Besides. whenever a brotherhood is involved the supervisor should hold proper cognition of the Torahs in respects to the brotherhood. Unions can be helpful to both the employee and the employer. so it is damaging that supervisors are knowing sing brotherhood Torahs every bit good.

I feel that it’s an invasion of privateness to implement a societal media policy that prevents an employee from voicing their personal sentiments outside of their on the job environment. Therefore. if I were to implement a societal media policy I would non utilize judicial admissions that could be imposed on employees who use societal webs outside of work.

If I were to implement a societal media policy I would do certain that some kind of educational plan was implemented so that every employee knew that posting negative or derogative statements on a societal media page could be damaging to them and to the company’s repute. By implementing educational plans the employees will go more cognizant of how much their statements can impact the company. and will hopefully discourage them from acting in an inappropriate mode while on societal web sites.

I would do it compulsory that societal webs are non allowed to be used on company belongings. and the employees would be informed that if they are caught utilizing company equipment for personal usage they could be terminated. Besides. I would do them aware that their activities while online are monitored at all times. which will discourage most employees from any type of online abuse.

Mentions

Trottman. M. ( 2011 ) . For Angry Employees. Legal Cover for Rants. Retrieved 01 20. 2013 from The Wall Street Journal: hypertext transfer protocol: //online. wsj. com/article/SB10001424052970203710704577049822809710332. hypertext markup language