Author Topic: The etiquette- and ethics- of reporting online posts  (Read 2054 times)

Offline lmnop

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 81
    • View Profile
Overall:

- A company should always have a social media use policy.

- If rules extend to out of work behavior, they need to be spelled out well.

- Employee complaints should be handled by Human Resources. There should be a policy for this.

- A complaint not attached to a name/picture does (or should) not have enough credibility to merit employee discipline.

- Complaining about someone you do not have a name/pic directly attached to could be more problematic than whatever the person posted or did.


- Know your company and your audience.

This will make things clearer cut and eliminate a lot of the gray areas.

Are you writing a policy yourself? Who are these bullet points intended for?

I really don't think the two bolded items can be stated unequivocally. It depends on the situation.

Agreed with CautiouslyOptimistic. Those bolded lines are definitely not universal. At all.

If there are photos of you at a white pride rally - expect to have them forwarded to your employer. If there is video of you chanting "blood and soil", same thing. Just because YOU never posted them, doesn't mean that they aren't out there, in public, for everyone to see. And, if you're at the racist rally and you don't want anyone to know you're at the racist rally, then maybe you should reconsider your attendance.
Like Like x 1 Agree Agree x 2 View List

Offline Pandorica

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 51
    • View Profile
Well, when I was in parochial school, the teachers didn't even dare drink iced tea in a restaurant, for fear someone would think it was a Long Island Iced Tea and get them fired for drinking alcohol.


What could they drink, then?  Just water?  Because a Coke and a Rum & Coke could look as similar as an iced tea and a Long Island iced tea.
Like Like x 2 View List

guest121

  • Guest
Well, when I was in parochial school, the teachers didn't even dare drink iced tea in a restaurant, for fear someone would think it was a Long Island Iced Tea and get them fired for drinking alcohol.


What could they drink, then?  Just water?  Because a Coke and a Rum & Coke could look as similar as an iced tea and a Long Island iced tea.

I don't know, I just heard about it in passing.

But around here, they don't serve rum & Coke in a tall glass. Not in an ordinary restaurant, anyhow.
Like Like x 1 Dislike Dislike x 1 View List

guest121

  • Guest
Overall:

- A company should always have a social media use policy.

- If rules extend to out of work behavior, they need to be spelled out well.

- Employee complaints should be handled by Human Resources. There should be a policy for this.

- A complaint not attached to a name/picture does (or should) not have enough credibility to merit employee discipline.

- Complaining about someone you do not have a name/pic directly attached to could be more problematic than whatever the person posted or did.


- Know your company and your audience.

This will make things clearer cut and eliminate a lot of the gray areas.

Are you writing a policy yourself? Who are these bullet points intended for?

I really don't think the two bolded items can be stated unequivocally. It depends on the situation.

Agreed with CautiouslyOptimistic. Those bolded lines are definitely not universal. At all.

If there are photos of you at a white pride rally - expect to have them forwarded to your employer. If there is video of you chanting "blood and soil", same thing. Just because YOU never posted them, doesn't mean that they aren't out there, in public, for everyone to see. And, if you're at the racist rally and you don't want anyone to know you're at the racist rally, then maybe you should reconsider your attendance.

Or soliciting sex with a minor under a fake name. Or planning a trip to countries where it's legal, with that stated intent.

Or bragging about embezzling or otherwise cheating or breaking policies of a current or past employer.

Or recruiting people into a cult.

Or verbally abusing women online by writing **** fantasies about them.

Or doxxing someone else.

Or posting revenge ****.

Or telling people how to exploit system vulnerabilities in order to unfairly take advantage of some program their emoloyer offers.

I mean the range of nasty online behavior that I'd consider well worth firing someone over, goes way beyond violent threats.

I believe the term "moral terpitude" covers it.
Like Like x 1 Agree Agree x 3 View List

Offline Pandorica

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 51
    • View Profile
Well, when I was in parochial school, the teachers didn't even dare drink iced tea in a restaurant, for fear someone would think it was a Long Island Iced Tea and get them fired for drinking alcohol.


What could they drink, then?  Just water?  Because a Coke and a Rum & Coke could look as similar as an iced tea and a Long Island iced tea.

I don't know, I just heard about it in passing.

But around here, they don't serve rum & Coke in a tall glass. Not in an ordinary restaurant, anyhow.

And IME, iced tea and LI iced tea would be served in different glasses as well.
Like Like x 1 View List

Offline yourdadjustcallsmekatya

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 58
    • View Profile
I am not referring so much to big things like threatening people or even calling them names (including, but not limited to, racial slurs). But things that are not just a non-Native American stating they have a spirit animal. More in the gray area- where there could be several factors in the employee's position/education/demographics that could alter the severity of the perceived offense.

And it would not just be a family member or close friend that you would enlighten (if it is out of character) or would just cut off (if violent or at least deliberately done to cause offense and hurt feelings).

More like someone said something that would make the person relaying this to the employer think that the original poster would not be a good match for the job simply because of that. It may have been a hot-button issue to the tattletale. Or the tattletale may have a vendetta against the employee (e.g.- the jilted exes, exes' new partners or new partners' exes from the Ask A Manager post).

Sadly, some of my friends from one of my hobbies stated that somebody in the community whom I did not know well lost his job because of a Facebook post somebody else reported to his employer. I do not know if it was a racist comment or something else. But everyone agreed it was unfair.

And this was a Facebook post with the person's full name, current picture, and possibly current employer listed on his profile. Imagine if it were something posted on a forum like this one with a handle- would reporting anything less than a threat be considered stalking/invasion of privacy and thus a much worse offense than the original offensive post could ever be?

Anything at all worth reporting to a person's employer, other than when the person is highly likely to harm themselves or others and have given credible reason to believe they will?

How could anyone judge whether it was fair for him to lose his job if they don’t know what the comment was?
Like Like x 2 View List

Offline yourdadjustcallsmekatya

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 58
    • View Profile
Overall:

- A company should always have a social media use policy.

- If rules extend to out of work behavior, they need to be spelled out well.

- Employee complaints should be handled by Human Resources. There should be a policy for this.

- A complaint not attached to a name/picture does (or should) not have enough credibility to merit employee discipline.

- Complaining about someone you do not have a name/pic directly attached to could be more problematic than whatever the person posted or did.

- Know your company and your audience.

This will make things clearer cut and eliminate a lot of the gray areas.

The whole thing is context dependent. You can’t clear away the grey areas when it comes to things like this. I do think your example of cultural appropriation is pretty ridiculous though, and certainly seems like a straw man. I sincerely doubt anyone is getting fired because they inappropriately used the phrase ‘spirit animal’.
Like Like x 2 View List

guest121

  • Guest
Well, when I was in parochial school, the teachers didn't even dare drink iced tea in a restaurant, for fear someone would think it was a Long Island Iced Tea and get them fired for drinking alcohol.


What could they drink, then?  Just water?  Because a Coke and a Rum & Coke could look as similar as an iced tea and a Long Island iced tea.

I don't know, I just heard about it in passing.

But around here, they don't serve rum & Coke in a tall glass. Not in an ordinary restaurant, anyhow.

And IME, iced tea and LI iced tea would be served in different glasses as well.

Did you get the part about me being a kid in parochial school? I have no idea if it was a real concern, or who was drinking what, or if the grownups I heard tsk-tsking about this were exaggerating.

It was an example of the general concept that different employers are going to attach different weight to reports that other people would consider "no big deal."
Like Like x 1 View List

Offline STiG

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 359
    • View Profile
I have a neighbour who is a teacher.  She doesn't want to teach at the school that would be a 5 minute walk away, no matter how convenient.  Because she doesn't want to worry about the kids or their parents seeing her sitting on her front porch, in the summer, enjoying an adult beverage.  I don't blame her.  I know other teachers who have chosen not to live in the same catchment basin as their students for the same reason.
Like Like x 2 Dislike Dislike x 1 View List

Offline whiterose

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 136
    • View Profile
If the school forbids drinking alcohol altogether, I can understand. But I honestly do not know why if not forbidden in any way, why would responsible drinking of alcohol in places and times where it is permitted for adults of legal age to do so could result in an automatic termination simply because somebody remotely associated with the school witnessed it. But that is a different story for a different day.

I wish I knew what the comment was- but I do not even remember the general nature of it. All I remember is that somebody reported that post to his employer- it was not something the employer saw directly. And that he was fired from his job as a direct result of it. And that the friends who mentioned it agreed that it was unfair.

One thing is for sure- policies need to be clear and specific. And consistent.
I have pet mice!

Offline lmnop

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 81
    • View Profile
Once I had a staff member who was friends with me, other coworkers and vendors on Facebook. She was starting to post things that were borderline acceptable about work. Not outright violations of the code of conduct, but things about how much she hated her job. I sat her down and told her that she needed to watch it. That she was nudging right up into the code and she had to stop or there would be consequences. I did not give her a formal warning. it was a simple, "be careful or you're going to get a formal warning".

She blocked me and another manager but she didn't stop the posts. I know because she was still friends with several coworkers, managers and vendors. She got the formal, written warning. She stopped the posts. She's actually doing really well now in a slightly different role and we're very friendly.

Did I see the comment directly? Well, depends what you mean by directly. I didn't have access to her Facebook page. But I saw screenshots of it. Several of them. And not from her "enemies" either. These were people that were her friends or at least friendly with her. (Yes, multiple people.) But it wasn't in their interest to have someone that was associated to them trashing their employer. Even though they liked her personally.

Is that fair? I mean, life isn't fair. You can have your Facebook locked down to only those that you consider nearest and dearest and it doesn't mean that the posts won't get out. Screenshots exist.
Like Like x 2 View List

Offline STiG

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 359
    • View Profile
If the school forbids drinking alcohol altogether, I can understand. But I honestly do not know why if not forbidden in any way, why would responsible drinking of alcohol in places and times where it is permitted for adults of legal age to do so could result in an automatic termination simply because somebody remotely associated with the school witnessed it. But that is a different story for a different day.

It's not forbidden but it is the perception of the kids and parents she is concerned about, eroding authority in the classroom.  I get it.  It's like being on a social outing with coworkers.  I might have a drink, or two if it is a longer evening, but I stay sober because I don't want my coworkers seeing me in an inebriated state.
Like Like x 2 View List

guest121

  • Guest
Once I had a staff member who was friends with me, other coworkers and vendors on Facebook. She was starting to post things that were borderline acceptable about work. Not outright violations of the code of conduct, but things about how much she hated her job. I sat her down and told her that she needed to watch it. That she was nudging right up into the code and she had to stop or there would be consequences. I did not give her a formal warning. it was a simple, "be careful or you're going to get a formal warning".

She blocked me and another manager but she didn't stop the posts. I know because she was still friends with several coworkers, managers and vendors. She got the formal, written warning. She stopped the posts. She's actually doing really well now in a slightly different role and we're very friendly.

Did I see the comment directly? Well, depends what you mean by directly. I didn't have access to her Facebook page. But I saw screenshots of it. Several of them. And not from her "enemies" either. These were people that were her friends or at least friendly with her. (Yes, multiple people.) But it wasn't in their interest to have someone that was associated to them trashing their employer. Even though they liked her personally.

Is that fair? I mean, life isn't fair. You can have your Facebook locked down to only those that you consider nearest and dearest and it doesn't mean that the posts won't get out. Screenshots exist.

Social media is a part of real life. It's not a separate fantasy realm where nothing "counts."

If you went around the office, or around town, telling your co-workers and everyone you knew that you hate your job and it's a terrible place, you wouldn't be working there for long. Doing it online is no different than doing it out loud.

And, "I hear you're not happy here, is there something specific you have an issue with?" Or, "your attitude is negative and disruptive to our team environment" are both completely fair and appropriate conversations for a manager to have with their employee.
Like Like x 1 View List

Offline Lynn2000

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 624
    • View Profile
Re: The etiquette- and ethics- of reporting online posts
« Reply #28 on: February 01, 2019, 10:30:42 am »
I wanted to go back to a comment made a few posts ago, about how there can be the fired employee's side of the story, and then the company's side which they aren't allowed to publicly broadcast--in my thread about handling church firings, this is the exact issue that's come up. And it has nothing to do with social media, but everything to do with human nature and people in a small community spreading rumors that fit their own agenda.

Social media is really just amplifying the ways humans have always talked and spread information--both useful things and harmful things. I've also heard about teachers being careful about their behavior that could be witnessed by the public, even on their own property, for fear that "having one beer at home" would get amplified back to their employers as "drunk in public." It's not that an A+ teacher would be immediately fired because one person made one minor, uninvestigated complaint about them. But it could be the straw that breaks the camel's back. Maybe the teacher is really just coasting along, doing a lot of other minorly bad things. Or, maybe the teacher is decent but just doesn't "fit in" with the others--could be something outright discriminatory, or could be that the teacher challenges the status quo. Coming from a small town, you see a LOT of that--you know if you rock the boat at work, doing something worthwhile, you have to be extra-careful outside of work to not give your professional enemies any ammunition at all against you.

I'm not saying any of that is right, just that it exists, and people have to be aware of it as it relates to their jobs. It's always been true, well before social media.

Also, in my personal experience, it's incredibly hard to fire someone, at least someone on a salary. Between unions, corporate policy, the higher-ups not wanting bad publicity, and just plain inertia, you normally have to document that you have repeatedly talked to someone about their problematic behavior and given them opportunities to improve, often for months; and you have to really go to bat with your superiors to get someone fired. It takes work, and confrontation, and most people are already overworked and dislike confrontation enough that they'd rather tell everyone else to just deal with it than go through the trouble of firing someone. Obviously that's not true in 100% of cases; and there are certainly people who are willing to do the work to unfairly fire those they simply dislike. But in my career I've been much more troubled by people who need to go and yet stick around, causing more work for others; than by the idea that someone might be fired unfairly, over a minor rumor. And it might be cold comfort, but honestly, if an employer is going to fire you unfairly over a minor rumor, you are better off not working there, because they will almost certainly do other bad, unfair things.
Like Like x 1 Agree Agree x 1 View List

Offline GloryAndCrumpets

  • Administrator
  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 296
    • View Profile
Re: The etiquette- and ethics- of reporting online posts
« Reply #29 on: February 01, 2019, 04:19:06 pm »
This is a really interesting discussion. It actually reminded me of a case not that long ago where a teacher at a Catholic school was fired when she got pregnant out of wedlock and had no plans to marry her partner. The out of wedlock pregnancy violated the code of conduct that employees of the Diocese agree to follow. The teacher in question was not Catholic herself, but, like all the other employees at the school, she had agreed to abide by the code of conduct.

Part of me sympathizes with her, and I'm not sure firing a pregnant woman is really a great example to be setting for young students. But part of me also feels like "Look, you may not agree with this code of conduct, but you signed it and agreed to follow it, so I feel like you kind of lose some of your right to complain when they punish you for knowingly and deliberately breaking it. If you don't want to follow their rules, don't work for them."

Article about the case: https://www.yahoo.com/lifestyle/teacher-fired-catholic-school-getting-pregnant-wedlock-160848588.html
Like Like x 1 Agree Agree x 1 View List