Despite strong efforts and deep pockets, the rules created by institutions about employee behavior are quickly being overturned and deemed unconstitutional. As Steven Greenhouse describes in his New York Times article, Even if It Enrages Your Boss, Social Net Speech Is Protected (linked below), many employees use social media to discuss poor conditions at work or in company policy. The National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) agrees, and has backed countless cases of wrongful termination. Greenhouse specifically depicts Mariana Cole-Rivera, who used Facebook to contact fellow co-workers and voice their concern about over-sized workload. Cole-Rivera's employer, Hispanics United of Buffalo, soon got wind of the post and fired her and four other co-workers who had interacted with the Facebook post, voicing their own concerns and opinions. Not surprisingly, Mariana Cole-Rivera won her wrongful termination suit, but currently continues her social work for another social institution.
Mariana Cole-Rivera's New York Times file photo
Not all commentary is welcome online, however, as offensive commentary is still at the discretion of the employer. Tweets like that of a Arizona police reporter's are still deemed inconsiderate and created grounds for firing. The reporter, frustrated with a lack of news, is cited as tweeting “What?!?!?! No overnight homicide. ... You’re slacking, Tucson.” Greenhouse continues to describe similar situations, such as a bar tender who wished asphyxiation on his customers as they drove home drunk, illustrating the bar's regulars as rednecks.
Simply, we live in a world where anyone could be reading anything, and we should still be critical of what we say, post, tweet, and photograph, regardless of how 'constructive' we might think our point of view is.
Steven Greenhouse's original article can be found here.
For information on the National Labor Relations Board, you may visit their website.
-Dan Longo
It is good to hear that workers' rights are being protected in this case. How do you think courts will distinguish between the two kinds of cases you outline, one in which a worker criticizes a place of employment versus one in which a worker says something vile and morally reprehensible but not aimed at the employer? Is that a clear and fair distinction? Or do you think that there could be possible slippage? OR do you think that employers will at least argue that the categories break down?
ReplyDeleteThis reminds me of the discussion we had about Marx's "The Communist Manifesto". Capitalism not only imposes the bourgeoisie-proletariat relationship at workplace, but also the bourgeoisies (the employers) are trying to capitalize their employees' personal space, in this case their social network media.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteYes, Muhammad has a point here for sure. There are famous cases of employers invading workers' private lives. For instance, the Ford Motor Company had an infamous Sociology Department that tried to ensure workers were upstanding moral citizens by, say, inspecting the cleanliness of their houses: http://www.thehenryford.org/research/englishSchool.aspx
ReplyDeleteMore recently, we have seen laws passed trying to protect workers' social media accounts from employer inspection.
For some employers, it's not enough that employees work hard, they also need to be certain kinds of people.