Goldman Sachs has established a corporate policy banning the use of social networking sites, specifically Facebook. At work. Don’t they have the right to expect employees that they are paying to actually work at work?
There was a blogger on the National Coalition Against Censorship (NCAC) who begged to differ. He claims that the controversy may have come up because Goldman Sachs recently invested &450 million in Facebook. But he also questions effect that such corporate policies could have on free speech.
LOTS of employers, mine included, ask that employees stay off of social networking sites during work hours. I think that is totally within their rights. But Sachs actually blocked the sites and maybe that’s the problem. People complained because now they can’t even sneak around and do it. I find that it is usually the ones breaking the rules that complain most bitterly when they are enforced.
The Washington Post has a policy that bans, “writing, tweeting, or posting anything – including photographs or video – that could be perceived as reflecting political, racial, sexist, religious or other bias or favoritism…This same caution should be used when joining, following, or friending any person or organization online.” Not sure if they mean at work or anytime.
At work, yes-siree I agree. Out side of work…well that’s where it gets sticky for me. See my library has this little clause in its policy that even when we are outside of the library we are still library employees and are therefore representatives of the library at all times. The Washington Post has the same spiel. I’m not sure this would be considered legal if challenged because it would be in direct violation of a person’s First Amendment Rights.
Do I think it smart to talk about your employers in a negative way? No! Especially if you have friended some of them. That just makes you, well, not so smart in my eyes. I personally know someone who lost her job indirectly due to social networking. I say indirectly because the social networking stuff was simply the last straw in a long list of troubles. But you do have the right to say and feel and think what you like even if your employer doesn’t like it. Question is do they have the right to fire you over it IF it happens outside of the workplace?
Back to inside the workplace. In 2007 a Sachs employee received the following memo:
It has come to our attention that you have been spending a considerable amount of time on a website known as ‘The Facebook.’ This is unacceptable since firm regulations do not permit usage of social networking sites…The combines total usage time over the past six months has now exceeded 500 hours (the equivalent of over 4 hours daily), which we feel would normally be sufficiently high to render us duty-bound to inform your manager.
Please tell me you agree that the company has the right to fire an employee under those conditions.
Levendowski, Amanda. "Chilling Effects on Social Media." Blogging Censorship.
National Coalition Against Censorship, June 8, 2011 . Web. 15 Jun 2011.
Carr, Austin. "Facebook Still Banned at Goldman Sachs, $450 Million Investment Be
Damned ." Fast Company, Jan 5, 2011 . Web. 15 Jun 2011
Kramer, Staci D. "WaPo’s Social Media Guidelines Paint Staff Into Virtual Corner; Full
Text of Guidelines." PaidContent: The Economics of Digital Content Sept. 27, 2009:
n. pag. Web. 15 Jun 2011.
I definitely agree that corporations can fire somebody for spending time on social networks during work time. I think if somebody posts something about their place of of employment that is troublesome, I could go either way on the situation. If it leads to a bigger issue, then I would consider firing the person in question. However, if it's something that's minor and won't bring any tension into the work place, I would try to ignore it. People just need to think before they post anything though.
ReplyDeleteI think banning the use of social networking sites totally is not the answer. It seems a little like preventing people from using telephones because they might talk to their girlfriends all day instead of getting work done. Didn't this same issue come up when email was invented? If someone is spending four hours a day doing something other than their job, it doesn't matter whether it is tweeting, writing longhand letters, watching television or sleeping. Managing people is not easy, but making blanket prohibitions just adds fuel to the fire in my opinion. Also, since companies often are creating large presences in social networking sites, many people will have job responsibilities that include monitoring a company's Facebook page or creating content for a Twitter account. You can't have it both ways.
ReplyDeleteI presume some people also may have used Facebook during their breaks and lunch times--a legitimate time to do so, so blocking it may not be the best answer. Certainly monitoring the amount of time spent on social networking sites seems like the better way to do this; if the guy's spending an incredible amount of time (like 4 hours/day) on these sites, then the company has every right to address this issue. If it's for a half-hour lunch break, then the employee is entitled to their Facebook--especially if, like me, they are off the clock and aren't getting paid for their lunch. That's when I do "down time" stuff like read, play solitaire, and surf Google. I would say this is within their rights.
ReplyDeleteGoldman Sachs has every right to block Facebook. It is a private company who pays its employees to work, not surf the Internet. If employees want to spend their lunch time on Facebook, they can go to an Internet café. It isn’t the end of the world because the company that pays them blocks a social networking site. I would just be glad I get paid at all.
ReplyDeleteWell, as someone who spends way too much time on facebook, i sometimes wish my job would have just blocked it, but there are endless websites on the internet that you can fritter away time at. More importantly, I would argue that spending 4 hours on facebook isn't really SPENDING 4 hours on facebook, you can have multiple tabs open at a time. I still don't know how I feel about trashing your employer on facebook. It comes back to are you stupid enough to friend your employer on facebook? and if your employer insists you friend him so he can check up on you, than in my opinion he is certainly invading your privacy and should be held legally accountable.
ReplyDeleteI also agree that a place of employment has the right to block any website they deem fit as long as it does not interfer with work flow. However, they should not limit this to just social networks. Employees could spend countless on-the-job hours shopping, playing games, and reading cartoons. Though I can see how it would be more difficult to block all of these websites.
ReplyDeleteI worked at a place previously that had Facebook blocked. Even though this annoyed me, it made sense. The company pays people to work for them, "work" being the key word. I can't tell you how much time I could kill on Facebook instead of doing work, if I so chose. So I think it is the right of the company to decide that. Will it solve the problem? Probably not. But that is up to them, since they are paying you to do your job and you technically have the option to leave if you disagree.
ReplyDeleteI don't think employers should block social networks. Many companies use Facebook for business. I used to manage a Facebook fan page for the library's teens. I was able to access Facebook and work on this page during the workday as it was work related. I think access should not be denied because, as several people have pointed out, employees should be able to get onto these sites during breaks or lunch hours. Put a policy in place that defines when these sites can be used but don't block them. I thought we were all bent out of shape about schools filtering these sites and now we say it's okay in the workplace? Doesn’t that seem EXTREMELY contradictory?
ReplyDeleteI didn’t think schools should block social networking sites because the student’s then take their computers home and part of their education these days is online education. that includes social networking. They should definitely NOT be on social sites during school hours. Just as an employee should be working at work. Most employees don’t take their computers home at the end of the day.
ReplyDeleteI definitely agree that the company had the right to fire the guy over the 500 hours on Facebook. However, I have to wonder whether they had it running in the background on their computer and just didn't log out. I do that a lot and I could easily see where it looks like I am on Facebook like 10 hours a day just because I have it on a different tab and haven't logged out or closed it.
ReplyDeleteUntil an employer can assure themselves of hiring only mature adults, I say, 'ban it.'
ReplyDeleteUnless...
it is part of your job description, or
it is your lunch time or
you have stepped outside of the building (like when the smokers had to go outside to the smoking tents).
People have so little common sense these days and so little work ethic that one must make rules for the 'least of these' and the rest of us must suffer.