What would you do? Employees slamming company on blog
June 16, 2010 by Tim GouldPosted in: Communication, Free speech, In this week's e-newsletter, Latest News & Views, What would you do?
Periodically, we ask three HR managers how they’d handle a difficult situation at work. Today’s problem: Employees are saying negative things about the company on the Internet.
The scene
Supervisor Dave McGrogran stuck his head into HR manager Mark Burgess’ office.
“Hey, Mark,” said Dave. “Been surfing the ‘Net lately?”
“Checking the job boards, Googling a few applicants,” said Mark. “Just the usual. Why do you ask?”
“Because everybody else seems to be looking at a blog aimed at the company. There’s some not-real-flattering stuff on there.”
“What’s the URL?” asked Mark, turning to his computer.
‘This stuff could hurt us’
Mark’s face reddened as he scanned the blog. “A lot of this stuff is flat-out lies. It could really hurt our image,” he said.
“Listen to what Sam Hodgins in Operations wrote: ‘Management could care less about employees — if it comes down to a long-term employee and an extra buck, the extra buck wins every time.’ Man, that’s brutal.”
“This looks pretty serious to me,” said Dave. “What are we gonna do?”
“Not sure,” said Mark, “but whatever it is, we better do it quickly.”
What HR pros would do
Jim, HR manager, Dallas
What Jim would do: Step One would be to bring in the people who made the comments and ask them to share their concerns with us. Obviously, there’s a reason they haven’t felt able to tell us about these things directly, so we need to address that problem.
Reason: If our people have problems, we want to address them as directly as possible. We’d handle the public relations problem as a separate issue.
Laura, HR manager, New York
What Laura would do: The first thing I’d do is remind employees about our Internet policy. Going on this kind of site during company time certainly violates our rules.
Then I’d speak to the employees who posted comments to find out why they hadn’t expressed their thoughts through the proper channels.
Reason: We can only control what employees do in the office, and people may be visiting the blog from home. But they’ve also signed employment agreements, and it’s likely this kind of activity would be prohibited.
Len, HR director, Malvern, PA
What Len would do: Of course, I’d try to find out who was behind the blog, and contact them if I could. I’d like to know what their motive was. As for the current employees being quoted, I’d bring them in and make it clear such a blog isn’t an appropriate forum for their concerns.
Reason: We have procedures in place to address employees’ problems. They need to follow those procedures. After all, how can a complaint on a blog be handled positively? We can’t solve problems we don’t know about.
Tags: blogs, employee complaints, internet, internet policy
HRMorning.com delivers the latest HR news once a week to the inboxes of over 200,000 HR professionals.
follow us on Twitter
join our group on Facebook
June 21st, 2010 at 10:21 am
What Laura and Len noted above are perfectly reasonable business responses. The problem is that it is probably exactly that type of managment attitude and response that got people venting on blogs about the company to start with. I like Jim’s approach better. There must be reasons why employees didn’t bring it to management’s attention, be that personal conflicts with supervisors, institutional road-blocks that make it difficult for employees to bring concerns like this to light, or fear of retaliation or retribution for bringing problems to management’s attention. Almost every orgainization has procedures to address employee problems, but I know first-hand working in HR (in a non-management position) that often employees feel (most often rightly so) that if they attempt to address problems, it will cause issues for them in the workplace. It is these barriers to open communication that need to be addressed.
Of course when addressing the employee’s concerns, you could still drop in a comment that reminds the employee that posting negative items against the company isn’t appropriate. I wouldn’t make that the focus of the discussion.
June 21st, 2010 at 10:45 am
This is a hot topic right now and you should develop a policy addressing posting to blogs, etc. If you are associated with a company on your “personal” profile, you can be held accountable for what you post outside of work. In addition, your policy can address setting up required disclaimers when posting to a public blog.
I understand that the HRDs here want to talk to the employees to find out why the problem-solving policy in place wasn’t followed but there is a more active approach a company can take in addition to that, regardless if the offense was on company or personal time.
June 23rd, 2010 at 3:22 pm
Not sure how smart these people are in an at-will state with the economy being what it is.
June 23rd, 2010 at 3:31 pm
Here is a more direct way to handle the problem… First, I’d find out who the people were that posted the untrue information and fire them immediately. Second, I’d gather everyone together who posted legitimate complaints, give them all written term warnings (you EVER do that again and you’re fired), then I would start a diologue with them to try to resolve any legitimate concerns. Third, I would have my legal department file a lawsuit against whoever started the site, as well as whoever was hosting it for defamation (the false statments made against the company) and attempt to get a cease and decist order in place asap to shut that site down.
When it’s all said and done, it will be a while before anyone else tries anything like that again.
June 23rd, 2010 at 3:39 pm
This is certainly a hot topic. We are wrestling with updating our internet policy to include blogging and other types of social media sites. While all three responses seem appropriate I agree with what Kay says I also know, as HRDirector stated, that we can hold them accountable for what they write on their own sites but I feel that making that the center of the discussion or coming down to hard (especially for the first time) will just alienate employees more. Open, honest communication needs to happen. You need to find out why they are saying what they are saying. It could be something that management may need to know about and change, or something management needs to know about even if it can’t be changed – it can still be addressed and employees allowed to vent and then to understand why something has to be the way it is. Understanding the why is frequently underrated. I look forward to other comments.
June 23rd, 2010 at 5:07 pm
Ron–that’s a rather heavy handed approach you’ve outlined. Not sure that it’s good to figuratively “slap” employees and then ask them to come to you with their problems. I think that would lead to more online sites and further company defamation.
Jim’s got the right idea, I think. However, Len also has a point about contacting the blog/website/page owner and I think Ron’s idea about contacting legal counsel is good (if you’ve got the funds for it). I’m not sure about suing–I think that’s best reserved for when you’ve got enough evidence collected that it seems to be wanton defamation according to the investigation into the website and it’s creators movitves.
June 23rd, 2010 at 9:11 pm
It’s one thing to vent about a bad day on facebook or a blog, it’s another thing to post negative and/or false information about your company. Not only is it stupid, but posting false information is libel.
What would a manager’s responsibility be if they were standing in line at the grocery store and overheard an employee complaining about company policy or their coworkers?
If the posts can be connected to the company then they become company business and managment has a duty to act on them. They can either work to solve the problem or recommend that the employee leave the company if they are that unhappy with their position.
The employee is putting the information out in a public forum. They have to accept the potential consequences .
June 23rd, 2010 at 10:14 pm
I can’t imagine that most people would actually use their real names to post negatives about their company, so I find that scenario unlikely. Second, if you have lots of people with similar comments (and not just a couple of people making trouble) then there is probably some validity to their statements. “There are several sites on the internet where people can make comments both positive and negative about companies – Ron just how exactly do you propose you are going to track down the people making those complaints?????
June 24th, 2010 at 7:46 am
Ron’s attitude is exactly why employees post these types of things on blogs. Fear and intimidation from management is NOT the proper way to run a business. This just makes it more apparent that you CAN NOT go to management with issues because it’s apparent that they don’t care and they will just fire you for giving feedback that they feel is negative.
What they are calling “lies” are not lies but opinions. I can have a very valid opinion that the company is merely out to make a buck and doesn’t really care about employees, even if management doesn’t agree.
Expressing the opinions at work through “channels” is pretty much guaranteed to cause workplace problems for employees as management personnel like Ron create a hostile work environment.
I certainly hope Ron isn’t in any real position of power because he certainly seems to be a very hostile and intolerant person and he’s the exact type of person that will be written about on blogs. Guess what? He would deserve it. So would any company that would do what he says.
June 24th, 2010 at 7:53 am
To Ron,
Your response is purely emotional, and an initial reaction that many would have after learning about this sort of thing.
However, the reality that you would soon find out is that there would be little, if anything, that you could do about it. Furthermore, you would incur significant legal fees in what would amount to be pure folly.
To prove my point, check out the site http://www.twinkies.org.
I’m sure you recognize the iconic brand name of Twinkies.
What you might not be aware of is that this brand is owned by a Fortune 500 Company -Interstate Brands, which is largest baking company in the United States.
What you also might likely be unaware of, is that this site is in no way affiliated, owned, or operated by Interstate Brands or any of its affiliates or subsidiaries.
Try as they might, and after many years of legal battles, and as powerful as Interstate Brands is, they have been unable to shut the site down or win any legal battle against the site’s operators, or take action against the people that post on the site.
The moral of the story is that you are far better off having positive relations with your employees than taking the approach that, “Morale sucks and the beatings will continue until it improves” mentality.
June 24th, 2010 at 8:17 am
Ron – I am glad I don’t work at your company. I don’t know many individuals that like working in an iron fisted environment, with the constant fear that there job is not secure. There is enough fear as it is in this economy.
I agree with Kay; Len and Laura do have reasonable business responses, but Jim’s approach leaves the company with the desire to fix the situation, identify what the problems are and, in the mean time, let the employees know that what they are saying is against company policy and inappropriate.
Being too harsh can lead to employees fighting you against the freedom of speech and make the situation worse.
June 24th, 2010 at 9:17 am
Laura
What Laura would do: The first thing I’d do is remind employees about our Internet policy. Going on this kind of site during company time certainly violates our rules.
How does Laura know this happened on company time?
And what about those that use Jane doe on blogs to communicate whatever they do about the company?
June 24th, 2010 at 9:55 am
interesting comments. Everyone is coming down pretty hard on Ron – to be fair – you were a little heavy handed. However, his comment about firing the individual that was posting untrue statements in a public blog – I approve. According the scenario presented the HR Director was unaware of any of the alleged issues. I’ve heard statements about free speech issues – there aren’t any – there is no “free speech” protection if you’re trashing your employer – weather yoiu’re right or not.
The blog writers are at best naive – at worst stupid. I don’t get the logic of trashing the company you work for – even if it’s not the greatest place in the world to work. If they are successful the business suffers and then what happens? They lay people off – possibly making their own jobs less secure or maybe getting someone who really needs the job laid off. Again – at best selfish – at worst they’ve cut their nose off to spite their face.
Nobody likes to hear people complain about former employers in an interview – how many of you would prefer reading about it on a blog? Would you hire these people? I wouldn’t – At best I would question their judgement.
There have been comments made about what kind of environment these people woked in – the limited info in the article doesn’t say what type of environment they worked in – maybe it was bad – maybe it wasn’t – irrespective what they did was wrong.
June 24th, 2010 at 12:30 pm
To HR Director – SC
It is you that are naive, at best.
Before you go spouting off, I strongly suggest you look at the website I noted previously.
The notion that this website can exist, that is in not way supported or tied to this company which is powerless to do anything about it, is ludicrous indeed. But nonetheless, it is FACT.
The fact is that despite whatever high and mighty rhetoric you or Ron might throw out, unless you can prove that the posting was done on Company time and equipment, there is verly little if anything you’ll be able to do about it. Your employees already know this, and you’ll just make a fool of yourself.
June 24th, 2010 at 1:30 pm
Wow – and wasn’t it you that said “To Ron, Your response is purely emotional” talk about an emotional response.
I work in an at-will meployment state. The unemployment rate is in excess of 10% Employees who go on public blogs and trash their employers are as I said before, naive and/or stupid. They put their jobs at risk. If they hurt their employers – they may put other jobs at risk.
June 24th, 2010 at 1:31 pm
I agree, wholeheartedly, with what Kay said.
June 24th, 2010 at 1:48 pm
SPHR is a smart one too. Figure out the underlying reason this is happening and fix that. The days of beating employees into submission are over. Cooperation is King now. If your managers aren’t good leaders, if they are simply terrified children in adult clothing, you get the Ron’s of the world. If they are good leaders, able to see the long term/big picture, you get SPHR and Kay folks.
June 24th, 2010 at 2:21 pm
This was an interesting article and some good responses from the reading audience. I just got done revising some of the media and social media policies for my company. I know this wasn’t directly covered in the article, but, pass word protected sites or sites that have a guise of privacy may be sites not to monitor (see New Jersey, Pietrylo vs Hillstone) by management.
Under the NLRA employers are broadly prohibited from restricting an employee’s right to be involved in activity that is to benefit employees. This interpretation does appear to allow a wide latitude to criticize their employer. I believe these protections instituted probably stop at conduct that is outlandish including false statements that are made or very extreme statements of disloyalty (see St. Luke’s Episcopal-Presbyterian HospitalINC vs NLRB)
I would also make sure language in any social media policy is well thought out. Broadly prohibiting employees from making any disparaging remarks about the company could get the company in trouble if the comments turn out to be true. This prohibition could be seen as an unfair labor practice. Having an employee sign a personal responsibility notice informing employees are responsible for what they put out into cyberspace can be helpful. This approach at least gives the employer a little more leeway in avoiding an unfair labor practice charge/allegation.
If your company has HIPAA issues, then one better make sure they cover that in social media/blogging/electronic format, especially through the use of cell phones/communication-information devices with video capability. HIPAA violations can be prosecuted by the feds through the Office of Civil Rights. I forsee more and more employer oversight issues as technology continues to improve and change the way we do business with customers and employees. I wish everyone a good day.
June 24th, 2010 at 2:26 pm
To HR D – SC
You are 100% right that it is illogical for employees go on to the Web and bash their employer, even if what they are saying is true. And yes, you should be able to hold employees accountable for disparaging their employer.
In reality, few people use logic in their thought process, which is why there are terms such as, “self-destructive”, “self fulfilling prophecy”, and my favorite, “shooting yourself in the foot” (I never really understood the “cut your nose off to spite your face” one though)
Today, it’s far too easy for people to post whatever they want under the veil of anonymity that the internet provides; and they will despite whatever you have for a policy. There’s likely nothing you can do about it, except be a better employer.
Savvy employers recognize this and foster positive employee relations to diminish the likelihood that someone will create a twinkies.org type site on their own company (can you even imagine the horror?).
June 24th, 2010 at 4:14 pm
I agree with HR Director – SC.
If the employee with blog is that dissatisfied with their job I would help them along with their career by giving them the opportunity to work for another company. The opportunity would probably be presented to them within an hour of reading their blog.
As noted in the story these people are dissatisfied with their jobs but have to make up lies to justify their dissatisfaction. My experience has been that there is nothing you could ever do to make those people “happy” – keeping them employed is a drain on company moral and they will never be worth the effort expended attempting to “please” them. In fact even addressing their bogus claims harms the moral of good employees who may have other legitimate issues with the company.
June 29th, 2010 at 1:12 pm
Wow! I’m with Vanessa – Ron, I too am glad I don’t work for your company! In my opinion, It’s people like Ron and HR Director SC that truly pull employee morale down with their “holier than thou” attitudes. It’s just wrong to say your employees are stupid. Who hired them? At my place of employment, that would be the HR Director. Sounds like both of you should get off your high-horse and get back into the real world where your employees live and work every day.
June 29th, 2010 at 3:07 pm
We just had this issue happen this week on Facebook. We canned ‘em!
June 30th, 2010 at 9:46 am
Lynette:
Why do you think I’m “holier than thou”? Lets go back and read the original premise – an employee wrote on what appears to be a public blog – no passwords were mentioned – and they trashed their company. According to the HR Director – who apparently was not made aware of any issues, some of what they said was “outright lies”. We all are subject to consequences of our actions. The intent here seems to clearly show that the employee was out to damage the reputatiion of the company. If it were your business would you want to pay someone to do that?
Even if this wasn’t the best place in the world to work (and there is no evidence in the limited amount of informaitoln we’re given to say if it was or wasn’t) this kind of thing is counterproductive. Again, if this individual is successful, the business could lose customers and peoples jobs could be in jeopardy. How is that helpful for morale? I got the emotional part of your message – it’s your logic that escapes me.
June 30th, 2010 at 12:10 pm
I find all of your comments interesting and don’t necessarily disagree with you, but here’s my point of view. The employees who do a superior job for our company are treated like gold. They have been with us for many years and love it here. Those who do an average job are tolerated because you need those folks, too. They are treated very fairly. The underperformers are typically the ones out there on the net whining about the company and quite frankly we don’t need them anyway. They are a cancer that needs to be cut out, so if this gives us an excuse to get rid of them (not that we need one… we’re in an “at will employment” state; thank God!). You should treat people in the way they deserve to be treated based upon their actions toward you, and that is exactly what we do. If the bleeding hearts of the world can’t handle it, that’s just too bad. And to you, Lynnette, the “holier than thou” and “high horse” comments should be directed toward yourself. It’s pe
June 30th, 2010 at 12:13 pm
continued from prior rant…
It’s people like you who think your so called compassion for others makes you better than everyone. I’ve worked with your type before… and fired them (LOL!).
June 30th, 2010 at 7:22 pm
HR Director – SC disagreed with Ron, to a certain extent, but believes that Ron is correct. With the scenario presented (with the employee’s using their real names) firing the employee is a possibility if they truly made unsubstantiated and false claims against the company.
SPHR however seems to be pointing out that this rarely occurs due to most employee’s posting information on the web under an alias. Look at this website–the commentors nearly always use an alias or they don’t post their full names. It’s out of self preservation. Most employees of a company will do something similar. The ability of the company to then review the available information and comments in order to effectively pursue corrective action with an employee who used an alias and didn’t visit or post on the website on company equipment–it’s incredibly difficult.
If you had the case to build and the evidence to support the case then great. Most likely the employee would be leaving the company. However, since that isn’t usually the real world, and no company wants to loose the unemployment case or defend against discrimination charges the most realistic approach (the one I believe has the greatest chance of success) would be Jim’s approach. I’d still keep legal counsel informed. People who put enough identifying information on websites, or use their real names, have the unhelpful ability to get angry and get a lawyer in nearly the same breath once their employment status has been affected (counseling/corrective action or separation).
July 1st, 2010 at 9:27 am
Ron Says: June 30th, 2010 at 12:10 pm
The underperformers are typically the ones out there on the net whining about the company and quite frankly we don’t need them anyway. They are a cancer that needs to be cut out, so if this gives us an excuse to get rid of them
================================================================
That was exactly my point. Very seldom do you have a “top employee” talking smack and making up lies about their employer – usually (always?) it is the under performer that is already a drain on the company. Our top employees are also treated like gold with merit bonuses and pay levels that recognize their level of achievement. Finding those people and keeping them is our goal, it harms their moral when resources are visibly wasted on a whiner that that is actually hindering productivity. In effect firing the whining under performers doesn’t hurt moral it helps it.
July 1st, 2010 at 9:56 am
Ron says,
“The employees who do a superior job for our company are treated like gold. They have been with us for many years and love it here. Those who do an average job are tolerated because you need those folks, too. They are treated very fairly. The underperformers are typically the ones out there on the net whining about the company and quite frankly we don’t need them anyway. They are a cancer that needs to be cut out, so if this gives us an excuse to get rid of them”
A significant challenge that companies face is not getting rid of, as Ron put it, “underperformers”. Ron’s right in hat these are the people that usually complain, can be very disruptive to the workforce, and are the most likely to post negative comments online.
Ron further ads that “They are a cancer that needs to be cut out, so if this gives us an excuse to get rid of them (not that we need one… we’re in an “at will employment” state; thank God!)”
This is why it is essential to have a good employee relations program. You can’t foster positive employee relations if you don’t identify the malcontents and poor performers and remove them from your workforce. Doing so will not only prevent negative internet postings, but will relieve your solid performers from carrying the slackers.
I truly hope that Ron doesn’t rely on Employment-At-Will to defend employment actions, as today employment-at-will exists as little more than a theoretical concept. It reality, it offers very little protection to employers against adverse employment decisions. I’d love to see an employer defend an employment decision in court today stating, “We don’t need a reason to fire them; we’re an at-will employer”. You’ll be laughed out of the courtroom and likely across the nation as you fork over gazillions for the award.
And again, my point is that, in reality, there will lily be little if anything that you can do against someone if they make negative posts about your company online, and you are far better off being proactive by having a good employee relations program in place (which includes removing the malcontents and slackers while you still are an at-will employer)
July 1st, 2010 at 10:07 am
I truly hope that Ron doesn’t rely on Employment-At-Will to defend employment actions, as today employment-at-will exists as little more than a theoretical concept.
================================================================
Defend from what?
July 1st, 2010 at 10:36 am
Defend against any type of claim against an employer due to an adverse employment decision.
I should have said,
“In reality, it offers very little protection to employers to defend themselves against claims due to adverse employment decisions.”
July 1st, 2010 at 10:44 am
HR Kansas- / Ron
If you terminate someone “at-will” and give no reason to them other than “at-will”, they will make up a “not-so-good for the employer” reason (i.e., discrimination due to race, sex, preference, etc.) that the ER will most likely have a very difficult time defending.
We are an At-will state, but you can bet your britches that we will have a “for cause” reason to terminate and have the documentation to back it up.
July 1st, 2010 at 10:47 am
If an employer finds itself in fear of firing a low performing employee with attitude problems they have low performing employees with attitude problems managing the company.
July 1st, 2010 at 11:04 am
HR Kansas Says:
July 1st, 2010 at 10:47 am
If an employer finds itself in fear of firing a low performing employee with attitude problems they have low performing employees with attitude problems managing the company.
Couldn’t have said it better myself
July 1st, 2010 at 12:29 pm
HR in GR and HR Kansas,
I completely agree with you and that was exactly my point, that it is always preferable to have a valid reason to fire someone, i.e. “slamming the company on a blog”, even if you are in an employment-at-will state. I have never fired someone without documented just cause. Not only is it wrong (in my opinion), but you are inviting legal trouble as well.
July 1st, 2010 at 1:14 pm
Ron Says:
June 30th, 2010 at 12:10 pm
“They are a cancer that needs to be cut out, so if this gives us an excuse to get rid of them (not that we need one… we’re in an “at will employment” state; thank God!). ”
Ron,
Somehow you have managed to change your tune since yesterday?
Regardless, we would and have handled conflict the way that “Jay” describes. It would go against our core values to be so arrogant to believe the “fire now, ask questions later” approach.
July 1st, 2010 at 1:19 pm
Ron, you should familiarize youself with what “Just Cause” is.
In the workplace, Just Cause is a burden of proof or standard that an employer must meet to justify discipline or discharge. Just Cause usually refers to a violation of a company policy or rule. In some cases, an employee may commit an act that is not specifically addressed within the employers policies but one of which the employer believes warrants discipline or discharge. In such instances, the employer must be confident that he can defend his decision (even at-will employers).
When an adjudicator looks at a discipline dispute, they first ask whether the employee’s wrongdoing has been proven by the employer, and then asks whether the method of discipline should be upheld or modified. In 1966, Professor and Arbitrator Carroll Daugherty expanded these principles into his famous seven tests for just cause. The concepts encompassed within his seven tests are still frequently and are typically used by adjudicators when deciding discipline cases.
Daugherty’s seven tests are as follows:
1. Was the employee forewarned of the consequences of his or her actions?
2. Are the employer’s rules reasonably related to business efficiency and performance the employer might reasonably expect from the employee?
3. Was an effort made before discharge to determine whether the employee was guilty as charged?
4. Was the investigation conducted fairly and objectively?
5. Did the employer obtain substantial evidence of the employee’s guilt?
6. Were the rules applied fairly and without discrimination?
7. Was the degree of discipline reasonably related to the seriousness of the employee’s offense and the employee’s past record?
The last test, the degree of discipline, is important because adjudicators want to ensure that the “punishment fits the crime.” An employer’s use of progressive discipline often gives the employer an advantage when challenged.
July 2nd, 2010 at 11:07 am
I posted on this when it first came up (HRDirector on June 21st) but I’m now inclined to post again…
1) Go Ron! And yes, I also work in an “at will” state for a private employer. The employees whining about work on the web are the same ones that are creating a “negative work environment” while they are here. Funny thing is… half the time they are on the web whining is from work while they are on their cell phones which is also a violation of company policy. (We usually go at them that way… it’s much easier to term them for 4 violations of our “Cell Phones & Electronic Devices Policy” then to deal with the “unprofessional behavior” on social media.)
2) While I say “Go Ron”, I also agree with SPHR’s post from yesterday. There needs to be a policy and a process. We just developed and implemented a Social Media policy and it addresses posting work-related content on ANY social media whether the employee is on the clock or off the clock (and yes, we can do this because we are a private employer and again, conduct business in an “at-will” state). Our policy clearly defines the expected employee behaviors and as stated in the policy, violations will result in disciplinary action (according to the crime). For example: If I have a bad day at work and log on to one of my social media sites when I get home and announce to the “world” that ‘John’, my boss is a total ass and I wish he would find another job, I’d probably get a written disciplinary action and warned that this is ‘inappropriate’ and ‘unprofessional conduct’. However, if I log on and announce that we were just bought out and we’re going to be laying off 40 people next week, including the VP of finance, blah, blah, blah… that would warrant my termination (effective immediately – no questions asked). One statement involves unprofessional conduct, the other involves a breech of confidentiality. In the example in the article, it would warrant an initial written counseling. (Note: I am aware of laws addressing unions and the right to form one and the kind of social media posts we’re talking about here are not that kind.)
All of you need to quit looking at this “emotionally”. Social Media is the latest and fastest growing problem for HR departments. Develop a policy, educate your employees on it and enforce it!
July 7th, 2010 at 1:01 pm
To SPHR: thanks for posting that list.
To all: to add to what SPHR said in their last post, if you’re letting someone go for misconduct you need to show that the person knew the expectation, show how you know they were aware of the expectation and how they wantonly went against that expectation (lying, etc.). I’ve had some recent judges in unemployment cases that will permit an employee to be let go for cause, however, to disqualify them from receiving unemployment benefits they have to be guilty of misconduct and not poor/under performance.
To tie this to the article above–you could fire someone for misconduct (as many have suggested should happen with an employee bagging on their employer on a public website), but you have to have the policy in place and you have to be able to prove it without violating any incidental privacy expectations the company may have inadvertently established or that exist with the website (such as a password needed to log in and view/make comments on the website).
I still think that it is a case by case situation. It may be that you have a historically good employee who’s feeling burnt out due to recent expectations and now they are feeling increasingly negative. If you can work with the employee, and their past record supports the assumption that they can be worked with, you should. If the person is a poor performer and has previous counseling that hasn’t had any/much progress made by the employee on those things they were counseled for then this incident would be one more for the books and a serious discussion would need to take place about the future of that person’s employment. Admittedly, case by case language would have to be in the policy for correcting employee behavior, but even in prisons punitive measures only halt behavior to a certain extent. The things that have the lasting impact on people tend to be more…heart string related. Give a person a reason to change and if they want the reason to change bad enough they will change.