I find it a little eyebrow raising that the company wants to limit my speech in this way. Is there legal justification for the company’s stance? Am I really not allowed to mention that I work at [company] on my personal site?
Here’s the real wrinkle to this situation. Last week I got an email saying that [company] wants each of its employees with a Facebook account to “friend” the company’s new Facebook site to promote its new project online and get it advertised via social networking. I wasn’t exactly thrilled about the idea before. But, given this memo, I have to say I’m inclined to say, “Sorry, then I can’t connect my personal site with the company site. You can’t expect to use my personal contacts through the site to promote the business and then also limit what I can say on my site. If you want a separation between business and personal, then you need to keep it consistently separate. Not just when it’s convenient for you.”
It seems somewhat dysfunctional to both ask you to remove any links to the company as well as ask you to add links to the company project. I’m inclined to agree that they should not have it both ways.
Sounds like the new instructions supercede the old ones. You might want to check though, if only to gain brownie points by showing that you’ve read and understood both memos.
I’m suspecting that their first action was a mistake, and that their second action is an attempt at damage control.
“Hey, link the company!”
“Oh. Wait. One of our employees that is running one of those sites that claims Obama is an illegal immigrant linked us, and his profile prominently mentions him working for the company…”
For better or worse, in most cases in the US there is no legal barrier to a company acting like overbearing assholes in the manner described in your OP.
They can’t stop you mentioning the company on your Facebook page, but if they tell you not to do it and you ignore them, they can fire you.
Always remember, in any dispute with your employer over matters of principle to consider both perspectives. Namely, the company side, and the unemployed side.
I agree that the policies are mutually inconsistent. There are some states that prohibit discrimination/ termination / discipline for legal off-the-job conduct. It seems to me that mentioning you work for Company X on a Facebook page would fall in that category, assuming you did it outside of work hours/ offsite/ on your own equipment. Those laws are most frequently applied, and I believe have their origin in the attempt, to protect smokers from employment discrimination, but can be applied more broadly. On the other hand, in some states such conduct is not protected by law, and it would be fair game for at-will employment termination.
“Free speech” as a right is an issue that applies only to governmental actions. Private individuals, and corporations, can limit your ability to speak freely all they want. Of course, my ability as a private citizen to limit your “free speech” may be decidedly limited, but your employer, of course, has a much bigger stick.
I’m sure the memos could have been worded more clearly. In a nutshell, having the company “buddied” does not mean you are an employee, and does not make you a representative of the company. However if you are claiming to be an employee and have extensive picture libraries of you and your friends stoned out of your gourd. Or blathering on about Nazi police thugs, blah blah legalize today!!!11!!1!! while your company is bidding on a job involving millions of dollars in contracts with a federal law enforcement agency, the customer might not take it too well if it came to light that the sales rep sitting in front of them is one of the people they are in business to arrest and prosecute.
Plenty of things we say on our personal sites would not always reflect well to the customer base of our employers.
As I mentioned in a similar thread, it might be nice to think the world is full of equal opportunity customers, the opposite is far closer to the truth.
You have the right to post whatever you want on your facebook page.
The company, however, has the right to fire you for what you post on your facebook page.
Generally, under US law, a private employer has the right to fire an employee for any reason, good, bad or neutral, except when the firing is based on protected classification under federal, state or local law such as race, national origin, religion or other classes. In addition, a company’s right to terminate employees may be limited by contract, either an individual employment agreement or a collectively bargained contract.
In any event, a company would be almost certainly be justified in firing someone for violating a company policy like this.
I would ceate a second, fake profile with questionable material that will all but directly announce that the profile owner is a child molestor, necrophiliac, horse raper, etc. and have that profile buddy link to them.
Companies are trying to get their hands around this “Web 2.0 stuff.” Some are doing a pretty good job. But its issue filled. There is a huge push and pull right now between the naysayers - who see the issues - and the fans - that see the potential.
The truth is they aren’t really, in the end, going to be able to control social networking - and social networking is going to create some good things for corporations (there are companies that are getting really good results via Twitter) - and some nightmares (and when the nightmares are created, people will get fired) - in the meantime though, you don’t want to be a martyr to the cause over something stupid, so just don’t mention them, and don’t link…
From now on you get to let people assume you work for the CIA…
