We’ve all had those rough days at work. The ones that seem to drag on for hours, while your fellow
employees shoot the breeze, and you get stuck with extra work from the
boss. Yet logging on to Facebook
and Twitter to vent about a bad day at work or unbearable boss could get an
employee fired.
Recently, a Minnesotan library worker was fired from her job after
she complained on Facebook about the public library’s wages and her boss’
response to suggestions she raised.
Later on, the same employee was summoned into her boss’ office and asked
to sign a contract stating she wouldn’t post anything else about the public
library or the staff on social media websites. She refused and was terminated.
Workers are protected under the National Labor Relations Act 1935,
which originally protected union workers who were “engaging in a ‘concerted
activity”. This simply means that
more than one person must be engaged in the conversation to make it ‘concerted’.
The law allowed workers to advocate for the bargaining rights or mutual aid
from the company. However, workers do not have to be members of a union to be
protected under the law. The law
protects union and non-union workers alike.
The law protects employee speech concerning bargaining and such,
but it also extends to any speech related to the work environment as well. The National Labor Relations Boardstated that employees couldn’t be fired for discussing management, wages, or
working conditions on social media sites, like Facebook and Twitter. Moreover,
companies’ cannot restrict employees’ posts, tweets, photos, etc as not to
include other employees, work places, and company identifiers.
Personally, I’ve never dealt with a hated boss, employees, or
company. I’ve experienced my fair share of terrible workdays, but I’ve never
vented my anger or frustration concerning my workplace to Facebook friends or
Twitter followers. Yet, I believe
that the employees should be able to criticize their boss or workplace
conditions. I understand the feelings of being a low-level employee with little
power, and see how many folks would use social media to get their sentiments
out to the public. Yet, I still
believe the proper procedure should allow the company employee to voice their critiques
and speak up about problems in the workplace. By allowing workers to criticize problems they see, the
company can take steps to remedy the situation and create a better workplace.
I agree with Deirdre that protecting workers’ right to criticize the organization for which they work needs to be preserved and that it is beneficial as a mean to improve the workplace. The employees’ ability to freely scrutinize provides employers insight into the work environment and an opportunity to adjust policies or offer counterarguments for the accusations. While sanctioning these cynical remarks may be hazardous to the business they reflect because of the negative publicity accompanying these broadcasted statements. However, there are ways to deal with workers’ unfavorable messages without lay offs or censorship. For example, corporations can provide private channels for employees to safely write complaints, suggestions, or praises regarding career satisfaction directly to upper management. The administration can then respond to the staff regarding the concerns. This system would allow for workers’ feelings to be heard without the threat of losing their jobs, which would create a more amicable and cohesive atmosphere and thus deter employees from publishing negative statements regarding the business. All in all, safeguarding workers’ speech regarding their workplace is essential because it demands that businesses be accountable to society and to tend to the workers’ conditions.
ReplyDeleteI have had frustrating experiences with a boss in the past, but no matter how frustrated I was, it never crossed my mind to complain about him via social media. I feel like that is a very immature response to any concerns she may have.
ReplyDeleteAll that aside, however, the law that protects worker’s speech, as cited here, was created in 1935. 78 years ago. It is undeniable that society as a whole has changed in the last 78 years, not to mention the ways people express their freedoms of speech and expression. When that law was created, all the technology we use now had yet to even become an idea. It is very hard to apply a law created so long ago to technology, social media, etc. that were not even near existed when the law was put in place.
I think it would be beneficial to our society to revisit this law, and update it to be more current. That way it can incorporate the technology outlets that are so relevant to us today. Until that happens, applying this law to current issues it going to be continually difficult.
In my opinion, if the librarian was so unhappy working there, she shouldn’t be choosing to work there, nor does the library want her working there. In the U.S. and with the economy today, there are so many people looking for a job that she could easily be replaced with someone that would handle their concerns more rationally. However, issues of the first amendment go beyond this point, of which I think there is no easy answer because the law they are attempting to apply to the problem is so out of date.
I agree that the workplace should not be allowed to limit the free expression of its employees, at least in cases of truth or opinion. The employer should have nothing to worry about if employees make truthful or unprovable statements. It seems unprofessional for someone to complain on a social media site, but what is the significant difference between a post of this sort and sharing work information with friends? It would be in conflict with the ideals of the first amendment to restrict posts about the workplace; however, it is common practice.
ReplyDeleteI have a friend who was a manager of a Dairy Queen. One night her only crewmember left before they were done closing down, leaving her with twice the work. That night, she posted something vague about hating her job on Facebook. She was fired the next day while the crewmember was unpunished.
The day before a snowstorm my coworkers and I were told at my place of work that we would all be held responsible if we did not come in the next day. However, it was the manager that told us this that did not come into work the next day. A coworker of mine posted, “Those of us who bothered to show up are going to have a great day at work.” The manager called within twenty minutes demanding it be taken down.