Company Policies on Social Media

[Seahope]

My employer has just got around to producing a policy on social media. I checked it to see whether I am allowed to continue posting on this site. The good news for me at least is that I can provided I don't name my employer or name our clients. Basically, the policy is just common sense but of course gives the company the rights to discipline anyone found in breach of thus policy since there is a zero tolerance for non compliance with respect to policies. Probably useful as the average age of our employees is relatively low and someone once reminded me that there really is no such thing as common sense - just experience.

 

[Assassin]

Unfortunately social media has a dark side and this is the old industrial espionage. many youngsters unfortunately post every aspect of their lives online for everyone to see, do I really care if they're off to take a dump, or on the bus, or just giving a running commentary on their lives.

This is where the problems lie, with them willing to disclose every aspect of their lives, they are also willing to divulge (often unwittingly) certain company information online which they see as normal, it is this or an accumulation of this information which is the problem as they can give away a considerable amount of information about a company or its operations.

 

[Andy Bav]

I havent seen one yet, but know HR keep a close eye on it and a few "quiet" phone calls have been made. I have read various reports that a search of social media sites are part of companies screening policies and I know at least one young man who has taken his down at job application time for just that reason.... as you say comon sense is a good sarting point! I guess my company hasnt felt the need to put it in writing yet. That said, talking to an employment Lawyer a few months ago, cases involving social media arw increasing exponentially, so I guess policies will become commonplace soon.

 

[DinghyMan]

I've implemented social media filters at a couple of places I've worked - complete ban on facebook, twitter, any of the web mail checking systems, sites for work are whitelisted, etc, etc, and then provided a couple of unrestricted PC's for people to use at breaks & lunchtimes if they want. It appears a bit draconian but as others have said common sense is not that common and I've been involved with collecting the evidence of people browsing history for use in dismissals. Son-in-law works in IT for a council and went on very good course run specifically for evidence gathering and he's used it a few times.

I went for a job a couple of months ago and it was specifically mentioned that they couldn't find anything about me online; no facebook page, no twitter account, etc, which I found very reassuring.

 

[Ian h]

We have social media policy at work.
its stricly enforced, No access to social media sites from any work computers. ( except the press dept )
Also in the policy its stated that we are not allowed to post photo's on any social media site or forums of anything connected with our business.
And no its nothing secret, Just work want to control what is written and published.

Have no problem with policy as some people post before they think.

 

[cryan]

I have to admit I find the policies of certain institutions and companies somewhat Orwellian.
Social media is a beast that can no longer be contained. You either live with it or risk being consumed by it. Nothing will damage a company's image to the younger generations today more than being the subject of a hate campaign online because they sacked a young worker for checking his Facebook status. Companies should basically think of social network not as a place where an employee might post a picture of the office but as a trade union with a billion members just waiting for an excuse to picket.

 

[Bertramdriver]

I know of a private sector company staffed by retired spooks. They claim to be able to provide clients with a complete profile of any person from financial transactions to sexual preferences within seven days for a fee. The scary thing is that all the data is sourced from public access media. As a result I've cancelled all my social stuff and this forum is my only 'social media" I use, largely because its too important as a knowledge source. You've been warned!

 

[DinghyMan]

I have to admit I find the policies of certain institutions and companies somewhat Orwellian.
Social media is a beast that can no longer be contained. You either live with it or risk being consumed by it. Nothing will damage a company's image to the younger generations today more than being the subject of a hate campaign online because they sacked a young worker for checking his Facebook status. Companies should basically think of social network not as a place where an employee might post a picture of the office but as a trade union with a billion members just waiting for an excuse to picket.

Companies don't want to and don't need to pay employees to waste a large part of their day playing online and chatting to their mates instead of doing the work they are paid to do.

I have worked in environments where no mobile phones are allowed in large parts of the building, almost no workers had external email access, and almost no-one has internet access at their desk. We provided plenty of unrestricted PC's for use during breaks and never had any issues. If an employee were that obsessed with facebook or similar that they cannot cope with a few hours without it we would get them some professional help rather than be held to ransom that they had to have access to social media at work.

Any employee who started or took part in a hate campaign against their employer would be sacked for gross misconduct - exactly as it states in the company T&C's.

 

[prv]

Well, I think my employer is fairly enlightened on the subject:

IBM Social Computing Guidelines

1. Know and follow IBM's Business Conduct Guidelines.
2. IBMers are personally responsible for the content they publish on-line, whether in a blog, social computing site or any other form of user-generated media. Be mindful that what you publish will be public for a long time-protect your privacy and take care to understand a site's terms of service.
3. Identify yourself-name and, when relevant, role at IBM-when you discuss IBM-related matters such as IBM products or services. You must make it clear that you are speaking for yourself and not on behalf of IBM.
4. If you publish content online relevant to IBM in your personal capacity it is best to use a disclaimer such as this: "The postings on this site are my own and don't necessarily represent IBM's positions, strategies or opinions."
5. Respect copyright, fair use and financial disclosure laws.
6. Don't provide IBM's or a client's, partner's or supplier's confidential or other proprietary information and never discuss IBM business performance or other sensitive matters about business results or plans publicly.
7. Don't cite or reference clients, partners or suppliers on business-related matters without their approval. When you do make a reference, link back to the source and do not publish content that might allow inferences to be drawn which could damage a client relationship with IBM.
8. Respect your audience. Don't use ethnic slurs, discriminatory remarks, personal insults, obscenity, or engage in any similar conduct that would not be appropriate or acceptable in IBM's workplace. You should also show proper consideration for others' privacy.
9. Be aware of your association with IBM in online social networks. If you identify yourself as an IBMer, ensure your profile and related content is consistent with how you wish to present yourself with colleagues and clients.
10. Spirited and passionate discussions and debates are fine, but you should be respectful of others and their opinions. Be the first to correct your own mistakes.
11. Try to add value. Provide worthwhile information and perspective. IBM's brand is best represented by its people and what you publish may reflect on IBM's brand.
12. Don't misuse IBM logos or trademarks and only use them if you have the authority to do so. For example, you shouldn't use IBM in your screen name or other social media ID.

There's a longer discussion of this policy at http://www.ibm.com/blogs/zz/en/guidelines.html

Pete

 

[cryan]

Companies don't want to and don't need to pay employees to waste a large part of their day playing online and chatting to their mates instead of doing the work they are paid to do.

I have worked in environments where no mobile phones are allowed in large parts of the building, almost no workers had external email access, and almost no-one has internet access at their desk. We provided plenty of unrestricted PC's for use during breaks and never had any issues. If an employee were that obsessed with facebook or similar that they cannot cope with a few hours without it we would get them some professional help rather than be held to ransom that they had to have access to social media at work.

Any employee who started or took part in a hate campaign against their employer would be sacked for gross misconduct - exactly as it states in the company T&C's.

I wasn't suggesting that employees should be alowed to laze about updating facebook. I too have worked in phone sensitive areas when I was employed by a defence subcontractor, although that was more to do with camera phones. But as stated above there is an industry popping up these days which uses social media to effectively spy on employees and I think that is wrong. Whether it is misconduct for employees to talk about the business online is down to that company's contract of employment. But then what about whistleblowers? We all know that many large companies have whistle blowing policies to allow employees to raise concerns but we are mostly equally aware that employees use those chanels at their own peril.
Social media is for the most part a nightmare for companies, especially those employing more youthful employees, but the point I was making is that while fewer and fewer young workers are joining trade unions they are all joining social networks and managers should take as much care when sensoring them as they would have taken when dealing with a millitant shop steward in the 1970's.

 

[Assassin]

During WW II there was a saying "careless talk costs lives"; businesses have adapted this saying to "Careless talk costs business, lost business costs jobs, maybe yours".

 

[cryan]

Well, I think my employer is fairly enlightened on the subject:



There's a longer discussion of this policy at http://www.ibm.com/blogs/zz/en/guidelines.html

Pete

Having read ten reasonable sounding rules which basically insist that you make clear your not representing the company rule 11 says it all. If you see the chance to make us money then mention us. Lol.

 

[cryan]

During WW II there was a saying "careless talk costs lives"; businesses have adapted this saying to "Careless talk costs business, lost business costs jobs, maybe yours".

Yes but there is a difference between giving away corporate secrets and moaning to your friends that your boss is being unreasonable. There are companies who are disciplining employees for doing the latter even if that was posted out of ours at home.