Tweet
Originally posted by Tropicana
View Post
-
you don't really believe that do u? In the year 2000 and now? -
She has the right.....whether or not it can be enforced is another thing.Originally posted by missus_vegas View PostComment
-
Smh.
People, people, people: If there is a Send or Submit button AND you don't want 12 other people you have never met to see what you wrote BEFORE you hit that button, don't press it.
There. That was easy.
Comment
-
Well, actually, the right theoretically exists... but what you post can easily bring unwanted governmental attention to you. Especially here in the United States. Again - I'm nor sure how true or how prevalent this governmental lock-down is in the UK. Assuredly, Homeland Security will pay you a visit if you post certain things... or other things often enough. Or if your friends post such things.Originally posted by missus_vegas View Post
Anybody in the U.S. who wants to test that ^ out, just let me know, and I'll tell you exactly what to post - and how often - and you'll be shocked at how fast the feds come knocking on your door! (I'm not kidding.)
Remember that Mr Witchy has very high security clearance; I know a lot more than anybody without such clearance or an immediate family member with such clearance.
And I will also tell unno yet again that anything I post is, occasionally and supposedly randomly, monitored. I am married to Mr Witchy. So the feds have been here and will be here again, and again, and again, etc. Ditto my FB page. It comes with the business.Comment
-
Originally posted by Peasie View PostSmh.
People, people, people: If there is a Send or Submit button AND you don't want 12 other people you have never met to see what you wrote BEFORE you hit that button, don't press it.
There. That was easy.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Tropicana View Post
A right that cannot be enforced is not really a right then is it. Just a mirage.
A teacher would have this right but if she posted nude pics I am sure the school board and parents would have something to say about that. But it's her " right" is it not? Even if she had no students on her friends list I am sure it would be an issue.
Maybe my example is extreme but u get the point.Comment
-
Ah but it can be enforced.
Not sure how this will apply to the private sector and organizations that are non-unionized.
Even if It Enrages Your Boss, Social Net Speech Is Protected
As Facebook and Twitter become as central to workplace conversation as the company cafeteria, federal regulators are ordering employers to scale back policies that limit what workers can say online.
Employers often seek to discourage comments that paint them in a negative light. Don’t discuss company matters publicly, a typical social media policy will say, and don’t disparage managers, co-workers or the company itself. Violations can be a firing offense.
But in a series of recent rulings and advisories, labor regulators have declared many such blanket restrictions illegal.
The National Labor Relations Board says workers have a right to discuss work conditions freely and without fear of retribution, whether the discussion takes place at the office or on Facebook.
In addition to ordering the reinstatement of various workers fired for their posts on social networks, the agency has pushed companies nationwide, including giants like General Motors, Target and Costco, to rewrite their social media rules.
“Many view social media as the new water cooler,” said Mark G. Pearce, the board’s chairman, noting that federal law has long protected the right of employees to discuss work-related matters. “All we’re doing is applying traditional rules to a new technology.”
The decisions come amid a broader debate over what constitutes appropriate discussion on Facebook and other social networks. Schools and universities are wrestling with online bullying and student disclosures about drug use. Governments worry about what police officers and teachers say and do online on their own time. Even corporate chieftains are finding that their online comments can run afoul of securities regulators.
The labor board’s rulings, which apply to virtually all private sector employers, generally tell companies that it is illegal to adopt broad social media policies — like bans on “disrespectful” comments or posts that criticize the employer — if those policies discourage workers from exercising their right to communicate with one another with the aim of improving wages, benefits or working conditions.
But the agency has also found that it is permissible for employers to act against a lone worker ranting on the Internet.
Several cases illustrate the differing standards.
At Hispanics United of Buffalo, a nonprofit social services provider in upstate New York, a caseworker threatened to complain to the boss that others were not working hard enough. Another worker, Mariana Cole-Rivera, posted a Facebook message asking, “My fellow co-workers, how do you feel?”
Several of her colleagues posted angry, sometimes expletive-laden, responses. “Try doing my job. I have five programs,” wrote one. “What the hell, we don’t have a life as is,” wrote another.
Hispanics United fired Ms. Cole-Rivera and four other caseworkers who responded to her, saying they had violated the company’s harassment policies by going after the caseworker who complained.
In a 3-to-1 decision last month, the labor board concluded that the caseworkers had been unlawfully terminated. It found that the posts in 2010 were the type of “concerted activity” for “mutual aid” that is expressly protected by the National Labor Relations Act.
“The board’s decision felt like vindication,” said Ms. Cole-Rivera, who has since found another social work job.
The N.L.R.B. had far less sympathy for a police reporter at The Arizona Daily Star.
Frustrated by a lack of news, the reporter posted several Twitter comments. One said, “What?!?!?! No overnight homicide. ... You’re slacking, Tucson.” Another began, “You stay homicidal, Tucson.”
The newspaper fired the reporter, and board officials found the dismissal legal, saying the posts were offensive, not concerted activity and not about working conditions.
The agency also affirmed the firing of a bartender in Illinois. Unhappy about not receiving a raise for five years, the bartender posted on Facebook, calling his customers “rednecks” and saying he hoped they choked on glass as they drove home drunk.
Labor board officials found that his comments were personal venting, not the “concerted activity” aimed at improving wages and working conditions that is protected by federal law.
N.L.R.B. officials did not name the reporter or the bartender.
The board’s moves have upset some companies, particularly because it is taking a law enacted in the industrial era, principally to protect workers’ right to unionize, and applying it to the digital activities of nearly all private-sector workers, union and nonunion alike.
More: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/22/te...-scrutiny.htmlLast edited by Tropicana; 07-29-2013, 04:45 PM.Comment
-
Originally posted by WitchyOoman View Post
can I get the FBI whistler blower address to send them this post.
Mr witchey clearance should not be extended to you. It would seem you know too much, which is a breach of some kinda privacy law weh mr missa witchy bound to. I have watched enough covert affairs, mi5 and scandal fi know say mr witchy not supposed to discuss work at home.
Comment
-
HR Struggling with Facebook Snitches What should HR do when employees complain about their colleagues’ Facebook posts?
“This place is a hell hole. If I had a car today I would up and quit.”
This is a real Facebook status update referenced in a discussion on HR Talk, the Society for Human Resource Management (SHRM) bulletin board. The question raised: What should be the next step for the manager? Discussion? Termination? Nothing?
It’s a scenario played out in offices all over the world, experts say—people tattling on their Facebook friends.
When Philadelphia attorney Eric Meyer of Dillworth Paxson and Associates LLP, asked HR professionals during SHRM’s Employment Law & Legislative Conference held in Washington, D.C., in March 2012, if they, too, were beginning to see more employees snitching on their colleagues’ Facebook activities, nearly half of the hands in the room shot up.
Some employees are apparently now showing HR—via printout and on their smart phones or computers—the derogatory and demeaning status updates of colleagues who happen to be Facebook friends.
“I was shocked at the number of HR professionals who informed me at [the conference] that they had dealt with this issue,” Meyer later said during a #nextchat discussion on Twitter. Nextchat is a conversation held every other Wednesday on Twitter and hosted by SHRM’s We Know Next website. In a subsequent interview with SHRM Online, Meyer and other experts said this is one of the many reasons why HR professionals should keep abreast of social media rulings by the National Labor Relations Board. It is why having a social media policy is important, they added.
“Many HR professionals do not realize that [even] in a nonunion workforce, the National Labor Relations Act rules apply,” said Steven W. Suflas, labor and employment partner at Ballard Spahr in New Jersey. Those rules “protect concerted activities by employees,” meaning that employees venting on a social networking site can talk about work—with caveats. However, HR must consider the nature of such postings.
But back to the key question: What should HR do?
Don’t Panic
“It’s time to apply some critical thinking skills,” said HR consultant Laurie Ruettimann. “First things first; this status update might not be what you perceive it to be. There is a term on Facebook called vaguebooking. The update might be referring to someone or something else, and even when it’s direct and clear, it might not be clear. The update might be part of a bigger story you know nothing about,” she said.
“I would ask the manager a few questions about the alleged offender’s behavior in the office,” she continued. For example, is this person a good worker? Are tasks being completed on time? "Are there any issues with attendance, morale or interoffice politics? Get the back story on performance,” she said.
“In most instances, unless the situation appeared serious and put someone in harm’s way, I would let the situation pass,” said Joey V. Price, CEO of JumpStartHR, a consultancy. “People have always been disgruntled about the workplace. We vent to our friends, we vent to our co-workers, we even vent to our manager’s manager. The fact that people are venting is not new, but social media is a new medium, which leaves the opportunity for someone to vent in a more public/permanent space—which can make this tricky to deal with.”
This is why social media policies and training on those policies are important, experts said. Yet, according to a SHRM study, 60 percent of HR professionals surveyed in 2011 said their company did not have a social media policy.
“Without a policy in place, it’s really hard to advise what the next step is,” Sean Charles, an HR social media consultant and trainer in Vancouver, British Columbia, told SHRM Online. Price added: “Companies should be proactive and offer corporate training of social media use, since this can answer questions before they become issues.”
Too Much Information
HR professionals point out that this is yet another example of people sharing too much on social media sites.
“People should understand that they are accountable for their social media persona,” said Janine Truitt, senior HR representative at Brookhaven National Laboratory. “In the same way that they can choose what content to put out there, they can choose who they associate themselves with,”
Charles agreed.
“Being totally transparent on your Facebook page is a big risk. … It can come back to haunt you,” Charles said.
Comment
-
He doesn't.Originally posted by missus_vegas View Postcan I get the FBI whistler blower address to send them this post.
Mr witchey clearance should not be extended to you. It would seem you know too much, which is a breach of some kinda privacy law weh mr missa witchy bound to. I have watched enough covert affairs, mi5 and scandal fi know say mr witchy not supposed to discuss work at home.
Where did I say that I know what he knows???
I said that I know that I am supposedly occasionally monitored.Comment
-
The FBI has their report link right on their website.
But it's not the FBI that covers this; it's the military. lolComment
-
http://www.fbi.gov/contact-us/field ---> you contact the FBI here: http://www.fbi.gov/contact-us/field
did that hotlink now?Comment
-
Tropi that all looks goo ON PAPER but in reality...
if they can't can u for the fb comment they will can u for taking an extra 5 min lunch break.Comment
-
IF Mr Witchy was currently active then you'd contact the USAF through his CO.
he isn't currently active, however.
Ditto if he were just working as a civilian contractor - via the CO of his base (or wherever he is located).Comment
-
i was just joking around witchy. But this is wat u said...Originally posted by WitchyOoman View PostHe doesn't.
Where did I say that I know what he knows???
I said that I know that I am supposedly occasionally monitored.
Not saying u know what he knows, but by ur admission, you know more than than a person without clearance.Remember that Mr Witchy has very high security clearance; I know a lot more than anybody without such clearance or an immediate family member with such clearance.
.
At ne rate I was just teasing.Comment
Comment