Restriced access to social media

There has been a lot of comment about the interrelationship between employees’ use of social media and their employment relationship since news broke recently of the man allegedly fired for posting his CV to his linkedin page, and indicating that he was open to job opportunities. The growing use of social media is creating discussion. Is social media personal to the employees, or somehow related to their employment? Facebook and Twitter are generally considered to be personal matters, but increasingly companies have their own Facebook pages that employees may post on or be linked to, or use Twitter as a method of communicating with their clients. The very nature of Linkedin suggests a more business related media with people using it as an effective tool to network with referrers, colleagues, clients and targets. Businesses are also increasingly using tools like Yammer as internal social media to share knowledge and ideas. Whilst companies cannot necessarily govern employees’ use of all social media, as much of it is outside of their direct control, or their legitimate scope of interference, it may be very sensible for employers to encourage employees to think carefully about their useage. Guidance can legitimately be given about how comments posted on Facebook about colleagues could be used as evidence in any internal disciplinary or grievance matter. People should think carefully about how they communicate with these tools, particularly where there is a link to the employer. Internal tools such as Yammer can be more easily governed by the employer as they have control over the medium and employees should therefore be more acutely aware of how their postings may be interpreted by their colleagues or superiors. What employers should really be aiming for is a level of commonsense applied by employees and some simple rules of thumb might help employees create a real divide between their social interactions and their employment: • If you don’t want your Facebook account, or other social media, to be the business of your employer don’t make friends or linkup with colleagues, clients or business contacts. • Don’t publicise your employment or relationship with a company on your social media pages. • Don’t make comments or upload postings about your employer, its business, your colleagues or business contacts on your sites. • If you do any of the above, don’t be surprised if your employer takes an interest in what you post, what you say or what you do if it reflects negatively on them in any way. - Esther Smith, Employment Partner, Thomas Eggar LLP. www.thomaseggar.com

Yikes! Expensive mistake. But how else do people learn about how to use integrated social media, without making mistakes? We're makig mistakes today we won't be making in 2 years' time...it's a fast, fast, world.

If it's done during employers time then I think it's a no-no.

The simple answer is that with the ubiquity of personal smart phones in the workplace you can't and you shouldn't. If you treat employees like children, they're likely to behave like children.The same question came up when desktop internet access at work went mainstream and I'll bet managers had the same debate when telephones first appeared on everyone's desk. Companies need to consult with employees and jointly agree some ground rules in the form of an acceptable use policy. This document should explain clearly what constitutes good/bad behaviour as far as social media use during company time is concerned. ACAS, The Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service has produced a useful guide to setting social media policy. Here's the link: http://www.acas.org.uk/index.aspx?articleid=3381 As for the guy who got fired for indicating he was open to employment offers on LinkedIn, I think the Courts will find in his favour and the reputation of the firm who fired him will take a tumble. I'll wager that someone in that same company has used LinkedIn to identify job candidates; managers cannot expect to have their cake and eat it!

Companies can realistically govern how their employees use social media. If they don’t try there will be no hope of controlling the company’s confidential information or all the other risks that social media can pose to a business. The key is to formulate a social media policy and communicate it to employees. Without a social media policy an employer will struggle to show it has considered employees’ social media use or be able to control what happens, whether during or after the employment has ended. A good policy will govern how employees should use social media (and the internet/email). It will address the company’s stance on aspects such as defamation, bullying and harassment online etc and the implications of these. It should also try and give guidance on what is acceptable in terms of use and content-matter. Linked-In: There was a 2008 case with Hays, where it secured an order for Mr Ions to produce emails etc sent to his LinkedIn account and all evidence to show the business obtained while employed. Mr Ions had a 6 month restrictive period, and Hays was seeking information in advance of a possible injunction to prevent him soliciting work during this period. As such, restrictive covenants also play their part and need to be carefully drafted and dovetail with other policies (social media) and clauses (confidentiality). This case showed that an employer can have some control over its confidential information in a social media environment. Twitter: There’s a US case going on at present where PhoneDog is suing a former employee, Noah Kravtiz. PhoneDog claims Kravitz’s Twitter account is its property. I don’t think there’s been a similar case in the UK yet, but I feel it won’t be long. In this situation the employer will have a far greater chance of winning if it has addressed these social media issues in a policy that has been communicated to employees.

Staff turnover is a natural and healthy part of business (agency) life. In a time when global media companies can’t compete with twitter in real time I think it’s a waste of energy to try to govern or control how employees use social media. If a business becomes aware that a member of staff – regardless of their level – is looking for new opportunities this should be seen as an opportunity to find out why they want to move on and try to keep them or help them exit in a mutually beneficial way. This ensures that whatever the outcome you have an advocate for your business based on how you have dealt with that knowledge. That said; the rules of the game still apply today as they did before twitter and facebook. Employees have to take responsibility for their conduct in their ‘social life’. If discretion isn’t one’s forté then it’s probably best to stay analogue.

Staff turnover is a natural and healthy part of business (agency) life. In a timewhen global media companies can’t compete with twitter in real time I think it’s a waste of energy to try to govern or control how employees use social media. If a business becomes aware that a member of staff – regardless of their level – is looking for new opportunities this should be seen as an opportunity to find out whythey want to move on and try to keep them or help them exit in a mutually beneficial way. This ensures that whatever the outcome you have an advocate for your business based on how you have dealt with that knowledge. That said; the rules of the game still apply today as they did before twitter and facebook. Employees have to take responsibility for their conduct in their ‘social’ life. If discretion isn’t one’s forte then it’s probably best to stay analogue.

Brands, businesses and employees alike exist in a state of unprecedented interconnectivity, causing the lines between our professional and personal identities to blur as the social media landscape continues to evolve at a startling rate. With no signs of slowing down, transparency and channel ownership become increasingly important issues for organisations when trying to govern employees’ use of social media. Today, very few (if any) organisations operate without some sort of social media policy designed to limit the potentially negative implications of employees’ uncensored opinions being shared online for everyone to see. Although this approach will restrict and help minimise the potential, ultimately, no matter what policies are implemented, employers will find difficult to fully control what their employees choose to say. Nor, arguably, should they. I would argue that effective governance requires a long term strategic approach that enlists buy-in from your employees by ensuring a brand’s ethos transcends the marketing plan and is lived and breathed by the employees. Google and Apple are classic examples of a brand where the employees passionately embody all that it stands for, in turn reflecting these values in both their professional and personal lives. We at The Brand Union believe that employees, actively engaged, can act as the most enthusiastic and effective ambassadors for a brand.

This is my answer to the question as printed in B2B Marketing Magazine: While any organisation will understandably object if social media is used to broadcast confidential information, business plans, to criticise or undermine, any employer which persecutes staff using this channel to highlight their visibility to the job market is on sticky ground, legally and ethically. There is no difference between stating your openness to conversations on LinkedIn and letting your network know that you are ready to make a move. Organisations persecuting staff who have indicated their openness to career discussions would do better to pay more attention to their retention policies. If a key member of staff has gone public about being interested in alternative career options, it usually means that the psychological contract is on its last legs. Worse still, employers who try to control staff behaviour in this way generally send a signal out to all staff that it might be time to look at the job ads page.