Welcome to the social media age, where an individual is considered strange for not having a Facebook account, every minute of a person’s life can be tweeted instantly, and personal diaries are no longer being used because people have tumblr accounts doubling as an online diary. We have all become so expressive in all social networking sites because that’s what we do on Facebook, Twitter and Tumblr. We connect. We share. But what happens when we share too much?
I was fortunate enough to attend a Professional in Human Resources Association (PIHRA) District 1 meeting yesterday. The first half of the meeting consisted of the top 10 hot topics for the HR practitioner for 2012 (think of this as the ‘trending topics’ for all you Twitter fans out there). One of them caught my eye in particular – social media snares.
We share so much on social networking platforms that sometimes we don’t think twice about what we share, but what is and isn’t ‘appropriate’ becomes tricky when we talk about our job and/or company in a negative light. Where does employee privacy end and an employer’s right to protect the company begin?
A case that took place in Hispanics United of Buffalo, Inc. brought HR attention towards the issue of ‘protected concerted activity’. What happened was one employee criticized a few other employees. After this criticism, one of the criticized employees wrote the following on her Facebook account:
“Lydia Cruz[-Moore], a coworker feels that we don’t help our client enough at HUB I about had it! My fellow coworkers how do you feel?”
This obviously sparked a conversation amongst other employees that were complained about; the conversation included profanity and rude comments, which Lydia Cruz-Moore took to HUB’s management. The employees that were bashing her online were then fired due to an anti-harassment policy in the company. However, the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) stated that according to National Labor Relations Act (NLRA), what the employees were engaging in was considered protected concerted activity. Concerted activity includes “circumstances where individual employees seek to initiate or to induce or to prepare for group action”. Basically, ‘group discussions’ regarding concerns about the company are considered protected concerted activity, and are not legitimate grounds for firing an employee/employees.
follow the black sheep?
One thing of concern, however, is how groupthink can play a part to ensure protected concerted activity. Those adding to the conversation amongst disgruntled employees may feel as though everyone feels the same way, enhancing the feelings of negativity towards the organization instead of trying to come up with a rational plan to bring up the issue with HR or the manager. Groupthink may rile up employees to encourage the disgruntlement, which is never good for the morale of a company.
That said, having protected concerted activity can ensure employees feel safe within a certain realm to express their (hopefully valid) concerns without fearing consequences. As long as it appears constructive, it is a good way for companies to learn what they can improve in the workplace, as long as it seems reasonable.
In the meantime, unless an employee is certain their concern is shared by many, it is perhaps best to assume one shouldn’t express their thoughts about work so freely online. You never know who may be reading those status updates.
References:
National labor relations act. (n.d.). Retrieved from http://www.nlrb.gov/national-labor-relations-act
Facebook postings found to be protected concerted activity under nlra. (2011, September 16). Retrieved from http://www.ober.com/publications/1517-facebook-postings-found-be-protected-concerted-activity-under-nlra
Nlrb reverses “facebook firing”–social media postings as protected concerted activity for non-unionized employees. (2011, September 22). Retrieved from http://www.healthcareintegrationadvisors.com/employment-law/nlrb-reverses-facebook-firing–social-media-postings-as-protected-concerted-activity-for-non-unionized-employees/
alvinajng 