Skip to main content

Do We Have the Rights to Talk about Work or our Boss on Social Media?

It is not new to hear people got fired because of their updates on social networking sites. In one extreme case, a man got fired even for his random thoughts posted on Facebook. So, is it legal for companies to fire employees because of their updates on social media sites?

Employees have the rights to discuss face-to-face on “protected concerted activity” as outlined by the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB). For example, employees can talk about their wages and work conditions with co-workers. According to The Lodging Magazine (2013), the answer to whether employees have the rights to talk about work or their boss on social media sites depends on whether the employee’s update is considered as protected concerted activity.

The article in The Lodging Magazine reported two cases with the published decisions from NLRB. One case involves in an employee’s sarcastic comments about the employer. This employee is not protected because NLRB believes that the comments were made “solely by the employee without any discussion with other employees.” In the other case, an employee responded to a co-worker’s criticisms of her job performance as well as the performance of other co-workers. This employee was fired, but NLRB ruled in favor of the terminated employee because the employee’s behavior is “a call to group action that related to their working conditions.”

Even though it is noted that the decision made by the NLRB may turn out to be invalid because the Supreme Court by the Administration is still pending on its decision on whether the NLRB “lacks a quorum and is unable to conduct business,” employers are advised to keep such decisions of NLRB in mind. In the end, the article lists six suggestions for employers’ considerations (direct quotes):

  • Eliminate policies that require employees to maintain confidentiality over wages, bonuses, or commissions.
  • Review social media policies for non-specific terms that need further definition or stricter language.
  • Adjust overly broad language that prohibits employees from discussing company policies, schedules, safety, dress codes, work assignments, other staff, or management.
  • Eliminate or change language that prohibits posting of company logos, company name, identification of employee with the company, etc.
  • Where legitimate issues are involved, define information that the company considers confidential (private employee data, guest information, strategic marketing plans, financial particulars).
  • Consider a disclaimer at the end of the social media policy that makes clear that the policy is not intended to restrict an employee’s Section Seven Rights under the NLRA.

My suggestion to individual users is to think before posting any negative comments about work or their boss. They may ask themselves: besides venting my feelings about work or my boss on social media sites, how does my update help solve the issue? Are there other places for me to vent my feelings? Are there other places I can seek solutions (e.g., the HR Office, the corporate HR Manager, the NLRB, etc.)?

I agree to the article that managers need to revisit their companies’ policy. Ideally, I believe that the best solution to “stop” employees from bad-mouthing the company or their supervisors is to nurture an organizational culture that value employee feedback. If employees know their employer listens to them and shows genuine interest to them, they tend to be more open to their managers about their feelings and thoughts. If their issues are solved, they will not need to vent their feelings on social media sites any more. What do you think?

References:
Ryan, Andria, & Lominack, Reybun. (2013, March). Word to the wise: the National Labor Relations Board is weighing in on social media communications and employee rights; Here’s what hoteliers need to know. The Lodging Magazine (The official magazine of The American Hotel + Lodging Association), p. 20-21.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Luxury vs. Millennials and Their Technology: The Ritz-Carlton (By Julia Shorr)

Embodying the finest luxury experience, The Ritz-Carlton Hotel Company, LLC has been established since 1983. In 1998, Marriott International purchased the brand offering it more opportunity for growth while being independently owned and operated. They are known for their enhanced service level as the motto states, “Ladies and Gentlemen serving Ladies and Gentlemen”. The luxury brand now carries 97 hotels and resorts internationally and is attempting to keep the aspects of luxury while keeping up with the trends of the technologically improving generations. The Varying Demographics of the Target Market The Ritz-Carlton’s typical target market includes: business executives, corporate, leisure travelers, typically middle-aged persons and elders, and families from the upper and upper-middle class section of society .   This infers a large range of types of travelers in which all are similar in that they are not opposed to spending extra for the luxurious ambiance. However, with

Is It OK for Hotel Staff to Wear Piercings and Tattoos?

Time has changed. I see more and more college students wearing piercings and tattoos nowadays, but is it OK for hotel staff to wear piercings and tattoos? The answer is “no, no, no.” According a report at USAToday.com, customers across the board do not want to see any hotel workers with pierced eyebrow, pierced tongue, tattooed arm, or nose ring. Some may argue that tattooed and pierced workers may seem more acceptable in edgy boutique hotels as compared to the big franchised hotels, but the survey results did not find any differences among a variety of lodging products. Many respondents believe people who wear visible tattoos and piercings are taking a high risk of their professional lives. If you stay in a hotel, do you mind being served by tattooed and/or pierced staff? What if you are the one who makes the hiring decision? References: USAToday.com: http://tinyurl.com/linchikwok08042010 Picture was downloaded from http://tinyurl.com/linchikwok08042010P

Besides helping the environment, what other benefits can restaurants see from green food packages?

Restaurant curbside pickup evolved from the old-fashioned takeout service and has gained momentum since COVID. Restaurateurs embrace the concept, and consumers want it. Curbside pickup will remain an essential restaurant distribution method even after the pandemic. Do off-premises restaurant services add a burden to the environment? The surge of restaurant off-premises services (curbside pickup, takeout, or delivery) could harm the environment because many retailers use food containers and packages made of plastic for one-time usage. Research shows that our world populations produce 130 million tons of single-use plastic a year (including more than food packages here), but in the U.S., only 8% of all plastic products get recycled. Some restaurants have begun using more sustainable materials in food packaging (e.g., disposable containers). Their efforts deserve a round of applause! Nevertheless, it is unclear if their good deeds can also bring them monetary rewards. For example, can gr