This week Group 5 took the
opportunity to explore the 9 edicts and how they can make an impact on business
as provided by the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB). As group 5 dove into
the most important rules outlined, we asked that they keep in mind what would
be the most important to them if creating social media policies for their
organizations. Great examples were
cited and insight into how to look at these rules developed great conversation.
 |
| Source: Phillips, 2015 |
One of the highlights this
week took what some organizations would have deemed a disastrous tweet by an
employee of The American Red Cross and turned it into an opportunity to build
awareness and raise funds. The employee who inadvertently tweeted about getting
“slizzard” through the Red Cross account rather than her personal Twitter
account was not fired from the organization. Instead the organization that
deals with natural disasters, put it into perspective, offered a
well-formulated apology and went about business. The craft beer company shared
in the opportunity to gain mentions, encouraged followers to donate to the Red
Cross and worked with the organization to maximize the opportunity. Read more from Russ Phillips about how this rogue tweet
turned into a marketer’s dream.
 |
| via Consumerist |
In another example, we
learned “tips” about how posting customer’s private information on social media
can get you fired! An Applebee’s waitress shared a customer’s receipt on social
media as an opportunity to “rant” about the tip she received from a pastor that
wrote, “"I give God 10%, why do you get 18?" (Morran, 2013). Brenna McKinley offered that though there are several rules
designed to prevent issues like this from arising, “the lines between what is
acceptable social media behavior and what companies can legally prohibit often
get blurred, many times due to a lack of common sense on the part of the
employee” (McKinley, 2015). Read
more from Brenna McKinely about how this situation unfolded.
Our final example this week
was exposed in a discussion regarding how Subway faced challenges after two
teens posted inappropriate photos of their actions while working in the
restaurant. One of those challenges
resulted in investigations by the health department. The teens were of course
fired, but Subway did not actively address the issue publicly. The incident may have been avoided had
the restaurant implemented a social media policy or enforced one that limited
use of mobile devices and social media while working. Read more about Subway’s situation and how the NLRB edicts
can be applied to this situation from Allie Ritacco.
The conversation this week
had overwhelmingly strong references to rule #9, “Employers remain entitled to
enforce important workplace policies, even in the context of social media”
(Halpern, 2012). The consensus seems to be that this rule holds the opportunity
for organizations to suggest the employees “should exercise good judgment and
caution employees that if their conduct violates the rights of other employees
or third parties, it may result in liability to these individuals” (Halpern,
2012). Several of the other rules were discussed as guiding principles to building
social media policies. For more information on the rules and how Group 5
tackled this week’s discussion, don’t forget to check out the individual blogs! Great work this week Group 5. Thanks
for your unique and noteworthy contributions! And of course, many thanks again to my co-author for this week's topic - Jeff Nichol.
Halpern, S. (2012, December 3). When is your company's social media policy an unfair labor practice? Recent NLRB decisions offer long-awaited guidance for employers. The National Law Review. Retrieved February 25, 2015 from http://www.natlawreview.com/article/when-your-comapny-s-social-media-policy-unfair-labor-practice-recent-nlrb-decisions-
McKinley, B. (2015, February 25). Social Media "Tip:" Don't Expose Customer Information. [Blog]. Retrieved from http://brennamck610.blogspot.com/2015/02/social-media-tip-dont-expose-customer.html
Hi Mandy, thank you for sparking such an interesting discussion. I’m drawn towards two points of the nine policies released by the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB). Of particular interest to me were the first which states “Employers may prohibit employee ‘rants’ – If an employee posts complaints or remarks inappropriately on social media and is not engaging in ‘protected concerted activity’ with other employees, an employer has the right to take action against the employee” and the seventh which states “Opinions are largely protected – Employees are permitted to express their opinions, even if it is factually incorrect, since these discussions aim to come to a collective understanding”. Employees are not permitted to complain but employers seek to have some sort of discussion regarding opinions with the aim of coming to a collective understanding. So, essentially, complaints or rants need to be worded in the context of an opinion rather than a complaint. It also needs to be deemed appropriate by the employer. The NLRB website does not explain or define what is appropriate or inappropriate, which I’m assuming means that this is left for the employers’ discretion. What if the employer sets a broader definition for what is inappropriate beyond the boundaries of what is commonly viewed as unacceptable in society? Thank you again for your post on this very fascinating topic.
ReplyDelete