On Fri, 6 Apr 2018 02:48:45 +0100, Sam Plusnet <***@home.com> wrote:
>On 06-Apr-18 2:24, steveski wrote:
>> On Thu, 05 Apr 2018 22:48:56 +0100, Sam Plusnet wrote:
>>> On 05-Apr-18 7:37, Sid Nuncius wrote:
>>>> On 04/04/2018 01:55, Sam Plusnet wrote:
>>>>> I don't _do_ twitter etc. but I tend to think of a 'moan' on twitter
>>>>> as much the same thing as when I would complain to co-workers about...
>>>>> whatever the company had done, or not done, lately.
>>>>> Grousing about 'management', or whoever, has been the sacred right of
>>>>> all employees since the time of the pharaohs. I doubt if I would have
>>>>> lasted in any job for more than three days before getting the boot.
>>>> I don't do Twitter etc, either, but for the outside it looks as though
>>>> that may be the problem. Twitter really, really isn't much the same
>>>> thing as a grumble to a few colleagues in the canteen/staffroom etc.
>>>> That sort of grumbling is fair enough and, as you say, an absolutely
>>>> necessary part of surviving employment whether or not the moans are
>>>> justified. ISTM that people are inclined to forget that a very large
>>>> number of people can read what they tweet outside the immediate circle
>>>> for whom the post may have been intended, which changes its nature
>>>> I dimly remember many years ago that a bunch of students (in the USA, I
>>>> think) boasted on social media (probably Facebook) about some "prank"
>>>> they had carried out which had damaged university property. The
>>>> university read this openly available boasting and promptly took
>>>> disciplinary action, whereupon the students expressed outrage at the
>>>> invasion of their privacy and took the university to court. The court
>>>> told them to get stu...er...that their case was without merit. (The
>>>> details may be a little garbled, but the gist is true.)
>>>> I think the idea that social media posts available to the whole world
>>>> are somehow a private matter is a view which still prevails in quite a
>>>> lot of people. (cf. people yelling into mobile phones in public and
>>>> expecting their conversation to be private.)
>>> I think that, for most people (POTUS & "Celebs" excepted) posting some
>>> comment like this on facebook or twitter should be considered more akin
>>> to having a grumble or a moan whilst in the Pub.
>>> Yes it is a public space, but it's not the same as placing an advert in
>>> a national newspaper to publicise your opinion.
>>> The technology makes it possible for a company to fire a warehouse shelf
>>> stacker because of a grumpy tweet that (in the ordinary course of
>>> things) wouldn't have been read by more that a dozen people - none of
>>> whom are "opinion formers" where the corporate image is concerned.
>>> That doesn't make it the right thing to do.
>>> If anyone had asked the question "Does this have even the slightest
>>> impact on this large company's image?
>>> The answer was evident.
>> I didn't want to snip because of the above, cogent, arguments but, I have
>> to say, my argument is "Don't stick your head above the parapet and you
>> won't get it shot off". I release as little on to the information
>> superhighway as I can get away with in this modern age.
>Agreed. I try to include as much contradictory & inaccurate material as
>> Just 'cos you're paranoid, doesn't mean they're not out to get you.
>> Just my tuppence.
>I can't argue with that, & indeed that was my neighbour's opinion.
>I.E. It was a dumb thing to do, & she expressed not a shred of sympathy
>for the newly unemployed.
>I do feel some sympathy, but at the same time it has deepened my
>distrust of 'social media'.
The point about it not doing any harm to the company as the group who
read it is small is a good point. There is an inbalance of power
between employer and employee and to use their might to stop the
employee moaning on twitter is controlling what they do in their spare
time. Is there a freedom of speech point here too?
Actually more harm is done to the company's reputation in my eyes by
their firing of the tweeter. More sensible would have beeen to tweet
the information in good time to prevent employees trying to go in to
work, if they did publicise the closure in time. I believe they were
supposed to have on fb? But after the adverse tweet, one from the
company regretting the harm to the employee's car and that they didn't
get the information about closure would have been more indicative of a