Discussion:
Social Media may damage your bank balance
(too old to reply)
Sam Plusnet
2018-04-03 01:12:53 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Whilst talking to a neighbour earlier, she mentioned that two co-workers
had been fired.

When we had deep snow last month, one of them tweeted a complaint that
the firm hadn't told anyone that the workplace had actually been closed
due to the snow[1], and that she had damaged her car in trying to get there.
The other also made comments via twitter about the lack of information.

Both were fired for making derogatory remarks about the company.

Is this the new normal?

My neighbour just shrugged & seemed to have no sympathy for them.

[1] Apparently the firm did place a notice on their website, but it's
not clear if this was done in time for those workers to have seen it.
--
Sam Plusnet
BrritSki
2018-04-03 06:19:33 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Sam Plusnet
Whilst talking to a neighbour earlier, she mentioned that two co-workers
had been fired.
When we had deep snow last month, one of them tweeted a complaint that
the firm hadn't told anyone that the workplace had actually been closed
due to the snow[1], and that she had damaged her car in trying to get there.
The other also made comments via twitter about the lack of information.
Both were fired for making derogatory remarks about the company.
Is this the new normal?
My neighbour just shrugged & seemed to have no sympathy for them.
Their complaint may have been justified, but doing it publicly is
ill-advised imo, whether tweeted, instgrammed or FBed...
Vicky
2018-04-03 08:02:37 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Sam Plusnet
Whilst talking to a neighbour earlier, she mentioned that two co-workers
had been fired.
When we had deep snow last month, one of them tweeted a complaint that
the firm hadn't told anyone that the workplace had actually been closed
due to the snow[1], and that she had damaged her car in trying to get there.
The other also made comments via twitter about the lack of information.
Both were fired for making derogatory remarks about the company.
Is this the new normal?
My neighbour just shrugged & seemed to have no sympathy for them.
[1] Apparently the firm did place a notice on their website, but it's
not clear if this was done in time for those workers to have seen it.
That sounds unfair. I am not sure if it is so in law, in which case
unfair dismissal? But I expect the firm checked to make sure they
were safe firing them.
--
Vicky
Btms
2018-04-03 08:10:27 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Vicky
Post by Sam Plusnet
Whilst talking to a neighbour earlier, she mentioned that two co-workers
had been fired.
When we had deep snow last month, one of them tweeted a complaint that
the firm hadn't told anyone that the workplace had actually been closed
due to the snow[1], and that she had damaged her car in trying to get there.
The other also made comments via twitter about the lack of information.
Both were fired for making derogatory remarks about the company.
Is this the new normal?
My neighbour just shrugged & seemed to have no sympathy for them.
[1] Apparently the firm did place a notice on their website, but it's
not clear if this was done in time for those workers to have seen it.
That sounds unfair. I am not sure if it is so in law, in which case
unfair dismissal? But I expect the firm checked to make sure they
were safe firing them.
You don’t know what they actually said on social media. I would reserve
judgment all round if this is all you know.
--
BTMS - Equine Advisor Extraordinaire.
Sid Nuncius
2018-04-03 08:57:59 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Btms
Post by Vicky
Post by Sam Plusnet
Whilst talking to a neighbour earlier, she mentioned that two co-workers
had been fired.
When we had deep snow last month, one of them tweeted a complaint that
the firm hadn't told anyone that the workplace had actually been closed
due to the snow[1], and that she had damaged her car in trying to get there.
The other also made comments via twitter about the lack of information.
Both were fired for making derogatory remarks about the company.
Is this the new normal?
My neighbour just shrugged & seemed to have no sympathy for them.
[1] Apparently the firm did place a notice on their website, but it's
not clear if this was done in time for those workers to have seen it.
That sounds unfair. I am not sure if it is so in law, in which case
unfair dismissal? But I expect the firm checked to make sure they
were safe firing them.
You don’t know what they actually said on social media. I would reserve
judgment all round if this is all you know.
You're right, Bottoms, but to speculate anyway:
1. I think it likely that there will be a catch-all clause in their
Contract of Employment covering "Conduct likely to bring the company
into disrepute" or similar, which the firm might argue covers critical
tweets.

2. Putting something like that on Twitter seems to me to be asking for
trouble. Dismissal may be an extreme, possibly wholly unjustified
reaction (I express no opinion on this in the absence of the facts) but
surely the first place to take your complaint is to the people
responsible, which is a) a basic courtesy and b) more likely to bring
about any necessary change.

If that doesn't work, you may need to try other tactics, but I still
think that sounding off about your employer on social media is very
unwise. It seems to me to be very different from publicising poor
customer service, where it may well be an effective tactic.

I'm genuinely sorry to hear that they have been fired - losing one's job
is a very difficult thing which can cause genuine hardship - but I do
wonder whether they were wise to tweet in the first place.
--
Sid (Make sure Matron is away when you reply)
Btms
2018-04-03 09:59:18 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Sid Nuncius
Post by Sam Plusnet
Whilst talking to a neighbour earlier, she mentioned that two co-workers
had been fired.
Snipped.
Post by Sid Nuncius
I'm genuinely sorry to hear that they have been fired - losing one's job
is a very difficult thing which can cause genuine hardship - but I do
wonder whether they were wise to tweet in the first place.
All snipped points taken and agreed.

So, picking up on the last point; the use of social media to send off
shouty messages is well publicised but I wonder where it will go. Very
often it feels like playground squabbles which include a desire to shout at
your perceived target rather than deal with the issue. There is an element
of spreading negative stories like the fake news we hear so much about. I
can see the appeal of this behaviour to sections of society but it concerns
me too. In the end, what we value in, what we think of as free speech will
be considered libellous or slanderous and society will be the worse for
this.
--
BTMS - Equine Advisor Extraordinaire.
Vicky
2018-04-03 10:22:27 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Btms
Post by Sid Nuncius
Post by Sam Plusnet
Whilst talking to a neighbour earlier, she mentioned that two co-workers
had been fired.
Snipped.
Post by Sid Nuncius
I'm genuinely sorry to hear that they have been fired - losing one's job
is a very difficult thing which can cause genuine hardship - but I do
wonder whether they were wise to tweet in the first place.
All snipped points taken and agreed.
So, picking up on the last point; the use of social media to send off
shouty messages is well publicised but I wonder where it will go. Very
often it feels like playground squabbles which include a desire to shout at
your perceived target rather than deal with the issue. There is an element
of spreading negative stories like the fake news we hear so much about. I
can see the appeal of this behaviour to sections of society but it concerns
me too. In the end, what we value in, what we think of as free speech will
be considered libellous or slanderous and society will be the worse for
this.
The original post said she damaged her car going in to work. I think
what then happened was an angry post intended for friends on twitter,
rather careless about how widely this would be shared.
--
Vicky
Serena Blanchflower
2018-04-03 10:57:01 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Vicky
Post by Btms
Post by Sid Nuncius
Post by Sam Plusnet
Whilst talking to a neighbour earlier, she mentioned that two co-workers
had been fired.
Snipped.
Post by Sid Nuncius
I'm genuinely sorry to hear that they have been fired - losing one's job
is a very difficult thing which can cause genuine hardship - but I do
wonder whether they were wise to tweet in the first place.
All snipped points taken and agreed.
So, picking up on the last point; the use of social media to send off
shouty messages is well publicised but I wonder where it will go. Very
often it feels like playground squabbles which include a desire to shout at
your perceived target rather than deal with the issue. There is an element
of spreading negative stories like the fake news we hear so much about. I
can see the appeal of this behaviour to sections of society but it concerns
me too. In the end, what we value in, what we think of as free speech will
be considered libellous or slanderous and society will be the worse for
this.
The original post said she damaged her car going in to work. I think
what then happened was an angry post intended for friends on twitter,
rather careless about how widely this would be shared.
Given that everything which gets posted on Twitter is public (unless
you're one of the rare people who have restricted their twitter feed),
especially if you've added hashtags, I find it amazing that people would
assume they are only talking to their friends. I suspect most companies
have regular searches running, looking for tweets mentioning their name,
so it's very likely anything like this would be noticed.
--
Best wishes, Serena
Way down deep, we're all motivated by the same urges. Cats have the
courage to live by them. (Jim Davis)
Btms
2018-04-03 11:42:59 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Vicky
Post by Btms
Post by Sid Nuncius
Post by Sam Plusnet
Whilst talking to a neighbour earlier, she mentioned that two co-workers
had been fired.
Snipped.
Post by Sid Nuncius
I'm genuinely sorry to hear that they have been fired - losing one's job
is a very difficult thing which can cause genuine hardship - but I do
wonder whether they were wise to tweet in the first place.
All snipped points taken and agreed.
So, picking up on the last point; the use of social media to send off
shouty messages is well publicised but I wonder where it will go. Very
often it feels like playground squabbles which include a desire to shout at
your perceived target rather than deal with the issue. There is an element
of spreading negative stories like the fake news we hear so much about. I
can see the appeal of this behaviour to sections of society but it concerns
me too. In the end, what we value in, what we think of as free speech will
be considered libellous or slanderous and society will be the worse for
this.
The original post said she damaged her car going in to work. I think
what then happened was an angry post intended for friends on twitter,
rather careless about how widely this would be shared.
We don’t know what she intended. We do know that it was seen and what the
outcome was. This is part of my point about folk not recognising the risks
of unintended consequences when sending posts through social media.
--
BTMS - Equine Advisor Extraordinaire.
Sam Plusnet
2018-04-04 00:55:28 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Btms
Post by Vicky
Post by Btms
Post by Sid Nuncius
Post by Sam Plusnet
Whilst talking to a neighbour earlier, she mentioned that two co-workers
had been fired.
Snipped.
Post by Sid Nuncius
I'm genuinely sorry to hear that they have been fired - losing one's job
is a very difficult thing which can cause genuine hardship - but I do
wonder whether they were wise to tweet in the first place.
All snipped points taken and agreed.
So, picking up on the last point; the use of social media to send off
shouty messages is well publicised but I wonder where it will go. Very
often it feels like playground squabbles which include a desire to shout at
your perceived target rather than deal with the issue. There is an element
of spreading negative stories like the fake news we hear so much about. I
can see the appeal of this behaviour to sections of society but it concerns
me too. In the end, what we value in, what we think of as free speech will
be considered libellous or slanderous and society will be the worse for
this.
The original post said she damaged her car going in to work. I think
what then happened was an angry post intended for friends on twitter,
rather careless about how widely this would be shared.
We don’t know what she intended. We do know that it was seen and what the
outcome was. This is part of my point about folk not recognising the risks
of unintended consequences when sending posts through social media.
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.
--
Sam Plusnet
krw
2018-04-04 08:13:03 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Sam Plusnet
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.
There is a significant difference between a discussion with co-workers
and family and making an announcement to the world and damaging the
reputation of your employer in a permanent way.

At least in the eyes of management.
--
Kosmo Richard W
www.travelswmw.whitnet.uk
https://tinyurl.com/KRWpics
J. P. Gilliver (John)
2018-04-04 09:10:52 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by krw
Post by Sam Plusnet
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.
(Have you always been self-employed then?)
Post by krw
There is a significant difference between a discussion with co-workers
and family and making an announcement to the world and damaging the
reputation of your employer in a permanent way.
At least in the eyes of management.
I think it is the mismatch of how social media is promoted (or at least
presented), and the default settings. It's promoted as just that -
social media, in other words a way to keep in touch with your friends
and so on; but (AIUI - I'm not a user of twitterbook, only usenet) the
default settings are to let your tweets be widely seen. Though I suppose
even if restricted, friends can retweet them (can a retweet be given
unrestricted accessibility even if the original wasn't?).
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)***@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

it is easy to make up a lie, but it can take much more time and effort to
convincingly refute it. - Patrick Cockburn, i, 2016-9-24
Vicky
2018-04-04 09:50:04 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Wed, 4 Apr 2018 10:10:52 +0100, "J. P. Gilliver (John)"
Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
(AIUI - I'm not a user of twitterbook, only usenet) the
default settings are to let your tweets be widely seen. Though I suppose
even if restricted, friends can retweet them (can a retweet be given
unrestricted accessibility even if the original wasn't?).
--
i believe if you set a post to friends only they can't share it to
anyone who is not your friend.
--
Vicky
J. P. Gilliver (John)
2018-04-04 12:53:34 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Vicky
On Wed, 4 Apr 2018 10:10:52 +0100, "J. P. Gilliver (John)"
Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
(AIUI - I'm not a user of twitterbook, only usenet) the
default settings are to let your tweets be widely seen. Though I suppose
even if restricted, friends can retweet them (can a retweet be given
unrestricted accessibility even if the original wasn't?).
--
i believe if you set a post to friends only they can't share it to
anyone who is not your friend.
Is "share" the same as "retweet"?
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)***@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

"This situation absolutely requires a really futile and stoopid gesture be done
on somebody's part." "We're just the guys to do it." Eric "Otter" Stratton (Tim
Matheson) and John "Bluto" Blutarsky (John Belushi) - N. L's Animal House
(1978)
Serena Blanchflower
2018-04-04 13:36:28 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
Post by Vicky
On Wed, 4 Apr 2018 10:10:52 +0100, "J. P. Gilliver (John)"
Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
(AIUI - I'm not a user of twitterbook, only usenet) the
default settings are to let your tweets be widely seen. Though I suppose
even if restricted, friends can retweet them (can a retweet be given
unrestricted accessibility even if the original wasn't?).
--
i believe if you set a post to friends only they can't share it to
anyone who is not your friend.
Is "share" the same as "retweet"?
"Share" is Facebook terminology, while "Retweet" it Twitter. I would
assume that if you have your Twitter account set so that only approved
followers can see your tweets, that your followers would be prevented
from retweeting them but I don't know if that's the case.
--
Best wishes, Serena
Enjoy life, you will never get out alive.
Vicky
2018-04-04 14:09:09 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Wed, 4 Apr 2018 13:53:34 +0100, "J. P. Gilliver (John)"
Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
Post by Vicky
On Wed, 4 Apr 2018 10:10:52 +0100, "J. P. Gilliver (John)"
Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
(AIUI - I'm not a user of twitterbook, only usenet) the
default settings are to let your tweets be widely seen. Though I suppose
even if restricted, friends can retweet them (can a retweet be given
unrestricted accessibility even if the original wasn't?).
--
i believe if you set a post to friends only they can't share it to
anyone who is not your friend.
Is "share" the same as "retweet"?
Re tweet or tweet is twitter. I think you can only restrict who sees
the tweets or retweets by blocking someone from contacting you so you
don't see theirs or they yours.

On fb you share posts and you can set various ways to see which group
sees them, or whether anyone can. That might be a bit like posting to
anyone on usenet or a mailing list, although the list might not
restrict who else members re-post to. Or there aer closed groups on
fb, one such being my local WW group and one the umra group. They had
closed user groups on Prestel too. You had to be a member to see posts
or even who is in it. On fb you might not even see there is such a
group.
--
Vicky
Penny
2018-04-04 23:43:04 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Wed, 04 Apr 2018 15:09:09 +0100, Vicky <***@gmail.com> scrawled
in the dust...
Post by Vicky
Re tweet or tweet is twitter. I think you can only restrict who sees
the tweets or retweets by blocking someone from contacting you so you
don't see theirs or they yours.
It seems you can have a 'private' account on Twitter. I don't do Twitter
and can only see Niles' tweets when he shares them to his facebook account,
twitter won't let me see any of them.
--
Penny
Annoyed by The Archers since 1959
Sam Plusnet
2018-04-04 21:22:20 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
Post by Sam Plusnet
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.
(Have you always been self-employed then?)
No.

As I said, I don't do twitter, facebook etc. etc. and for the majority
of my years of employment neither did no-one else - since such things
didn't exist.
--
Sam Plusnet
J. P. Gilliver (John)
2018-04-05 04:27:56 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Sam Plusnet
Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
Post by Sam Plusnet
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.
(Have you always been self-employed then?)
No.
As I said, I don't do twitter, facebook etc. etc. and for the majority
of my years of employment neither did no-one else - since such things
didn't exist.
Ah, so when you said "I doubt if I would have lasted in any job for
more than three days before getting the boot.", you left out "if
twitterbook had been available".
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)***@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

Capital flows toward lower costs like a river to lowest ground.
"MJ", 2015-12-05
Sid Nuncius
2018-04-05 06:37:13 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Sam Plusnet
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
completely.

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.)
--
Sid (Make sure Matron is away when you reply)
Sam Plusnet
2018-04-05 21:48:56 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Sid Nuncius
Post by Sam Plusnet
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
completely.
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.
--
Sam Plusnet
steveski
2018-04-06 01:24:37 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Sam Plusnet
Post by Sid Nuncius
Post by Sam Plusnet
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
completely.
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.

Just 'cos you're paranoid, doesn't mean they're not out to get you.

Just my tuppence.
--
Steveski
Sam Plusnet
2018-04-06 01:48:45 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by steveski
Post by Sam Plusnet
Post by Sid Nuncius
Post by Sam Plusnet
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
completely.
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
possible.
Post by steveski
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[1].

I do feel some sympathy, but at the same time it has deepened my
distrust of 'social media'.
--
Sam Plusnet

[1] Sympathy & empathy are not her strong suits at the best of times.
Vicky
2018-04-06 06:44:17 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Sam Plusnet
Post by steveski
Post by Sam Plusnet
Post by Sid Nuncius
Post by Sam Plusnet
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
completely.
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
possible.
Post by steveski
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[1].
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
caring company.
--
Vicky
Btms
2018-04-06 07:11:00 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Vicky <***@gmail.com> wrote:

Snipped to context
Post by Vicky
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?
This freedom of speech concept is something of a fallacy surely. Sexist,
racist, slanderous statements are all subject to the law.
--
BTMS - Equine Advisor Extraordinaire.
J. P. Gilliver (John)
2018-04-06 12:04:15 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
In message <***@4ax.com>, Vicky
<***@gmail.com> writes:
[]
Post by Vicky
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?
I have seen murmurings about this - banning non-disclosure agreements,
at least where they involve employment (especially the termination of),
has been mentioned, though I suspect it'll be a long time (if ever)
before anything comes of it, because of limited parliamentary time, and
lots of other things that will get shouted about more will crowd it out.
(Note I didn't say other things that are more important.) There are even
cases that are similar to super-injunctions - where the fired employee
isn't even supposed to mention the _existence_ of the non-disclosure
agreement. (I may be one such, in which case I shouldn't be saying this
here!)

Non-disclosure agreements do have their place: for example, a company
may give details of a product to another company before the product is
released, so that the second company can develop products that use the
first company's product - possibly on condition that the second company
promises to buy a certain number of the product when it comes out,
though certainly not always. But I don't think it is right that they
should be used as, in effect, gagging clauses on ex-employees. Or
current ones, for that matter.

Sorry, not _directly_ related to the tweets, though close.
Post by Vicky
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
Yes, but the imbalance of power is still there. (a): For each one like
this that we _do_ hear about, how many do we _not_ (especially if they
are fired under a gagging clause they - being now unemployed - don't
have the resources to fight)? (b): what harm _is_ actually done to the
company's reputation: OK, slightly more people than before will think "I
wouldn't want to _work_ for them", but is it likely to have more than a
tiny influence on that company's _sales_? I know a lot of people will
say, if interviewed, "I'm not going to buy from them", but how many
would keep to that - and that only really applies to products the public
buy, anyway: if the company is one whose customers are mainly trade, the
effect is going to be negligible (most companies don't go out of their
way to publicise who they buy from, quite the reverse).
Post by Vicky
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
caring company.
Indeed. (Possibly inhibited to some extent by the increasing assumption
that expressing regret can be taken as admitting liability,
unfortunately.)
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)***@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

The web is a blank slate; you can't design technology that is 'good'. You can't
design paper that you can only write good things on. There are no good or evil
tools. You can put an engine in an ambulance or a tank. - Sir Tim Berners-Lee,
Radio Times 2009-Jan-30 to -Feb-5.
Vicky
2018-04-06 06:54:32 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Sam Plusnet
Post by steveski
Post by Sam Plusnet
Post by Sid Nuncius
Post by Sam Plusnet
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
completely.
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
possible.
Post by steveski
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[1].
I do feel some sympathy, but at the same time it has deepened my
distrust of 'social media'.
If the company had not fired the employee the matter would not have
been widely broadcasdt. Almost nobody would have known about it. A
simple regret by the company or no action and the small group who read
the employees moans would have remained 10-20 probably, rather than
the very large group who know now.
--
Vicky
Sid Nuncius
2018-04-06 07:05:22 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
<snippage>
Post by Vicky
Post by Sam Plusnet
Post by steveski
Post by Sam Plusnet
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
possible.
Post by steveski
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[1].
I do feel some sympathy, but at the same time it has deepened my
distrust of 'social media'.
If the company had not fired the employee the matter would not have
been widely broadcasdt. Almost nobody would have known about it. A
simple regret by the company or no action and the small group who read
the employees moans would have remained 10-20 probably, rather than
the very large group who know now.
That's probably right. I don't know exactly what was said so I'm
cautious about this, but going as far as firing someone over a critical
tweet does sound heavy-handed to say the least and I don't mean to
defend it. However, I still think that people often seem curiously
unaware of the public nature of social media and that one does therefore
need to be cautious about what one says there because *anyone* can read
it, including employers, your mum, those who may wish you ill and so on.
It really isn't the same as chatting to friends over a coffee or a pint.
--
Sid (Make sure Matron is away when you reply)
Btms
2018-04-06 07:35:29 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Sid Nuncius
<snippage>
Post by Vicky
Post by Sam Plusnet
Post by steveski
Post by Sam Plusnet
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
possible.
Post by steveski
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[1].
I do feel some sympathy, but at the same time it has deepened my
distrust of 'social media'.
If the company had not fired the employee the matter would not have
been widely broadcasdt. Almost nobody would have known about it. A
simple regret by the company or no action and the small group who read
the employees moans would have remained 10-20 probably, rather than
the very large group who know now.
That's probably right. I don't know exactly what was said so I'm
cautious about this, but going as far as firing someone over a critical
tweet does sound heavy-handed to say the least and I don't mean to
defend it. However, I still think that people often seem curiously
unaware of the public nature of social media and that one does therefore
need to be cautious about what one says there because *anyone* can read
it, including employers, your mum, those who may wish you ill and so on.
It really isn't the same as chatting to friends over a coffee or a pint.
This is a problem. Otoh we don’t have the whole picture. For all we know
the employee could have a track record of shooting off comments justified
and/or unjustified. On the one hand it is good that ordinary folk have a
voice through social media but how that works to include social
responsibility is work in progress.
--
BTMS - Equine Advisor Extraordinaire.
Fenny
2018-04-03 17:04:09 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Btms
So, picking up on the last point; the use of social media to send off
shouty messages is well publicised but I wonder where it will go. Very
often it feels like playground squabbles which include a desire to shout at
your perceived target rather than deal with the issue. There is an element
of spreading negative stories like the fake news we hear so much about. I
can see the appeal of this behaviour to sections of society but it concerns
me too. In the end, what we value in, what we think of as free speech will
be considered libellous or slanderous and society will be the worse for
this.
My growing concern with current popular forms of social media is that
so many companies are using them as their default form of
communication.

As a customer, I don't want to have to use FB/twitter in order to gain
the attention of a company I do business with. It's a useful conduit
for simple questions - are you open on Sunday?, when are you open over
the BH? - but I would still expect to find that info on the website.
We are currently having issues with the electricity supplier we are
trying to move away from in Pa's current flat. After several weeks of
sending messages through their web form and sending them them emails,
the only response we got was when I posted a comment on their FB page
saying that FB is not a grown up form of business communication. Even
when I got a response and asked them to email me, they continued via
FB.

However, I would expect any employee who post on social media - even
if they think it is private - something derogatory about their
employer would expect to be disciplined in some way. Being sacked
seems a little OTT, but we have no other information about any
previous contretemps on their record. But too many people think that
it's an acceptable thing to do, without considering the consequences.
--
Fenny
Vicky
2018-04-03 21:01:43 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Tue, 03 Apr 2018 18:04:09 +0100, Fenny
Post by Fenny
Post by Btms
So, picking up on the last point; the use of social media to send off
shouty messages is well publicised but I wonder where it will go. Very
often it feels like playground squabbles which include a desire to shout at
your perceived target rather than deal with the issue. There is an element
of spreading negative stories like the fake news we hear so much about. I
can see the appeal of this behaviour to sections of society but it concerns
me too. In the end, what we value in, what we think of as free speech will
be considered libellous or slanderous and society will be the worse for
this.
My growing concern with current popular forms of social media is that
so many companies are using them as their default form of
communication.
As a customer, I don't want to have to use FB/twitter in order to gain
the attention of a company I do business with. It's a useful conduit
for simple questions - are you open on Sunday?, when are you open over
the BH? - but I would still expect to find that info on the website.
We are currently having issues with the electricity supplier we are
trying to move away from in Pa's current flat. After several weeks of
sending messages through their web form and sending them them emails,
the only response we got was when I posted a comment on their FB page
saying that FB is not a grown up form of business communication. Even
when I got a response and asked them to email me, they continued via
FB.
However, I would expect any employee who post on social media - even
if they think it is private - something derogatory about their
employer would expect to be disciplined in some way. Being sacked
seems a little OTT, but we have no other information about any
previous contretemps on their record. But too many people think that
it's an acceptable thing to do, without considering the consequences.
I can't recall if I have already posted that I'm currently enjoying
reading Radio Girls by Sarah Jane Stratford, about the earliest days
of the BBC. The heroine, a secretary, is seen making notes about
something connected with the other half of her job there in another
department by her supervisor and reported to Mr Reith, who docks her a
shilling from her 3 shillings a week pay. They were strictly
disciplined in those days. A shilling was a great deal to her then.
The bad old days.

They were the talks department and very aware that they could have a
good deal of influence on listeners, and therefore needed to be
factually correct and as unbiased as possible. So like the current
ethos of the BBC.
--
Vicky
Jenny M Benson
2018-04-04 08:46:50 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Fenny
My growing concern with current popular forms of social media is that
so many companies are using them as their default form of
communication.
As a customer, I don't want to have to use FB/twitter in order to gain
the attention of a company I do business with.
Yes, YES, _YES_!
--
Jenny M Benson
Mike
2018-04-04 08:51:53 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Jenny M Benson
Post by Fenny
My growing concern with current popular forms of social media is that
so many companies are using them as their default form of
communication.
As a customer, I don't want to have to use FB/twitter in order to gain
the attention of a company I do business with.
Yes, YES, _YES_!
Tick
--
Toodle Pip
J. P. Gilliver (John)
2018-04-04 09:17:36 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Jenny M Benson
Post by Fenny
My growing concern with current popular forms of social media is that
so many companies are using them as their default form of
communication.
As a customer, I don't want to have to use FB/twitter in order to gain
the attention of a company I do business with.
Yes, YES, _YES_!
Tick
Indeed. Several quite large companies seem to ignore communication via
normal means (not to mention that they make such communication difficult
in the first place - they certainly don't release email addresses, and
even their websites, if they have a communication form, often limit it
to specific subjects). So as you say, you have to use FB/twitter to get
their attention, which I very much resent, as I don't use those: I don't
actually have anything _against_ them (well, I have reservations, but I
don't have anything against people who _use_ them), but I just don't
have either the time or inclination to "get into" them.

As for companies using them for communication with employees, I'd expect
to see that in my contract of employment if they were to assume I'd see
anything they put there.
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)***@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

it is easy to make up a lie, but it can take much more time and effort to
convincingly refute it. - Patrick Cockburn, i, 2016-9-24
Phil
2018-04-04 13:28:16 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
Indeed. Several quite large companies seem to ignore communication via
normal means (not to mention that they make such communication difficult
in the first place - they certainly don't release email addresses, and
even their websites, if they have a communication form, often limit it
to specific subjects). So as you say, you have to use FB/twitter to get
their attention, which I very much resent, as I don't use those: I don't
actually have anything _against_ them (well, I have reservations, but I
don't have anything against people who _use_ them), but I just don't
have either the time or inclination to "get into" them.
Of course, there is a small plus to using social media to communicate
with a company: If they ignore you or fob you off instead of dealing
with your comment, they have to do so "in public". Or have I
misunderstood how Twitter works?
--
Phil
Liverpool, UK
Vicky
2018-04-04 14:19:16 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Phil
Of course, there is a small plus to using social media to communicate
with a company: If they ignore you or fob you off instead of dealing
with your comment, they have to do so "in public". Or have I
misunderstood how Twitter works?
That is exactly right. If someone whose tweets read by 500+ other
people. or 5000 other people or 2k tweets a complaint about your
company the company tends to react. There is a way to message in a way
like email on twitter and they might ask you to do that so they can
address the problem.
--
Vicky
Mike
2018-04-04 14:27:27 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Phil
Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
Indeed. Several quite large companies seem to ignore communication via
normal means (not to mention that they make such communication difficult
in the first place - they certainly don't release email addresses, and
even their websites, if they have a communication form, often limit it
to specific subjects). So as you say, you have to use FB/twitter to get
their attention, which I very much resent, as I don't use those: I don't
actually have anything _against_ them (well, I have reservations, but I
don't have anything against people who _use_ them), but I just don't
have either the time or inclination to "get into" them.
Of course, there is a small plus to using social media to communicate
with a company: If they ignore you or fob you off instead of dealing
with your comment, they have to do so "in public". Or have I
misunderstood how Twitter works?
Hello Phil, are you a new Umrat? If so, welcome!
--
Toodle Pip
Phil
2018-04-05 06:58:54 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Mike
Hello Phil, are you a new Umrat? If so, welcome!
No, I've been a (very) occasional poster here for many years. I think
that's the third time someone's asked me that!
--
Phil
Liverpool, UK
Mike
2018-04-05 07:33:54 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Phil
Post by Mike
Hello Phil, are you a new Umrat? If so, welcome!
No, I've been a (very) occasional poster here for many years. I think
that's the third time someone's asked me that!
Very occasional? You need to try harder!;-)
--
Toodle Pip
BrritSki
2018-04-04 13:25:45 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Jenny M Benson
Post by Fenny
My growing concern with current popular forms of social media is that
so many companies are using them as their default form of
communication.
As a customer, I don't want to have to use FB/twitter in order to gain
the attention of a company I do business with.
Yes, YES, _YES_!
I'll have what she's having please...
LFS
2018-04-05 11:07:53 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Jenny M Benson
Post by Fenny
My growing concern with current popular forms of social media is that
so many companies are using them as their default form of
communication.
As a customer, I don't want to have to use FB/twitter in order to gain
the attention of a company I do business with.
Yes, YES, _YES_!
Indeed, but bear in mind that the management of many companies believe
that it is in their interest to keep you at arms' length and to avoid
spending resources on interacting with you, except possibly to send you
an irritating request for feedback after you have bought their products
online. So customer service departments are not working on behalf of
customers but shielding management.

Social media has done a little to change that because of the
reputational effect. And there can be benefits: for example, the two
companies providing the Oxford-London bus service have active twitter
feeds and I can easily find out why buses are delayed or diverted.
--
Laura (emulate St George for email)
Fenny
2018-04-05 17:07:49 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by LFS
Indeed, but bear in mind that the management of many companies believe
that it is in their interest to keep you at arms' length and to avoid
spending resources on interacting with you, except possibly to send you
an irritating request for feedback after you have bought their products
online. So customer service departments are not working on behalf of
customers but shielding management.
If 5 weeks of non-response to email is a good thing, the management
won't have any issue with the complaint I am currently formulating to
send to the ombudsman. The fact that the only reason they and their
collection agents haven't been hassling my 84 yr old father on a daily
basis over a disputed bill they took over a month to send to us is
that Bro put his mobile number down as the contact. As he is not
authorised on the account, they wouldn't speak to him every time he
called them back to say the bill was in dispute.
--
Fenny
krw
2018-04-03 15:48:45 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Sam Plusnet
Whilst talking to a neighbour earlier, she mentioned that two co-workers
had been fired.
When we had deep snow last month, one of them tweeted a complaint that
the firm hadn't told anyone that the workplace had actually been closed
due to the snow[1], and that she had damaged her car in trying to get there.
The other also made comments via twitter about the lack of information.
Both were fired for making derogatory remarks about the company.
Is this the new normal?
My neighbour just shrugged & seemed to have no sympathy for them.
[1] Apparently the firm did place a notice on their website, but it's
not clear if this was done in time for those workers to have seen it.
As I am no longer in employment I cannot say for sure but we wrote and
published a policy that staff should not publish derogatory comments
concerning the company on social media or indeed other facts concerning
the business. This followed a salesman discussing he had been in a
particular town negotiating a multi-million contract and our competitors
would have known that:
a) there was only one major buyer in that town and
b) if we were tying up a large contract then they might lose business
and had a chance to rebid.

Dismissal as a first offence would (in my opinion) be a little OTT - but
it depends on the disciplinary records and the content of the remarks.
--
Kosmo Richard W
www.travelswmw.whitnet.uk
https://tinyurl.com/KRWpics
Chris J Dixon
2018-04-04 07:34:57 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by krw
As I am no longer in employment I cannot say for sure but we wrote and
published a policy that staff should not publish derogatory comments
concerning the company on social media or indeed other facts concerning
the business.
Now enjoying retirement, I occasionally post stuff relating to my
various employers, and it is at the back of my mind to wonder if
I were to step over a certain invisible line I might place one of
my pensions in jeopardy.

Chris
--
Chris J Dixon Nottingham
'48/33 M B+ G++ A L(-) I S-- CH0(--)(p) Ar- T+ H0 ?Q
***@cdixon.me.uk
Plant amazing Acers.
Btms
2018-04-04 08:02:04 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Chris J Dixon
Post by krw
As I am no longer in employment I cannot say for sure but we wrote and
published a policy that staff should not publish derogatory comments
concerning the company on social media or indeed other facts concerning
the business.
Now enjoying retirement, I occasionally post stuff relating to my
various employers, and it is at the back of my mind to wonder if
I were to step over a certain invisible line I might place one of
my pensions in jeopardy.
Chris
The concept of writing and publishing unsubstantiated opinions that can
damage others is something social media has not got its head round but I
guess it is a hot topic from fake news at the top to casual whingers at the
bottom. We all know this of course but I sense it is gathering attention
and it won’t be long before some high profile case is presented to us. I
guess it can only be controlled on a local case by case basis. Istm the
press/policos have had years of influence and have got away with
manipulating our viewpoints; the problem is that this is now an option for
all of us with online access. We less sophisticated folk may need to learn
to be more subtle in our distortions.

This would be an interesting storyline for TA. Who might get into hot
water? My vote goes to Soozan.
--
BTMS - Equine Advisor Extraordinaire.
Mike
2018-04-04 08:10:25 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Btms
Post by Chris J Dixon
Post by krw
As I am no longer in employment I cannot say for sure but we wrote and
published a policy that staff should not publish derogatory comments
concerning the company on social media or indeed other facts concerning
the business.
Now enjoying retirement, I occasionally post stuff relating to my
various employers, and it is at the back of my mind to wonder if
I were to step over a certain invisible line I might place one of
my pensions in jeopardy.
Chris
The concept of writing and publishing unsubstantiated opinions that can
damage others is something social media has not got its head round but I
guess it is a hot topic from fake news at the top to casual whingers at the
bottom. We all know this of course but I sense it is gathering attention
and it won’t be long before some high profile case is presented to us. I
guess it can only be controlled on a local case by case basis. Istm the
press/policos have had years of influence and have got away with
manipulating our viewpoints; the problem is that this is now an option for
all of us with online access. We less sophisticated folk may need to learn
to be more subtle in our distortions.
This would be an interesting storyline for TA. Who might get into hot
water? My vote goes to Soozan.
Not wishing to imply that Sooooozan is a chatter box but, would she need to
use voice recognition software to avoid wearing down her finger tips???
--
Toodle Pip
krw
2018-04-04 08:14:35 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Btms
My vote goes to Soozan.
We know she "does" tweet.
--
Kosmo Richard W
www.travelswmw.whitnet.uk
https://tinyurl.com/KRWpics
Sam Plusnet
2018-04-04 21:30:39 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Chris J Dixon
Post by krw
As I am no longer in employment I cannot say for sure but we wrote and
published a policy that staff should not publish derogatory comments
concerning the company on social media or indeed other facts concerning
the business.
Now enjoying retirement, I occasionally post stuff relating to my
various employers, and it is at the back of my mind to wonder if
I were to step over a certain invisible line I might place one of
my pensions in jeopardy.
Just because you have a "Works Pension", that doesn't mean that
previous employer has the ability to withold that pension from you.

I suppose they could sue you for libel or slander - but that would be
true in any case.
--
Sam Plusnet
Loading...