Federal Government Approves of Facebook Boss Bashing

[Tom Goldman]

Federal Government Approves of Facebook Boss Bashing

If you make fun of your boss on Facebook and get in trouble, the U.S. government might have your back.

In December 2009, a woman named Dawnmarie Souza was fired from American Medical Response of Connecticut for posting a nasty comment about her boss on Facebook. She filed a complaint in December 2010 with the National Labor Relations Board, which protects members of unions such as Souza from unfair labor practices, and the pair sued AMR. This week, Souza and AMR reached a settlement, causing AMR to revise its policy on how employees can act outside of work.

AMR said that Souza violated its anti-disparage policy, while Souza and the NLRB claimed AMR had violated Souza's right to free speech. With the NLRB's help, Souza not only won her case, but the NLRB says: "[AMR] agreed to revise its overly-broad rules to ensure that they do not improperly restrict employees from discussing their wages, hours and working conditions with co-workers and others while not at work, and that they would not discipline or discharge employees for engaging in such discussions." The terms of Souza's settlement were not disclosed.

Firings due to comments posted on social media are fairly common, but if you're in a union, you're apparently protected in the U.S. by the federal government. If you've not in a union, don't go mouthing off just yet.

Souza not only talked about her boss in a negative way, but called him a "dick" and a "scumbag." Members of unions might be protected in their use of social media, but it's going to make for a very awkward workplace if you go around calling everyone awful things on Facebook and Twitter, so use this information with caution.

Source: PC Magazine [http://teamstermagazine.com/facebook-ruling-step-right-direction]

Permalink

 

[ultrachicken]

What she did was undoubtedly stupid, but free speech and all that.

 

[Zero_ctrl]

So if the Federal Government "Approves" of Facebook bashing, does that mean they want me to go bash my own boss?
You guys may want to change it to a less loaded word.

 

[Gralian]

I never understood how you could get fired for something you said or did outside of the work environment.

Then again, i never understood why so many people feel the need to spill their guts over Facebook or Twitter either.

People should be able to say whatever they want about who they want outside of the office. I'm sure it really hurts knowing what they think of you, but deal with it. Honestly. You can't punish someone for whatever they might say about whomever or do in their private life. If it was in the work environment, then it would be completely understandable if the individual was canned for talking trash about their boss or co-workers. The only reason people should be punished so severely in relation to external communications in private life would be if someone gave away company secrets or sensitive documents to other people.

 

[Tzekelkan]

The only way it's different from calling your boss a scumbag behind his back while talking to a coworker is that it's done a bit (a lot?) more publicly if it's on Facebook/Twitter, so the guy on top is more likely to hear. Sure, it's okay to blow off steam for hard working conditions, but the boss doesn't need to find out, does he?

Besides, isn't she better off now since, after all, her boss was being a dick and all?

 

[antipunt]

WAT?

What is this union/nonunion business? I want to badmouth a potentially annoying boss too!

 

[Worgen]

The only way it's different from calling your boss a scumbag behind his back while talking to a coworker is that it's done a bit (a lot?) more publicly if it's on Facebook/Twitter, so the guy on top is more likely to hear. Sure, it's okay to blow off steam for hard working conditions, but the boss doesn't need to find out, does he?

Besides, isn't she better off now since, after all, her boss was being a dick and all?

the way the policy was worded, if she was just saying it to her friend and someone who worked with her happened to hear and told her boss he could have fired her just on hearsay, companies want to be able to control everything their employees say and do and they will go as far as they can do to that

 

[rees263]

You can't punish someone for whatever they might say about whomever or do in their private life.

But that's the point, it wasn't private. What she said was published on Facebook for all to see. I'm totally against the ruling in this case. She might as well have said it to his face, and slagging your boss off to his face is as good a reason as any to get fired.

Couldn't her comments even be considered defamation of her boss, and make her susceptible to getting sued herself?

I am of course saying this under the assumption that she did post it openly, as the wording in the article implies. If it was said in a private message then I would change my position.

 

[BabyRaptor]

So she calls her boss a dick and a scumbag and then turns around and sues him when he fires her for breaking company policy? Can't have your cake and eat it too, lady. Make up your mind.

 

[mythgraven]

Eh this one is a tough call. On one hand, yes, the free speech, and social media and whatnot, and on the other hand, isnt it slightly childish to A: badmouth your boss on facebook, of all places, and B: Have him/her added, and able to read it?

Not sure where to stand. Its best I think, if workplaces are restricted from enacting petty vengeance on their employees, and I also think its best if, instead of going on digital rants about how terrible your boss is, you engage that same furious energy into something productive. Like your work.


Whiskey Echo!!
Mythgraven

 

[number2301]

For the avoidance of doubt, you would not get away with that in the UK. Bullying, Harassment or bringing the organisation into disrepute are what I'd go for, and the government is on the employers side on this one over here.

 

[Trivun]

On the one hand, I agree with the principle of free speech. Plus, firms should not be able to take action on the way someone acts outside of work, unless they're wearing work uniform (if applicable) or are otherwise representing the company in any way (in which case take whatever action you want, bosses, I won't stop you).

However, on the other hand, if you are making nasty comments about somebody, regardless of whether or not they deserve it, then either do it to their face, or don't do it at all. And certainly don't do it in public where anyone can see. I was on a night out a while ago with some colleagues, and some of my bosses, and we were having a laugh and a joke, but if I (outside work) had called my boss a "dick" or "scumbag" then I would have fully deserved to be punished at work, or at least called out on it. And why shouldn't the same apply to Facebook? If I call my manager something bad over Facebook, which is worse because then anyone can see it, who are we to say that I don't deserve some form of punishment? The whole basis of a happy, healthy, productive working environment, revolves around people getting on, and if you don't get on with your boss then you should either try and build bridges, or find a new job. And if you're stupid enough to air your grievances in public, then you deserve everything you get.

If anyone has a valid, decent, sensible point about why this woman shouldn't have been disciplined, then please, quote me, and I would be more than happy to have a sensible debate about the matter...

 

[Gralian]

You can't punish someone for whatever they might say about whomever or do in their private life.

But that's the point, it wasn't private. What she said was published on Facebook for all to see.

I had a feeling someone would bring this up - i was trying to avoid wording it as "private life". By private life, i mean outside the work environment. The public domain does not count for the work environment. People from the work environment may access the public domain, but the public domain is just that. It belongs to the public. Not the boss, not the company. Publishing private thoughts in the public domain is therefore not indicative of defamation. It would be, however, if somebody spread false accusations or information about another person. Having an opinion about someone and sharing it is not.

I'm totally against the ruling in this case. She might as well have said it to his face, and slagging your boss off to his face is as good a reason as any to get fired.

But she didn't say it to his face. She said it in a non work environment and in a way that would require somebody to actively check the status of an individual to discover. I'm not entirely sure how Facebook status publishing works when set to "Public", but i'm sure the boss had to actively look at her profile in order to see her status, assuming he's not "friended" her on Facebook previously. If he's actively looking up her profile to see what she's thinking, that's hardly equivalent to walking up to the boss in question and slagging him off directly.

 

[Slycne]

How is this a free speech issue though? Free speech entitles you to speak without restrictions, limitations or censorship.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Nothing in there says you are free from the consequences of such words.

 

[Woodsey]

You shouldn't really on the government to bail you out of situations like this. Remember ALWAYS check your privacy settings.

Actually, unless someone adds their boss on Facebook (WHY?!), then I think your privacy settings can be looser than Katie Price, and you're still in the clear.

Companies and bosses should not go out of their way to keep tabs on their employees' personal lives.

 

[Trivun]

How is this a free speech issue though? Free speech entitles you to speak without restrictions, limitations or censorship.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Nothing in there says you are free from the consequences of such words.

You make a good point, but I'm not from the US, so when I say free speech I don't mean anything to do with the 1st Amendment, but simply free speech in general. To elaborate, this case basically sets precedent, so that in the future other people who slag off their boss or indeed make any comments (that they would indeed be able to say without restriction because of the principle of free speech) could get away without consequence. And that, to me, is wrong. Which is why I'm saying that I agree that the woman should have been punished, and completely disagree with the courts backing her instead of her former employers. Which conveniently matches the fact that the 1st Amendment, as you say, doesn't restrict the consequences of speaking freely.

 

[The_root_of_all_evil]

Wow...that's actually really surprising. The Government protect free speech against the workplace?

I'll be interested to see if that applies if your workplace IS the Government though, what happens if a Military guy starts bitching on BookFace about going into Afghanistan?

 

[Slycne]

How is this a free speech issue though? Free speech entitles you to speak without restrictions, limitations or censorship.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Nothing in there says you are free from the consequences of such words.

You make a good point, but I'm not from the US, so when I say free speech I don't mean anything to do with the 1st Amendment, but simply free speech in general. To elaborate, this case basically sets precedent, so that in the future other people who slag off their boss or indeed make any comments (that they would indeed be able to say without restriction because of the principle of free speech) could get away without consequence. And that, to me, is wrong. Which is why I'm saying that I agree that the woman should have been punished, and completely disagree with the courts backing her instead of her former employers. Which conveniently matches the fact that the 1st Amendment, as you say, doesn't restrict the consequences of speaking freely.

Other nations are even more literal as to that translation. For instance, the French Declaration of Rights -

The free communication of ideas and opinions is one of the most precious of the rights of man. Every citizen may, accordingly, speak, write, and print with freedom, but shall be responsible for such abuses of this freedom as shall be defined by law.