Free speech, social media and the workplace

TraumaRN

Diamond Member
Jun 5, 2005
6,893
63
91
So this topic will actually strike pretty close to me...Because it is happening to me.

So I'd like to say the discussion will be about what happens to me and of course where ever this discussion goes.

I'll start by positing a question or two. How many of you have ever posted about work? Even as innocent as a today work sucks type post on any of the major social media sites? And if you have do you take caution about what you post? Which leads to does your company have a specific policy about mentioning work on said social media sites?

To answer my own questions...yes I have posted about work before. Usually about something humorous or annoying that I encountered in my shift or on occasion a funny quote from a coworker. And I'm usually hyper cautious because I work for a hospital and obviously want to protect my patients.

As far a social media policy. I'm not sure they have one. But I'm suspended from work until further notice and may now potentially lose my job. I still don't know because when HR suspended me and my boss told me it is under review because HR isn't sure of the exact policy I violated but that the matter is serious enough that I need to not be around patients. Nor did they have any policies to show me nor any paperwork stating why I was being suspended.

My boss told it was from a series of 3 posts on facebook over the weekend that I made and one I made 10 (!!) months ago. The first two I named two of our physicians by name and posted the joke each had made in normal conversation. Essentially both made goofy situational jokes I posted those jokes and attributed them for these jokes.

The third post this weekend which I don't remember verbatim because I deleted it 3 days after posting it essentially stated maybe you shouldnt be an ER doctor if you can't follow ACLS protocol (which isbecause how to save someone in cardiac arrest in a hospital setting)

Last thing was from 10 months when I posted the ER is not Burger King you can't have it your way. This one makes me mad because it means someone is just clearly digging for any dirt on me at this point. And my boss said another staff member brought this to HRs attention.

Mind you my Facebook profile is pretty much impossible to find I've got all my privacy settings to max unless we are friends. At this point I'm waiting to see whether or not I'll have a job or not.

My thoughts on the matter...basically I feel like this is a witch hunt and a possible violation of my right to free speech even my boss said "I'm wondering what your free speech rights are because I don't see anything overly objectable."

I tend to agree with her. I mentioned no names no company. Were they maybe uncouth, yeah I admit that. I was angry about the not following protocol but has it come to the point that we can't vent anywhere at any time?? And before anyone mentions it I realize I work nonunion at a private company and they fire me for lots of reasons I'm not certain I agree with this being one of them. What harm did I inflict upon the company? None that I can reasonably identify.

Moreover at some point this whole idea of social media and corporations and free speech is going to come to a legal head. If you've got a corporate policy thats great but I think the line between free speech and potentially firing someone for an angry vent is thin and fraught with peril. What do you guys think? Am I talking out of my rear end or am I bringing a valid area of jobplace peril?
 

jaqie

Platinum Member
Apr 6, 2008
2,471
1
0
. . . . 3 posts on facebook . . . . I named two of our physicians by name . . . .
. . . . I mentioned no names no company.
And how many more things have you lied here about? You were just caught in at least one lie right here in this one post.

IMO you have completely lost any and all trust and validity of your side of claims of anything to do with this from this point on, and you should be fired and fined since it is very plain you are lying here about at least one thing. One very, very important thing.
 

cwjerome

Diamond Member
Sep 30, 2004
4,346
26
81
Not to be a hard ass, but anything you say regarding your job in a public place (the mall, social media, a ballgame) can probably be used against you by your employer if they view it as damaging in some way. Particularly if there's an expectation of a certain amount of trust or confidentiality, and especially if you do these things at the place of employment.
 

woolfe9998

Lifer
Apr 8, 2013
16,189
14,114
136
And how many more things have you lied here about? You were just caught in at least one lie right here in this one post.

IMO you have completely lost any and all trust and validity of your side of claims of anything to do with this from this point on, and you should be fired and fined since it is very plain you are lying here about at least one thing. One very, very important thing.

I noticed the apparent inconsistency as well. To be fair, I think when he said he mentioned no names, he was referring to the post which was a complaint about not following protocols. He did mention names when he repeated jokes made by some ER doc but I think he views that as innocuous since he didn't link the names to any grievances. According to him, his only grievance post mentioned no names.
 

woolfe9998

Lifer
Apr 8, 2013
16,189
14,114
136
Not to be a hard ass, but anything you say regarding your job in a public place (the mall, social media, a ballgame) can probably be used against you by your employer if they view it as damaging in some way. Particularly if there's an expectation of a certain amount of trust or confidentiality, and especially if you do these things at the place of employment.

Correct. He has no free speech rights with respect to things he says in public about his employer. He might be protected by "whistle blower" statutes under certain narrow circumstances, but that's about it.
 

waggy

No Lifer
Dec 14, 2000
68,143
10
81
i think you are a idiot in that you posted anything about your job (besides I LOVE IT!) on facebook.

it amazes me that people post stupid shit on facebook and are amazed when they get in trouble.
 

TraumaRN

Diamond Member
Jun 5, 2005
6,893
63
91
And how many more things have you lied here about? You were just caught in at least one lie right here in this one post.

IMO you have completely lost any and all trust and validity of your side of claims of anything to do with this from this point on, and you should be fired and fined since it is very plain you are lying here about at least one thing. One very, very important thing.

Sorry for my lack of clarity. Names on the jokes yes but those two docs wouldn't care they are both comedian sorts. Otherwise the two other things no names
 

TraumaRN

Diamond Member
Jun 5, 2005
6,893
63
91
i think you are a idiot in that you posted anything about your job (besides I LOVE IT!) on facebook.

it amazes me that people post stupid shit on facebook and are amazed when they get in trouble.

I was hoping for a higher level of discussion on here.

I'm surprised that this came back to bite me because I don't post obvious things that would get you in trouble about my job. When my own boss basically doesn't agree with what is happening to me that might be a clue that I didnt post stupid shit.

I posted two jokes, a sarcastic remark comparing ER care to burger king, and a 3 sentence rant about not following proper medical protocol as a MD. Hardly what I'd call stupid shit. Its not like I out and said "this doctor here is a fucking asshole who should be banished from the ER" if I posted that then fire me now. But I didnt. Not even close.

Rather I'd like to have a discussion about how much power a corporate entity has over your speech and if we as employees are honestly ok with being able to walk around fearing for our jobs if we even say anything that can be used as an excuse to fire us. Id say in a country that values free exchange and free speech that is a pretty important discussion.
 
Last edited:

Cerpin Taxt

Lifer
Feb 23, 2005
11,940
542
126
Freedom to speak is not the freedom to speak without consequences. Freedom to speak really means that the government cannot make your speech a crime. That doesn't mean you cannot perpetrate tortuous speech (slander, libel, etc), nor that you can remain immune from some other private (i.e. non-government) consequence of your speech.

Another way of looking at it is that your freedom of speech does not protect you from being dumped by your girlfriend if you call her a bad name, or even if you accidentally insult her favorite Spice Girl or whatever. Surely, workers have certain rights as employees, but I don't think your rights have necessarily been infringed in this instance.

Having said all that, I think it's an very unfortunate scenario, and even if it's all legally above board, it doesn't really pass the smell test. Seems to me like the company would be shooting itself in the foot to dismiss a valuable employee over such trivial matters.
 

woolfe9998

Lifer
Apr 8, 2013
16,189
14,114
136
Question: does your employer have a written policy about posting stuff on the internet pertaining to your job or employer?
 

Craig234

Lifer
May 1, 2006
38,548
350
126
I was hoping for a higher level of discussion on here.

I'm surprised that this came back to bite me because I don't post obvious things that would get you in trouble about my job. When my own boss basically doesn't agree with what is happening to me that might be a clue that I didnt post stupid shit.

I posted two jokes, a sarcastic remark comparing ER care to burger king, and a 3 sentence rant about not following proper medical protocol as a MD. Hardly what I'd call stupid shit. Its not like I out and said "this doctor here is a fucking asshole who should be banished from the ER" if I posted that then fire me now. But I didnt. Not even close.

Rather I'd like to have a discussion about how much power a corporate entity has over your speech and if we as employees are honestly ok with being able to walk around fearing for our jobs if we even say anything that can be used as an excuse to fire us. Id say in a country that values free exchange and free speech that is a pretty important discussion.

Simplicity has value in law.

Let me digress for a moment - I've had a lot of feedback to make posts longer.

I have an idea for justice - just have the same evidence rules, judge, jury - but there are no laws or fixed punishments. The prosecutor says, "he did THIS and he deserves THAT" while the defense attorney argues innocence or extentuating circumstances and thinks less punishment is better.

The jury just hears it and decides what's right.

Now, I think THAT is simple, in a good way. Guy has a legal loophole to get away with a bad crime? Nope, guilty. Guy faces 10 years for smoking a joint? Not if the jury disagrees.

The system loses the attribute - some good, some bad - of 'consistency', but I think it has a lot of benefits for justice.

Some politicians in a room far away who decades ago made up a statue to cover the situation might not have all the nuance of a jury who just listened to the case.

Anyway, end of digression - just wanted to mention that as an example of 'simplicity'.

For your situation, my point is, when writing laws they can't take into account the nuance of 'well, the burger king joke isn't very inappropriate'. They need a simple answer.

And that simpe answer they picked is, usually, at-will employment.

Now, almost no one wants unlimited at will employment - 'they won't give me a blow job so they're fired' and 'they're a race I don't like so they're fired'. So there are protections.

But outside of those - anything is fair game. That keeps it simple will has benefits to our system. It also has costs - sometimes it's not very fair.

Unfortunately, it sounds like you're caught up in that. At will - you have no recourse other than the opinion of your employer.

In terms of discussion what's right - I think I kind of covered at least a main reason why we have this system.

We can try to complicate it a bit - that's where unions add protections and there's more of a hearing where the company has to make a case. I like that.

But unfortunately, this at will policy pretty much isn't going to change. Can you write a law that would cover it better?
 

TraumaRN

Diamond Member
Jun 5, 2005
6,893
63
91
Freedom to speak is not the freedom to speak without consequences. Freedom to speak really means that the government cannot make your speech a crime. That doesn't mean you cannot perpetrate tortuous speech (slander, libel, etc), nor that you can remain immune from some other private (i.e. non-government) consequence of your speech.

Another way of looking at it is that your freedom of speech does not protect you from being dumped by your girlfriend if you call her a bad name, or even if you accidentally insult her favorite Spice Girl or whatever. Surely, workers have certain rights as employees, but I don't think your rights have necessarily been infringed in this instance.

Having said all that, I think it's an very unfortunate scenario, and even if it's all legally above board, it doesn't really pass the smell test. Seems to me like the company would be shooting itself in the foot to dismiss a valuable employee over such trivial matters.

Thank you this is what I wanted to read. I agree with your first two paragraphs entirely. In fact I had debating posting pretty much those two paragraphs near verbatim but didn't. I should have.

You are correct in that this does not pass the smell test at all. If I defamed or slandered the company sure but this is just weird and fishy. As I said I was never shown a policy, never given the option for appeal. Heck beyond talking to my boss HR didn't want to talk to me at all. Seems weird, wouldn't you go to the source first?

At risk of sounding like a conspiracy theorist but this is what I'm talking about in regards to corporate power being unchecked. What are we as a society if we can't even have open discussion about our jobs(obviously slander/libel/defaming aside)?? I'm not big on unions at all but in this instance I can see where having one would certainly swing the pendulum back a little bit especially in this case.

That being said I've always found it strange how much power we give to private corporations in America. They can, and have in the past trampled over their workers in a multitude of ways and we just accept that as the cost of doing business.

Also, and maybe I'm completely off my rocker here but obviously I view this discussion as public domain because anyone could find it on the internet but why do we view certain Facebook posts as public? I posted these things "friends only" and I've only got about 180. My profile is set to private, you'd have to friend me to actually see any of this(obviously a facebook "friend" reported me to HR)...so pardon my naivety about this but doesn't that mean it is not private? Like if the police wanted to see what I posted on facebook wouldn't they either A.) need my permission, or B.) use a warrant to gain access? Doesn't that mean it is not a public forum? Or am I just completely out of bounds with my logic?
 

TraumaRN

Diamond Member
Jun 5, 2005
6,893
63
91
Question: does your employer have a written policy about posting stuff on the internet pertaining to your job or employer?

I asked and was told that they were looking into it but when I pressed, I was told tentatively no.
 

jaqie

Platinum Member
Apr 6, 2008
2,471
1
0
Sorry for my lack of clarity. Names on the jokes yes but those two docs wouldn't care they are both comedian sorts. Otherwise the two other things no names
I apologize, I misunderstood. I still do believe even with that however that they are right to have suspended you... I do not honestly know if that would be enough that I feel that you should be fired. Maybe a formal discipline and some time off without pay.
 

TraumaRN

Diamond Member
Jun 5, 2005
6,893
63
91
I apologize, I misunderstood. I still do believe even with that however that they are right to have suspended you... I do not honestly know if that would be enough that I feel that you should be fired. Maybe a formal discipline and some time off without pay.

No problem.

What I don't get is how this actual made it to suspension. The only discipline I have against me was a verbal warning for using my cell phone at work. Which like 50% of our staff has that same warning lol.

Formal discipline in the form of a write up sure but suspension? Not sure I agree. Why wasnt I shown a policy or given a chance to put down a written explanation to HR? Heck why wasn't I allowed any voice in the matter at all? It just seems so harshly reactionary.
 

jaqie

Platinum Member
Apr 6, 2008
2,471
1
0
I think it has to do with breaking the privacy mindset of the doctor patient confidentiality environment. There is HIPPAA (or whatever it is spelled) to protect patients but what about protecting doctors from eachother's 'spills'? I totally agree there should be and it seems that is their thought as well, and it shocks many including me that anyone who has been trained with HIPPAA and other such things into the medical environment would splurge such details as coworker's names at all. I think they expected there to already be an existing written rule to this effect and are shocked at finding there isn't one, so are scrambling to figure out how to 'paper' what seems should have been on paper already.
 

TraumaRN

Diamond Member
Jun 5, 2005
6,893
63
91
I think it has to do with breaking the privacy mindset of the doctor patient confidentiality environment. There is HIPPAA (or whatever it is spelled) to protect patients but what about protecting doctors from eachother's 'spills'? I totally agree there should be and it seems that is their thought as well, and it shocks many including me that anyone who has been trained with HIPPAA and other such things into the medical environment would splurge such details as coworker's names at all. I think they expected there to already be an existing written rule to this effect and are shocked at finding there isn't one, so are scrambling to figure out how to 'paper' what seems should have been on paper already.

It is spelled HIPAA. But yeah, it would be probably be a big stretch to call it a HIPAA violation. I did not disclose any protected health info of any patient.

I definitely agree on your second part they aren't sure what to do regarding policy.
 

Anubis

No Lifer
Aug 31, 2001
78,712
427
126
tbqhwy.com
saying Doc So and So told a funny joke does not violate HIPPA neither does anything else that we are told was posted

if i had to guess the person you made that ER comment about even tho not named found out and went to HR before someone could go to HR about him/her not following the rules
 

TerryMathews

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
11,464
2
0
Correct. He has no free speech rights with respect to things he says in public about his employer. He might be protected by "whistle blower" statutes under certain narrow circumstances, but that's about it.

Incorrect. NLRB says that he has the right to make social media posts about "workplace conditions". http://www.nlrb.gov/node/5078

Current thinking is that it includes to supervisors and supervisory decisions but no one is really sure because the NLRB hasn't screwed a company with it yet.

The company I work for is taking the position (under advisement) that a social post about events at work is protected unless it specifically violates law by addressing a customer by name.

If you seriously want to find this, find a labor lawyer. Saying a doctor is a nurse's supervisor for the purposes of the NLRA doesn't seem like an insurmountable stretch. Some up-and-comer would love to make his name winning that argument.
 
Last edited:
Jan 25, 2011
16,699
8,909
146
I think they must be approaching it from a position that you have named specific employees and, in that last post, implied that the facility employs unqualified emergency care physicians. A stretch perhaps, but I can see that angle.

However unlikely, something like that can come back to haunt them should there be some kind of malpractice scenario I would suspect. At least I'd assume they view it as such.

I have never referenced my work in any postings directly attributed to me.
 

TraumaRN

Diamond Member
Jun 5, 2005
6,893
63
91
Incorrect. NLRB says that he has the right to make social media posts about "workplace conditions". http://www.nlrb.gov/node/5078

Current thinking is that it includes to supervisors and supervisory decisions but no one is really sure because the NLRB hasn't screwed a company with it yet.

The company I work for is taking the position (under advisement) that a social post about events at work is protected unless it specifically violates law by addressing a customer by name.

If you seriously want to find this, find a labor lawyer. Saying a doctor is a nurse's supervisor for the purposes of the NLRA doesn't seem like an insurmountable stretch. Some up-and-comer would love to make his name winning that argument.

Yeah after looking up some of their cases regarding social media I found this one:

Dawnmarie S. was a long-term paramedic for American Medical Response of Connecticut, Inc., an emergency medical service provider in New Haven, Connecticut. After a verbal disagreement with her supervisor at work, Dawnmarie went home and posted a negative comment about her supervisor on her private Facebook page. Dawnmarie’s post prompted replies from other employees who were friends with Dawnmarie on Facebook.

Dawnmarie was suspended the next day and ultimately fired. In making the decision to fire her, the company relied, in part, on Dawnmarie’s Facebook post, arguing that Dawnmarie violated the company’s internet policy when she criticized her supervisor online.

A charge was filed with the Hartford NLRB Regional Office alleging Dawnmarie was unlawfully fired. The charge also alleged the company’s handbook contained unlawful provisions which, among other things, prohibited employees from making negative comments about the company or supervisors.

After an investigation, the NLRB issued a Complaint alleging Dawnmarie was unlawfully fired because she engaged in protected concerted activity when she criticized her supervisor on Facebook. The Complaint also alleged that the company’s handbook contained several unlawful provisions. Prior to a hearing, the company agreed to revise the provisions in the handbook which were alleged to be unlawful. The company also reached a private settlement with Dawnmarie regarding her termination.

Sounds somewhat similar IMO.
 

TraumaRN

Diamond Member
Jun 5, 2005
6,893
63
91
So I did manage to find a policy. They do have one. And at least from the looks of it is quite broad in scope. This is doubly pisses me off because I was essentially lied to yesterday. Moreover I found the policy on corrective actions and when getting suspended you are supposed to get paperwork stating why you are suspended even if they are still 'investigating.' I did not get that either. :mad::confused:

<blank company> workforce member participation should not reflect negatively on, or undermine the reputation of the system.
Violations of this and related policies may lead to corrective action, up to and including termination and criminal prosecution.
That is the official policy. Most of the rest is fluff and how to violate it in various ways, the way that would be important to this conversation is this:

<company> has spent substantial time and resources building its reputation and good
will. These are valuable and important corporate assets. Participation in social
media should adhere to <company conduct code and excellence standard>. If a workforce member&#8217;s participation in social media sites would
negatively impact the reputation, integrity, or brand of <company>, the workforce
member should not participate. If you are uncertain, please consult your manager
or the Human Resources department before posting.

Participation and postings should in no way be abusive towards colleagues.
Employees who use these websites to disparage or spread inappropriate comments
regarding other fellow employees can result in corrective action up to and
including termination.

Be respectful. Employees may not post any material that is obscene, defamatory,
profane, libelous, threatening, harassing, abusive, hateful, or embarrassing to
another person or entity.
I'm assuming they are looking at things from a standpoint of I embarrassed someone with these posts? I'm not sure because I'm not a lawyer. Just from their own policy they'd have to twist it kinda hard to say I violated that. Like the case I quoted above essentially the MD is my supervisor I can make workplace gripes without fear of reprisal, moreover the statement is so vague that I could reasonably make it in normal conversation. I could have posted at any time without any person in mind, which was my original intent of the post about not following protocols. The other 3 posts I'm not even sure they could even apply to this policy, unless they really want to police jokes and sarcasm.
 
Last edited: