Dish Network Ordered to Change Social Media Policy

[Beavis]

wasn't here then... We don't give out that info without permission of the member or by request of a judge.

Sent from my iPhone using SatelliteGuys

Good to know.

 

[PTVC]

Then should you (and I don't mean to imply you individually) be expressing disdain for your employer on a public forum, possibly jeopardizing your employment?

I believe in free speech. The only issue I'd have is if the employee was not telling the truth.

Does your employer have any idea who "syphix" is?

 

[PTVC]

The First Amendment protects your right to express your free speech from the Government not your employer.

The 1st amendment protects speech, period. Your employer may fire you for just about any reason, but that does not mean they can't be held to account for it. Whistleblowing is speech. Exercising union rights is speech. Exercising employee rights is speech.

 

[Hall]

The 1st amendment protects speech, period.

You're wrong and Ranger484 is correct. Read the 1st Amendment: "Congress shall pass no law...".

 

[PTVC]

You're wrong and Ranger484 is correct. Read the 1st Amendment: "Congress shall pass no law...".

The U.S. Constitution may apply to the U.S. government, but every state in the union also has a Constitution that mirrors that of the U.S. Constitution, and is some states, the state Constitution is much broader. Your states Constitution, or laws of your state, may protect employees' speech outside the workplace even from private employers' actions.

Your employer may fire you for just about any reason, but that does not mean they can't be held to account for it. Whistleblowing is speech. Exercising union rights is speech. Exercising employee rights is speech.

 

[empiretc]

Your employer may fire you for just about any reason, but that does not mean they can't be held to account for it.

just as employees should be held accountable as well.

 

[dfergie]

Ok, this is getting political so please refrain from going any further that direction, Thanks for your understanding.

 

[PTVC]

just as employees should be held accountable as well.

You are correct. To an extent, they should. But that wasn't the point of the article Scott posted.

The National Labor Relations Board has ordered Dish to change a "Social Media" policy in the employee handbook that prevented workers from making disparaging or defamatory comments about the company. Additionally, the NLRB has slapped Dish for exercising too much control over the way its employees interact with media and government agencies.

In some situations, an employer does have to respect an employees free speech rights.

 

[dishcomm]

This is true, but there are other methods, i.e. whistle-blowers have existed since before the internet. Bigger companies have HR departments, and there are always attorneys.

Then you have some extreme employees that want to get fired to draw unemployment and other benefits.

There is a big difference between a worker that trashes his current employer with "this place sucks" postings on a social networking site and a person who has legitimate evidence of " hey this company is doing this and it is harmful to( fill in the blank) and I think it is important to let others know about it"...

 

[dishcomm]

The freedom to speak your mind also includes where and how.

Actually no it does not. Freedom of speech is not absolute.

 

[dishcomm]

Yup, this happened to a coworker of mine when I worked at DirecTV. AFAIK, he never ID'd himself as an employee, but posted something about their equipment return policies (I don't know if it was on here or on the other site) but DirecTV corporate security got notified somehow and the site admin turned over his personal IP addy which revealed his home address (He never posted from a work computer, IIRC) and they cross referenced the address with their employee database and knew who it was. Freaked him out majorly.

This is precisely why there should be no laws prohibiting the blocking of one's IP address. I believe it is illegal to do so.

 

[PTVC]

Actually no it does not. Freedom of speech is not absolute.

The NLRB disagrees.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/mikalbe...a-use-policy-what-it-means-for-your-business/
http://www.accountingweb.com/topic/...loyees-rant-online-nlrb-weighs-workers-rights
http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/nlrb-bolsters-private-employee-speech
http://newsandinsight.thomsonreuter...oyees_can_bitch_about_their_jobs_on_Facebook/

 

[dishcomm]

The U.S. Constitution may apply to the U.S. government, but every state in the union also has a Constitution that mirrors that of the U.S. Constitution, and is some states, the state Constitution is much broader. Your states Constitution, or laws of your state, may protect employees' speech outside the workplace even from private employers' actions.

Your employer may fire you for just about any reason, but that does not mean they can't be held to account for it. Whistleblowing is speech. Exercising union rights is speech. Exercising employee rights is speech.

Not necessarily. Depends on what is said or written. One cannot state things that are untrue, dafamatory, insubordinate towards superiors, expose company secrets. There is a litany of criteria a person or company can use to protect itself.
Union rights are not the same in every state. In right to work states, an employer may ban union organizing activities on his premises during work hours. Employee rights? I do not know what that means. The term is vague.

 

[dishcomm]

The 1st amendment protects speech, period. Your employer may fire you for just about any reason, but that does not mean they can't be held to account for it. Whistleblowing is speech. Exercising union rights is speech. Exercising employee rights is speech.

Sure if one wishes to go through the expense of hiring an attorney while of course being out of work.
Once again, the right to have something to say is not absolute.

 

[dishcomm]

You are correct. To an extent, they should. But that wasn't the point of the article Scott posted.



In some situations, an employer does have to respect an employees free speech rights.

Disagree.

 

[dfergie]

Guys one more time, getting too political ...

 

[dishcomm]

The NLRB disagrees.

Disagrees with WHAT?

 

[dishcomm]

The NLRB disagrees.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/mikalbe...a-use-policy-what-it-means-for-your-business/
http://www.accountingweb.com/topic/...loyees-rant-online-nlrb-weighs-workers-rights
http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/nlrb-bolsters-private-employee-speech
http://newsandinsight.thomsonreuter...oyees_can_bitch_about_their_jobs_on_Facebook/

Lok, this is about to be closed. If you are so sure of your beliefs, feel free to post whatever you like that is negative toward your employer. Feel free to show these words to him. Then see whether or not you are still employed 5 minutes later.

 

[empiretc]

There is a big difference between a worker that trashes his current employer with "this place sucks" postings on a social networking site and a person who has legitimate evidence of " hey this company is doing this and it is harmful to( fill in the blank) and I think it is important to let others know about it"...

Yes, and I brought it up when this first started. A company does not have to put up with employees constantly complaining about them just because they are unhappy. However, there are better ways of informing others if there are serious concerns about a company's practices. For really serious matters, a truly concerned employee should consult an attorney or local news rather than their fb/twit accounts.

Lok, this is about to be closed. If you are so sure of your beliefs, feel free to post whatever you like that is negative toward your employer. Feel free to show these words to him. Then see whether or not you are still employed 5 minutes later.

If a person truly believes it, they should have no problem saying it directly to their employer instead of hiding behind the internet... wonder how well a libel suit would hold up because of a fb/twit posts.


Best commercial line ever: "They can't put anything on the Internet that isn't true."

 

[Hall]

Guys one more time, getting too political ...

I'm afraid you're confusing political with legal. There's a difference.