Do you friend your co-workers on Facebook? 2

[hinesward]

I'm going to assume that most people here are on Facebook, so I figured I will get a lot of opinions. Since I see everyone's computer, I know that a lot of my co-workers are on Facebook. A lot of them have also friended each other. Fortunately, my name is common enough that I wouldn't be that easy to find.

I also think that friending my co-workers on Facebook would be a HUGE mistake. I have noticed that they have friended each other. I have 835 friends on Facebook, so I figure it's only a matter of time before I bump into one of my co-workers.

Work is work, and personal life is personal. I am very political on Facebook. I express my opinions on Facebook. I say things on Facebook that I would never say in the workplace. My company doesn't need to know anything about my life. I figure that anything I do on Facebook can and will be used against me.

What does everyone else think? Do you friend your co-workers on Facebook?

 

[flapeyre]

I've seen people busted from playing hookie because they posted something on FB the night before and their boss found it.

That's an employee fail - NOT a facebook fail. No different than talking within earshot of the boss's office.

By the way, I do not "play hookie" from work - I take a vacation day (or other authorized time off), and my supervisor is always informed. To do otherwise is immature and patently stupid.

-- Francis
Et cognoscetis veritatem, et veritas liberabit vos.

 

[fisheromacse]

flapeyre,

i agree completely.

you can't blame a website/technology for the ignorance of staff. It is likely those same sort of staff who would go out w/'friends' from work and engage in notorious and questionable behavior but then not understand why those actions impact work performance/relationships.

I do have a facebook account with the minimum of accurate personal information, and use it mostly to keep in touch with extended family who are spread from sea to sea in the US and in a few other countries as well. I would never post anything on a site like facebook that is embarrassing or that i would not say to anyone in a face-to-face encounter.

Too many people seem to view facebook and the others as an anonymous board when it is very much the opposite of that.

 

[ousoonerjoe]

Oh, agreed. The employee was a complete moron. However, we continuously see time and time again how FB is reviewed by employers and management has up to and including terminated those individuals. For that reason, I use email to contact family, not social networking sites. My kid brother likes to talk about his escapades at college on FB. Not something I'd like to have associated with me in a professional setting.

The issue with FB is not just what you put out there, but what others you are friends with put out there. That brings a whole new level of "guilty by association" to the table that most do not want to have to deal with.

--------------------------------------------------
Bluto: What? Over? Did you say "over"? Nothing is over until we decide it is! Was it over when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor? No!
Otter: Germans?
Boon: Forget it, he's rolling.
--------------------------------------------------

 

[Glenn9999]

Correct me if I'm wrong (again limited knowledge because I don't have accounts on these services), isn't LinkedIn the same concept and idea as Facebook? In other words a competitor?

I'm waiting for the white paper entitled "Finding Employment in the Era of Occupational Irrelevancy

 

[flapeyre]

Glenn,
LinkedIn is to build professional relationships. They emphasize work relationships, job experience, and so on.

Facebook tends to be more of a social type of site. More multimedia oriented. Lots of third-party games, such as the ubiquitous FarmVille.

(Facebook is blocked at my workplace, but LinkedIn is not).

-- Francis
Et cognoscetis veritatem, et veritas liberabit vos.

 

[DTSMAN]

I couldn't be busted playing hookie.

Unlike my coworkers, I do not have sick days I have well days. I state that vocally. I do not stay home if I am sick it is a waste of a paid day, I go to work sick. I take well days. If I feel well enough to fish, I take a well day and go fishing.

Bo

Remember,
If the women don't find you handsome,
they should at least find you handy.
(Red Green)

http://www.redgreen.com

 

[Welshbird]

I honestly don't really see an issue with having co-workers who are also friends, and as such they may or may not be linked on Facebook.

Surely the bigger issue is that Facebook is public. If there is anything you don't want all and sundry to know, then you keep in personal. That means not telling everyone, and by association not posting it on a public website.

If I have nothing to be ashamed of (and I don't) then I have no issue with co-workers; government agencies or future employers researching me. I certainly research about a company before I decide to work there, so I see it as being fair and equal for them to do the same.

Fee

"The cure for anything is salt water – sweat, tears, or the sea." Isak Dinesen

 

[philhege]

My firm instituted a new "social media" policy. The basic message is "I wouldn't if I were you." Verboten items include: "friending" a superior or underling; posting a recommendation on LinkedIn; making any comment, pro or con, about the firm.

As soon as the policy came out, I junked every one of my social media accounts. As stated above here, there's just too much exposure to guilt-by-association and prior activity (e.g. a coworker you friended is now your boss) that may or may not violate the policy. Better safe than sorry.

So, my far-flung friends and relatives get email. And I know longer get to read of their triumphs in Mafia Wars.

Maybe that's a good thing.

-------++NO CARRIER++-------

 

[hinesward]

I'll give you an example of stuff I say on Facebook that I would not say in the workplace. I actually celebrated when Ted Kennedy died. There is no reason whatsoever to talk about something like that in the workplace. On Facebook, I talk about that stuff all the time.

I am a Laker fan. If my boss is a Celtic fan, do I really want to share that information with him?

 

[flapeyre]

But, be careful!!.

(I love the fourth reply to this)

-- Francis
Et cognoscetis veritatem, et veritas liberabit vos.

 

[Welshbird]

Hinesward - I think your issue here is nothing to do with Facebook - it's to do with you having political opinions that you prefer to keep away from work.

And that is absolutely your choice.

I don't feel the need, but then I don't see that any of my opinions are particularly extreme, so I'm safe enough with people knowing them. In fact, the people I work with all know which political party I belong to, and that I have elected locally in the past.

What is really your issue here - facebook - or the right to private views?

Fee

"The cure for anything is salt water – sweat, tears, or the sea." Isak Dinesen

 

[Noway2]

One problem that I see is that personal views, which have nothing to do with capbility or willingness to do a job function, are being used for hiring decisions. Of course, in and of itself, this has always been the case and one purpose of a job interview is to make these sorts of determinations. There are rules that govern what type of questions may and may not be asked in an interview. The applicatant or existing employee has the option of having seperate work (or public) and personal personas, which is how it should be. The crux of the problem is that the company is able and willing to obtain information that would be strictly out of bounds in an interview situation through other means, such as facebook.

The result is that people can either not get hired, or get fired because they express a political, social, religious, or lifestyle view outside of the work place that one or more individuals inside of the work place don't agree with. This is just plain wrong. Since companies, and government for that matter, appear to be unwilling to act with sufficient self restraint, this leaves a need to impose such restraints on them.

 

[MasterRacker]

Noway2 nailed the core issue. That's exactly why I would never create a personal social networking account with my real info. There are plenty of things you might be comfortable saying to someone's face that are still no business of your employer and the opportunities for misuse are too great.

My LinkedIn acct. is purely my professional sphere for the same reason. Hopefully I'll never slip up and mention anything in any area that could link my personal persona to my professional one.

Jeff
[small][purple]It's never too early to begin preparing for [/purple]International Talk Like a Pirate Day
"The software I buy sucks, The software I write sucks. It's time to give up and have a beer..." - Me[/small]

 

[flapeyre]

The result is that people can either not get hired, or get fired because they express a political, social, religious, or lifestyle view outside of the work place that one or more individuals inside of the work place don't agree with. This is just plain wrong. Since companies, and government for that matter, appear to be unwilling to act with sufficient self restraint, this leaves a need to impose such restraints on them.

Having freedom of speech does not mean that you escape responsibility for what you say, on facebook or anywhere else.

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.

My emphasis. Note that the restriction is placed upon Congress. If it applied everywhere, an employer would have no right to terminate an employee for dropping the F-bomb on his boss. Even most goverment agencies won't tolerate that, and only the most idiotic of judges would call that free speech.

Why should Facebook or any other website be exempt? They are not run by the government.

-- Francis
Et cognoscetis veritatem, et veritas liberabit vos.

 

[Noway2]

Having freedom of speech does not mean that you escape responsibility for what you say, on facebook or anywhere else.

Yes and a person should not have to fear drinking a beer at a baseball game because their boss, who thinks drinking alcohol is a sin, might see them or read about it on a place like Facebook.

With regards to your constitutional statement, I trust you do realize that there are many laws in the nation that are NOT part of the constitution and this problem should not require a constitutional amendment to be corrected.

 

[flapeyre]

[A] person should not have to fear drinking a beer at a baseball game because their boss, who thinks drinking alcohol is a sin, might see them or read about it on a place like Facebook.

Then the employee has an obligation to not post his beer-swilling status on FB. If the employee knew that in advance, well, that's his problem, not Facebook's, and not the legal system's.

I trust you do realize that there are many laws in the nation that are NOT part of the constitution and this problem should not require a constitutional amendment to be corrected.

I never said that we need a constitutional amendment to correct anything. Furhermore - what problem? Why should the law protect someone who has so little common sense that they would lose their job over a Facebook post? Where, pray tell, does any bit of common sense fit in to this scenario?

I firmly believe that we have too many bad (and stupid) laws on the books already. There are laws that are good (prohibitions against homicide, robbery, theft, vandalism, etc.), and bad laws. The bad ones are mostly ignored and unenforced, unless it's to some DA or politician's advantage to do so. We don't need any more of them. In fact, we ought to devote an entire Congressional session to repealing them. That'll never happen, of course, but I can dream.

Grab a ginger ale, and enjoy the ballgame.

-- Francis
Et cognoscetis veritatem, et veritas liberabit vos.

 

[CajunCenturion]

==> Yes and a person should not have to fear drinking a beer at a baseball game because their boss, who thinks drinking alcohol is a sin, might see them or read about it on a place like Facebook.
Regardless of how you or I feel about drinking, isn't the boss entitled to feel the way he so chooses? Is not drinking at a baseball game a voluntary and public activity?

What exactly do you think should be done? What restrictions are you willing to put on whom? Whose freedoms do you want to take away from whom?

--------------
Good Luck
To get the most from your Tek-Tips experience, please read
FAQ181-2886
As a circle of light increases so does the circumference of darkness around it. - Albert Einstein

 

[ousoonerjoe]

==> Yes and a person should not have to fear drinking a beer at a baseball game because their boss, who thinks drinking alcohol is a sin, might see them or read about it on a place like Facebook.
Regardless of how you or I feel about drinking, isn't the boss entitled to feel the way he so chooses? Is not drinking at a baseball game a voluntary and public activity?

As long as the baseball game is on personal time and not a company event, then the boss has no legal recourse. The US Supreme Court int he past held a division between the work place and home life. While that line has been blurred in some cases, the scenario stated above does not give the boss an excuse to discipline because he "doesn't like it." If the employee was supposed to be at work or was at a work event then the boss and/or HR are obligated to take action for the sake of the company if a no drinking policy was stated ahead of time.

When an employee makes statements about the company on public sites such as FB, the company has standing under slander and defamation laws.

1st Amendment allows you to say what ever you want to say. It says nothing about being absolved of any wrong doing for those statements. That is how companies are able to take action against employees for making comments about the company. "Your rights end where another's rights begin."

--------------------------------------------------
Bluto: What? Over? Did you say "over"? Nothing is over until we decide it is! Was it over when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor? No!
Otter: Germans?
Boon: Forget it, he's rolling.
--------------------------------------------------

 

[CajunCenturion]

==> As long as the baseball game is on personal time and not a company event, then the boss has no legal recourse
Of course not, and that was never intimated. The boss doesn't any legal recourse for specifically disciplining you for drinking at the ballgame - of course not. However, your actions and behavior can and still may affect how the boss feels about how well you fit into the corporate culture that he or she wishes to cultivate. He won't take action (if he has any sense that is) because you were drinking at the ball game, but when the opportunity presents itself, he may very well take appropriate action to further the corporate culture. And that's been the case for hundreds of years.

To the topic at hand, that has nothing to do with just facebook. It has everything to do with the fact that technology, whether social network sites, cell phone cameras, security cameras, neighborhood watchers, or what have you has made our public lives, well, very public. As I said, it's nothing new; but it is more prevalent with today's technology.

--------------
Good Luck
To get the most from your Tek-Tips experience, please read
FAQ181-2886
As a circle of light increases so does the circumference of darkness around it. - Albert Einstein

 

[hjgoldstein]

==> As long as the baseball game is on personal time and not a company event, then the boss has no legal recourse

Sign seen held up at the World Cup football (soccer to you yanks) North Korea v Brazil match:

Kim Jong Il thinks I'm at work

It is time for pacifists to stand up and fight for their beliefs.