myspace.com
Paul in Cannon Beach
4,703 Posts
If you have employees between 18-27 and they have their own terminals, you might want to check how much time they are spending on myspace.com
Myspace is part blog, part e-mail, part chatroom, and more. Myspace is extremely popular with high school to college age young people who use it to keep in touch with friends, meet new people, and check out new music online.
For employers, the problem could be two fold. Myspace is fairly addictive. Users tend to check their personal page multiple times a day. If your company policy prohibits excessive personal use online, you may have a problem.
The other issue is what your employees say about your organization or even YOU on their myspace pages. Considering that myspace has 5 million members, you may not want Kevin from marketing trashing your company on his myspace page.
By the way, getting fired for what you wrote on your blog has its own term now. Its called being "dooced".
Myspace is part blog, part e-mail, part chatroom, and more. Myspace is extremely popular with high school to college age young people who use it to keep in touch with friends, meet new people, and check out new music online.
For employers, the problem could be two fold. Myspace is fairly addictive. Users tend to check their personal page multiple times a day. If your company policy prohibits excessive personal use online, you may have a problem.
The other issue is what your employees say about your organization or even YOU on their myspace pages. Considering that myspace has 5 million members, you may not want Kevin from marketing trashing your company on his myspace page.
By the way, getting fired for what you wrote on your blog has its own term now. Its called being "dooced".
Comments
Most proxy servers are going to block it anyway because of the meta tags inserted into the HTML (I won't bore you with what that means, but trust me, it will get blocked).
Just follow your IT policy and the rest will take care of itself.
Gene
P.S. By the way, Paul, how did you arrive at the conclusion that it is the 18-27 age group that should be closely monitored?
I came across it by accident. I was allowing a young staffer to use my workstation last year and it was brought to my attention that my computer was spending alot of time on myspace. I had never heard of the site so I knew it wasnt me. The only other person was this staffer.
Whats possibly more significant is that myspace is both a blog and a public comment arena. I have found my own personal name twice mentioned on myspace pages plus multiple references to our organization - mostly positive but some that were not.
While employee blogs is an emerging issue, current thought including articles on HR HERO advise employers that ignorance is not bliss. You should probably know what your employees are saying publicly about your organization to their friends or anyone that just happens to see their page.
Obviously any misuse of company computers or negative blogging by any age group is an issue but myspace is a kind of phenomenon that is happening right now and appeals generally to teens and twenty-somethings.
IT policies are fine but how many address blogs? Some do but many companies are just becoming aware of this developing method of communication.
By the way, I said that myspace has 5 million users, I was wrong. The current number is 43 million users. Myspace's monthly pageviews makes it the fourth most active website online exceeding Google and E-bay yet I bet most people over 30 have barely heard of it.
I'd be more worried about how many people are on craigslist during the day, that has a much wider audience (age wise) than myspace does.
Here's a quote about myspace from a recent article in the Tacoma News Tribune, "It (Myspace) pretty much is ruining my life because I’m constantly checking on it at WORK, at home, you name it,” said Travis Noble, 19, a Pierce College student who estimates he spends up to six hours a day on the site. “It’s such a time-waster. You spend your time on there instead of doing things you should be doing." (emphasis mine)
Right now, myspace is a huge headache for schools. Many have started blocking the website from school computers. Teachers and school administrators are also dealing with rumors, threats, and innappropriate material on myspace pages.
If you employ teens and twentysomethings, there is a good chance that your organization and possibly you yourself are mentioned on a myspace page.
Paul, you missed the mark and you missed it by a mile! My point is that the advice you gave, which amounts to vigilante-like tactics is counter-productive and your rationale is flawed. You identified your target age group on speculative information based on what your perception is of myspace's audience.
Are you suggesting that an acceptable use policy needs to be so specific as to address myspace? C'mon! Do you make a distinction between porn sites catering to large breast aficionados and live sex show webcam sites?
I can see right through your futile attempt to extricate your foot out of your mouth. Nice try though.
Gene
P.S. The notion that myspace is somehow an epidemic because it is considered "addicitve" is insane. On-line porn, gambling, you-name-it "addictions" are nothing revolutionary. What's next? Monitoring Aunt Sallie's use of goodhousekeeping.com's recipe exchange board? My advice is to extricate yourself out of the minutia and let your policies do what they are supposed to do.
And that aside, if it's an employment-at-will state, I would think that the individual could be termed for some other reason - I know that I would certainly be able to find one, under the circumstances you put forth.
Interesting question.
I had to do a crash course on employee blogs when it became an issue here.
Whether its on company time or not, an employee can and should be held accountable for their public statements about your organization. Free speech means you have the right to say what you want but it doesn't mean there won't be any consequences.
That said, some types of speech are protected by union agreements (NLRB,NRLA), anti-discrimination legistlation, whistleblower, etc. I don't think a knee jerk reaction is wise. Perhaps the employee was just having a bad day and needed to vent. Have them remove the offensive statements and ask them to let you know the next time they are frustrated.
Body language, context, non-verbal cues, tone, and inflection are a big part of communication. Those elements are missing from online posts and it is easy to misunderstand a person's intent.
Some of Gene's comments for example strike me as harsh and overly critical but I am sure that he didn't mean them that way.
I'm sorry to hear that you find my comments to be harsh and overly critical. You're more than welcome to leave if you so chose and not be forced to read such inflamatory remarks. Your assumption that I didn't mean them that way is, of course, wrong. I did.
If you disagree with him, great - that's what debate is about. But we can disagree without being disagreeable.
James Sokolowski
HRhero.com
I would be interested to know if anyone else on the forum has run into this and how they have dealt with it.
There are sites out there, including a former employer of mine ([url]www.****sucks.com[/url]) that had nothing but former and current employees sharing good, bad and indifferent agendas. How much time and resources do you really think we spent policing that? Please!
I can really see from your postings that you have a difficult time whenever someone challenges or opposes you. Your vigilante tactics regarding the whole myspace.com fiasco is a fine example of that.
What would you have done had either or both ee's told you to go pound sand? I'd be delighted to hear this one......
Can we get back to the discussion?
Here's a nice little blog policy that is a summary of Groove Network's published policy as summarized by Charlene Li of Forrester Research:
1. Make it clear that the views expressed in the blog are yours alone and do not necessarily represent the views of your employer.
2. Respect the company’s confidentiality and proprietary information.
3. Ask your manager if you have any questions about what is appropriate to include in your blog.
4. Be respectful to the company, employees, customers, partners, and competitors.
5. Understand when the company asks that topics not be discussed for confidentiality or legal compliance reasons.
6. Ensure that your blogging activity does not interfere with your work
By the way, here is a link to an article about 27 employees who were recently fired by AAA for what they had written on their myspace pages.
[url]http://www.informationweek.com/story/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=168601354[/url]
I had never heard of My Space until I saw Paul's 1/14/06 post. Paul must have been on to something appropriate for the Forum since on the 1/17/06 nightly news, two stations (ABC & NBC) carried stories about how My Space was disrupting schools & businesses.
Thanks to Paul for starting the post. It was appropriate for the Forum whether you agree with him or not. I really don't understand why it got one (and only one) of our readers so upset.
The whole issue of internet communications and how employers should respond is fascinating to me. Its a new frontier that is being explored as we speak. New terminology is even being created to describe what is happening. Here's a few I have come across:
Doocing - As mentioned before, doocing is being fired for what you wrote on your blog. The term was coined when Heather Armstrong, a graphic designer, was fired for her satirical comments that she made on her blog dooce.com about her experiences at a dot com startup.
Cyberlibel - defamatory statements made on an online blog, forum, bulletin board, etc. Interestingly, both the poster who makes the defamatory statements, like questioning someone's sexuality or denigrating their professional knowledge, and the individual who hosts the site can be held liable, particularly if the host is aware that the statements are false and defamatory.
Gripe site - It used to be angry customers just told their friends about their bad experiences, now they publish websites. [url]www.fordsucks.com[/url] or [url]www.ihatestarbucks.com[/url] are examples. Some sites represent just one individual who truly HATES a certain company but most are collections of various complaints and grievances designed to paint an unflattering portrait of your organization. Companies are struggling to figure out how to respond to gripe sites who often misuse corporate logos or reserve URLs (web addresses) that are similar to the corporate site.
Corporate blogging - on the positive side, companies are realizing the potential rewards of utilizing blogs as a communication medium. Companies like Microsoft and Sun Systems host employee blog sites for thousands of their employees. With the appropriate guidelines, the blogs are a way to communicate news and information, recruit potential talent, and generate interest in the organization and its products.
All of this means that the concepts of privacy, free speech, defamation, and communication will need to be re-evaluated over the next few years.
It did not get me upset nor did I question it's appropriateness or lack there of, that's not my call to make
Isn't the bigger picture here more about your company's climate and culture if employees feel the need to spread malicious untruths about the company? That's a whole different topic in and of itself.
The original course of this topic, posted at the very top, is what I am adressing. I am curious about what your course of action would be if an employee, hosting his/her own site from home (let's call it [url]www.abccompanysucks.com[/url]) posts things like "ABC is the absolute worst place to work. Wages suck, management stinks, working conditions are horrible, they treat us like animals." Let's also assume that others join in, adding to the sentiments of the site's publisher. Now what?
James Sokolowski
HRhero.com
"You may prohibit employees from engaging in unlawful acts such as threatening or harassing conduct. But you may not maintain work rules that explicitly or implicitly prevent employees from discussing or criticizing their wages, benefits, or disciplinary actions or otherwise complaining about the terms and conditions of their employment."
On the surface, that statements seems to indicate there may be protection afforded to an employee who would start a website like the one Gene describes. That said, there have been a number of ee's fired for complaining about their work conditions. Here's a link to one story about a high profile ee who was allegedly fired by google for blogging about his pay: [url]http://www.makeyougohmm.com/20050209/1436/[/url]
Perhaps the distinction is the difference between two ee's discussing work conditions and an employee posting his negative comments about work conditions online where anyone can read them.
Would that mean that an ee blog that is privately accessed by other employees would be protected whereas a public blog might not?
Any NLRA attorneys out there who could clarify this?
Let's take a look at the printed media versus website argument. It all boils down to the substance of the complaint/rumor and the perceived validity of whichever channel it is disseminated through. For example, I would give a blog on myspace chastising my lunch hour shenanigans with the receptionist about as much weight as I would the same article on the National Enquirer.
Now, a few letters to the editor of a local paper, coupled with an investigative expose by bonafide journalists alleging my rampant bad-boy behavior and the people that have suffered as a result....Now you got my ears perked-up!
Just because someone posts something on cyberspace and ten more clowns join in on the relatively anonymous and safe bandwagon at the expense of someone else doesn't make it valid nor does it make it something worth spending time on. That leads me to my last argument of the night.
Just because a behemoth like Google accepts the risk
(I beg anyone to tell me there's no more inherent risk in this move than a traditional at-will termination) and fires an employee for trashing them on a blog does NOT translate into carte blanche for us to follow suit. Unless you have massive war coffers coupled with above-adequate EPLI coverage and have an absolute thirst for litigation and the debacles associated with it this rationale just doesn't make sense.
Leather and nomex gloves are supposed to protect you from heat. This doesn't mean I'm going to take an oxy-acetylene torch to my gloved hand just to prove (or disprove) the concept.
Good night from Dallas.
Gene