A 16-year-old hired as an office administrator at a small import services company started posting her thoughts about the job on her Facebook site. After her first day, she wrote: “first day at work. omg!! So dull!!” Two days later, she complained “all i do is shred holepunch n scan paper!!! omg!” Two weeks later she added “im so totally bord!!!” These comments were intermixed with the other usual banter about her life. Her Facebook site did not mention the name of the company where she worked. Three weeks after being hired, the employee was called into the owner’s office, where he fired her for the comments on Facebook and then had her escorted from the building. The owner argues that these comments put the company in a bad light, and her “display of disrespect and dissatisfaction undermined the relationship and made it untenable.” Discuss this scenario from the perspective of the owner and the worker.
This case occurred at a small industrial services business in the United Kingdom (see: A. Levy, “Teenage office worker sacked for moaning on Facebook about her 'totally boring' job,” Daily Mail, 26 February 2009). However, there are several similar cases involving Facebook, blogs, and other social media, where employees write negative comments about their employer. For example, this incident parallels two earlier cases in which (a) a Starbucks employee was fired for complaining about his boss’s decision on a work issue and (b) an employee who worked in marketing for government in northern Canada was fired for posting artistic photos of garbage in the snow. To some people, the case of the teenage Facebook complainer is a clear case of an employee who should be dismissed because she lacks sufficient commitment to and appreciation of the job.
The company owner later explained tomedi a : “We were looking for a long-term relationship with Miss Swann as we do with all our staf f . Her display of disrespect and dissatisfaction undermined the relationship and made it untenable.” But others would say that the owner’s activities were unethical because (a) the owner was snooping on the employee’s private communication (although obviously open for others to read), (b) her statements may have been an accurate reflection of the work, (c) there is no evidence that her work performance was undermined by her statements or attitude, and (d) she did not name the company when writing these negative comments. To add interest to this class activity, look for the YouTube video in which the fired employee is interviewed. (Note: A news segment on this incident might still be available on YouTube.)
The company owner later explained to
Comments
Post a Comment