When creating a comprehensive social media policy, employers often focus on what the employee is and is not allowed to do with his or her personal social media account while on the job. What this may miss, however, is what the employee is or is not allowed to do on behalf of the company—regardless of whether it’s done on company time or company equipment. This goes beyond simply limiting who has access to the company’s social media profiles, and it even extends beyond the standard social media accounts—it looks at the ramifications of an employee acting on behalf of the company in any online capacity that is beyond his or her specific job functions. This issue is often overlooked because the potential pitfalls of such employee actions may not be obvious.
 |
What are the Potential Problems, and What Other Social Media Policies Should You Delineate?
Have a clear social media policy that outlines what is allowed when your employees act on behalf of the organization, even when they’re doing so indirectly. For example, if an employee is participating in a forum or Web discussion and it is known that he or she is employed by your organization, this could create a situation in which the employee is acting on behalf of the employer—and that’s just one example. The following types of action can cause all sorts of potentially harmful or risky situations for the employer:
- Making promises the company can’t keep
- Making illegal or otherwise harmful statements that could get the company in trouble, such as stating a position that implies discrimination (e.g., “We don’t hire Hispanics”)
- Leaking confidential or sensitive information such as trade secrets
- Damaging the company reputation
- Being offensive or distributing offensive materials
- Acting in a way that increases the company’s liability
- Expressing opinions that conflict with company culture or view, such as political, religious, or otherwise controversial opinions
- Posting things that are illegal in any way, such as child pornography, hate speech, or discriminatory or harassing remarks
- Becoming a target for phishing or hacking scams, which could result in the inadvertent dissemination of spam, malware, or other hacking/phishing materials that may appear as if they were on behalf of the company
- Harassing or bullying someone within or outside the organization
- Defamation of other employees
- Divulging information that can be used as evidence
- Arousing regulatory suspicion, even if the information provided is false, such as claiming the company doesn’t pay for overtime (even if untrue, it increase audit risk)
- Implying retaliatory behavior at the organization, such as saying the company got rid of an employee for taking too much FMLA leave
- Otherwise implying illegal or unsafe activities are ongoing
- Encouraging boycotts or violence
- Purposefully or inadvertently divulging personal information about other employees
- Giving references for another employee, which could appear to be at odds with a termination and could become a form of evidence that the termination may not have warranted
- Improper use and/or dissemination of the company branding or logo
- Sharing private or confidential client information
While employers rightfully can seek to minimize these risks, it’s important to remember that you can’t completely restrict an employee’s right to use social media. In fact, some organizations have tried to severely limit what their employees can and cannot say online, but the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) has noted that this could be deemed as limiting an employee’s right to concerted activity. Be careful not to go overboard in terms of restrictions, especially with personal social media accounts.
However, it’s within your rights to disallow employees from acting on behalf of the organization in any capacity outside their official work capacity—which could include interacting online with the community in what appears to be an official regard. Some companies have opted to require employees to either remove all association from the employer in all online interactions or to specifically state that their posts are their personal opinions and do not reflect the opinion of the employer. Others have instead placed very strict rules around what an employee can and cannot say on behalf of the organization.
About Bridget Miller:
Bridget Miller is a business consultant with a specialized MBA in International Economics and Management, which provides a unique perspective on business challenges. She’s been working in the corporate world for over 15 years, with experience across multiple diverse departments including HR, sales, marketing, IT, commercial development, and training.
So true! Some employers are so laser-focused on employees’ personal accounts despite the many stories in the media about employees’ damaging misuse of company accounts, etc.
Requiring your employees to include a disclaimer in their social media posts that their opinions are their own was called “unreasonably burdensome” and unlawful, according to an NLRB federal judge reviewing an unfair labor practice charge from a Kroger employee.
The development is just the latest in a series of decisions by the National Labor Relations Board, which has been progressively challenging employers to reconsider whether or not they have the right to dictate how their employees use social media.
While the federal Administrative Law Judge’s decision in nonbinding and requires NLRB approval before it can be used as a legal precedent, it is nonetheless the most recent interpretation of how the NLRA enacted by Congress in 1930 governs how social media can be used in the workplace today.