The Popularity and Wide Usage of the Social Media Sites - Essay Example

Introduction A great number of people all over the globe make use of social media sites such as Twitter, MySpace, and facebook to share information with others and mostly on the experiences on a daily basis. It has also shifted to the workplace dynamics and become an essential tool which enables organizations to expand their businesses. With the limitless potential such as increasing the client base, advertising, branding and organizations can now extend their usual working hours making their operations and employees accessible 24/7. Nevertheless, the use of social media sites comes along with some risks. The wide usage of the internet is accelerating the use of social media sites and is creating a blurred line between what actions can be done in the workplace and what need to be considered as personal when it comes to social media usage. When doing so, people need to be careful since derogatory and offensive comments towards the employers can be substantial grounds of dismissal and most especially if they are found to breach the implied obligation of confidence and mutual trust. Comments go to the heart of the employment relationship they could be relied on to a substantiate termination. This mainly depends on what is said, the context, the conduct which could amount to a person intention of using malicious falsehood which are calculated so as to injure the employers business or mislead conduct. Discussion The main issue based on the case “my boss is an idiot” is related to a casual workers comment on a social media site regarding his workplace and he stated that “saying no to working for shitty government departments”. The casual worker posted the commented on her social media site about her job and his dissatisfaction in working for a certain government department (Stone, 2014). Though social media sites may seem or may be viewed as private the information posted can attract the attention of the employers and other colleagues and thus making the information to enter the public domain. This is what happened in the case of the comments made by the causal worker. Though the worker failed to mention the government department by name a colleague was able to view the comment and reported the issues to the immediate supervisor. This eventually led to the termination of the employees. By entering the public domain, the information can used against a person and it can also be argued that the comments aimed at damaging the relationship of trust and confidence and thus acts as basis for dismissal of the employee. The main problem that is evident from the case is the comments made by the casual worker since they were seen as a form of defamation for the government department that the employee was working for. The main assumption in this case is that the applicable laws to be used in this case will not be limited to any country and thus it will consider all the countries in the globe due to the ease of access of social media sites all over the globe (Hmelo-Silver, 2004). With the advancement in technology and its integration to the business environment employers need to come up with robust and clear social media policies. A group such as the Fair Work Australia (FWA) has addressed the issues arising from the use of social media sites by the employees in almost all workplaces as well as the management of their conduct. Whereas employers are persuaded and been shown the real benefits of adopting workplace policies and they should address disciplinary actions on the use of social media. In this case they should clearly outline what should be done if employees engage in social media activities that may be damaging to the organization (Feltham & Nichol, 2012). For instance, they should state whether employees are to be dismissed from their duties or should they be given warning letters. At the same time, they also need to tread circumspectly when it comes to dismissing their employees for online comments and offences since they may also face petition from their employees if they feel that they were dismissed unfairly. To some extent the dismissal of the casual employee was unfair when viewed in relation to the case of Glen Stutsel v Linfox Australia Pty Ltd [2011], where the FWA reinstated an employee who had been dismissed unfairly due to posting offensive messages on his facebook page (Feltham and Nichol, 2012). In relation to this case it can be argued that the comments made by the casual employee were foolish and in a way they were in bad taste. However, it should be noted that the employee can also argue that the comments were meant to be private and thus though other people in the public domain may access them they should not take any action against the employee. But it would be crucial to note that though privacy settings may limit comments to just a few friends the friends can also pass the comments to others restricted group of friends. As was the case in the casual employee’s comments a colleague is the one who reported the comments to the supervisor. This is mostly the case of most social media cases since the friends actually set up the unfortunate employees who may end up being dismissed. It can be further argued that the dismissal of the employee was not valid and thus the casual employee ought to be reinstated and paid any compensation for the lost wages. This can be the case if the government departments in question do not possess any social media policy in place for the employees to follow (Cooke, 2012). A number of comments on social media sites against companies can be seen as essential basis of dismissal, but it seems hard for the employers to prove that they have a legitimate reason for dismissing the employees if there is no a information technology policy in a company. In response to these, all the government departments need to put in place social media policies. The policies should be used as a guide that all employees in all government departments follows the policies to the letter. The policy will be of benefit to both the employers and the employees. In case the government department had an information policy the employee comments would have been seen as the infringement of some laws, criticism of the employer who is the government in this case and it may have an undesirable effect on the employers (Cooke, 2012). For instance, the government may experience strikes from their employees as they try to advocate for better working conditions and favorable working hours. Employees working in other government departments may also seek employment opportunities in other organizations and thus can be a great blow to the government departments. The department can also view the comments made by the employee as defamation and thus legal measures need to be taken against the employees to ensure that others refrain from such actions in the future. Additionally, though the comments may be sufficient grounds upon which the employee should be dismissed, it will be dependent on the circumstances under which the comments were made and the nature of those comments. For instance, the employee just expressed some dissatisfaction with his workplace and though the comments were offensive no abusive messages can be seen in the employee comments. This should not warrant the dismissal of the employees from his duties in the organization. If the employee complained due to a cases of mistreatment in the organization and which can be proofed it may be seen as unfair to dismiss such an employee since the grounds complaining are justified and genuine in every possible way (Chew and Horwitz, 2004). Conclusion Based on the above discussion, action it is clearly evident that the popularity and wide usage of the social media sites presents the employers with a number of challenges when it comes to the management of the social activities during and after their working hours. The case above shows the risks that can be associated with the termination of the employment of an employee due to engagement in social media activities. In order to diminish the reputational damage on a company and offer good basis upon which managers can manage misconduct for example the inappropriate comments made by the casual employee. Thus employers need to have appropriate and effective policies to deal with the use of social media and information technology. Employees also need to be made aware of the policies and be reminded about the policies on a regular basis. At times they can also make employees to sign such policies for their benefits if issues related to the policy ever arise in the future. Based on facts can at times act as grounds of dismissal of employees while at times it can be the other way round. Through the use of the policy employers will prove and have valid reasons for termination of employees based on their comments in social media sites. Employees therefore should not post comments that may defame or act against their organizations. References Chew, I. & Horwitz, F. (2004). Human resource management strategies in practice: Case-study findings in multinational firms. Asia Pacific Journal of Human Resources 42(1): 32-55. Cooke, R. (2012). Facebook Misconduct Dismissal Unfair: Lack of Social Media Policy a Key Factor. Employment Law & Workplace relations. Retrieved from www.rigbycooke.com.au/news/documents/rcl_newsflash%20%20Facebook%20Misconduct%20Dismissal%20Unfair.pdf Feltham, B. & Nichol, C. (2012).The importance of a clear social media policy for employers. Retrieved from www.pwc.com.au/legal/assets/legaltalk/LegalTalk-Alert-06Mar12.pdf Hmelo-Silver, C. E. (2004). Problem-Based Learning: What and How Do Students Learn? Educational Psychology Review, 16(3), pp. 235-266. Stone, R. (2014). Human Resource Management. Sydney: Wiley. Read More