Think before posting
Watch what you post on social media or you could be putting your job – and employment prospects – at risk, warns Rachel Broady
I
was looking for a job and then I found a job and Heaven knows I’m miserable now. So sang Morrissey in 1984, capturing the shared weariness of job-seekers. Had Morrissey tweeted his feelings, he might have found
that job offer withdrawn. Activities on social networks can bring employers into disrepute and public sackings are not uncommon. London- based On Device Research found that one in 10 job-seekers aged 16-34 have been rejected for a job because of what they posted on profiles. Social media-savvy bosses and HR managers are celebrated on clickbait websites for their quick wit and handling of workers who they think cross the line. With 31 million people using Facebook in the UK, 15.8 million on Twitter and 2.5 million using WhatsApp – and, according to the Office for National Statistics, only 15% of them over 65 – that is a lot of workers using social media. In 2005, blogger Joe Gordon became the first British worker to be sacked for social media comments when he wrote about his employers Waterstones in Edinburgh and satirised his boss. He appealed against the decision with success but by then had moved on to a new job. Journalists are not immune. Australian radio announcer Gavin Miller was sacked after calling a Christian lobbyist a “turd” for condemning those who support gay marriage. An SBS sports reporter lost his job for an Anzac Day tweet suggesting soldiers were rapists and murderers. Even having a moan about work can be risky. Bloomberg former director for social media Jared Keller was sacked after someone publicly posted a private conversation in which he’d complained about his job. Questions need to be asked about workers’ rights, about
workers as brand representatives but also about how journalism uses technology and how a combination of the rise of social media and the decline of the industry and the broader economy really affect our risk of job loss. Social media expert Mark Carrigan of the University of
Warwick, whose work includes an inquiry into digital capitalism, suggests times of high unemployment and job insecurity are likely to increase self-censorship on social media – it’s better to be safe than sorry. He also suggests that an increased reliance on analytics to wade through thousands of job applications
16 | theJournalist “ ”
If you want to claim a space in the public sphere as a journalist, then you have to give up the right to personal comment in that same domain
for one role can lead to routine checking of online activity. He said: “This has to be understood in the current employment situation – if there’s a precarious employment situation then we’re more likely to err on the side of caution of not offending anyone. It becomes safer to say nothing.” Journalist and academic Collette Snowden, from the
University of South Australia, is interested in the social and political intersection of media communication and suggests it may not be a bad thing for journalists to say nothing: “If you want to claim a space in the public sphere as a journalist, then you have to give up the right to personal comment in that same domain.” Indeed, the BBC’s own guidelines state: “Editorial staff should not indicate their political allegiance.” Is it the same for all workers? The teachers union the NASUWT advises workers to ensure their professional position is not compromised by using privacy settings and in no circumstances accept friend requests from parents or pupils. The Fire Brigades Union suggests being polite, discussing not arguing, and staying on topic. Non-editorial staff at the BBC are urged to “make their role clear if they wish to engage in political activity”. But journalists – staff and freelance – are encouraged to gain a social network following, to break news on Twitter, to discuss stories with Facebook users. What about journalists who are expected to engage as part of their role? Snowden says: “It can become an ethical issue, not a technical one, and that’s where better training is required. It’s why the industry needs a communication not a business understanding of social media. Employers should consult people who know how the technology works not just on a brand level but also on a communicative level. Twitter, for example, is superficial and reactive – those are its characteristics – but that permeates everything that results from it, including the employers’ response.” Normal traditions of moaning about work, griping about bosses or getting drunk at the weekend are challenged when we live in the permanent online shadow of our workplaces. As former TUC general secretary Brendan Barber once said: “Most employers wouldn’t dream of following their staff down the pub to see if they were sounding off about work to their friends. Just because snooping on personal conversations is possible these days, it doesn’t make it healthy.” The NUJ has advisory guidelines for media workers, the TUC offers advice for employees and ACAS (Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service) has information for employers. The reality, though, that employers’ responses is far from predictable. As ACAS points out: “Many employers have clear rules on
defamation and breaches of confidentiality, but are often less sure about whether they should be making judgments about an employee’s behaviour online.” Staff can be seen as extensions of brands or promotional tools for companies, and behaviour
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28
