Suspended for facebook comment.
Discussion
TurricanII said:
I am no employment or law expert but if I were in your positing then I would think about this:
Is it clear to the whole world from your Facebook profile who you work for?
Is your Facebook profile open to the public (or is it 'friends only')?
If there are 'No' answers there then I would let my employer know that the Facebook page is limited to friends only and that you have never posted who you work for.
Did you include your own bus in the picture and did it identify your employer?
That might be tougher to mitigate.
My vehicle was visible but no registration number, fleet number or logo was visible, just the base colour of the livery. Is it clear to the whole world from your Facebook profile who you work for?
Is your Facebook profile open to the public (or is it 'friends only')?
If there are 'No' answers there then I would let my employer know that the Facebook page is limited to friends only and that you have never posted who you work for.
Did you include your own bus in the picture and did it identify your employer?
That might be tougher to mitigate.
The issue as far as I can tell isn't so much with the photograph, but the implied content of the wording.
The problem lies with the position the company is in, ANY perceived or proven wrongdoing in relation to these competitive routes could lead to serious implications for the company (i.e fines, loss of licenses etc)
I'm worried that i'm going to be thrown under the bus (pardon the pun) as it's easy to get rid of a driver and set an example to everyone else of how seriously they are taking issues with this rival company.
I'm worried that i'm going to be thrown under the bus (pardon the pun) as it's easy to get rid of a driver and set an example to everyone else of how seriously they are taking issues with this rival company.
TurricanII said:
I am no employment or law expert but if I were in your positing then I would think about this:
Is it clear to the whole world from your Facebook profile who you work for?
Is your Facebook profile open to the public (or is it 'friends only')?
If there are 'No' answers there then I would let my employer know that the Facebook page is limited to friends only and that you have never posted who you work for.
Did you include your own bus in the picture and did it identify your employer?
That might be tougher to mitigate.
My profile is friends only with everything set to as private as possible. My employment is "driver at bus company" - exact wording (that is, bus company not the actual company I work for)Is it clear to the whole world from your Facebook profile who you work for?
Is your Facebook profile open to the public (or is it 'friends only')?
If there are 'No' answers there then I would let my employer know that the Facebook page is limited to friends only and that you have never posted who you work for.
Did you include your own bus in the picture and did it identify your employer?
That might be tougher to mitigate.
[quote]Finally, your employer can also act on pressure by a third party. However, this is more likely to apply in situations where the third party is a client of the business and unless your employer acts on that pressure, they could lose their business. So this could also be a relevant consideration in your case, depending on what the potential consequences of your actions could be on the business of your employer.
[/quote]
Just read this in relation to another person's query on a website.
The competitor company wants to cause as much trouble as possible, it could be implied that my actions (getting 'past' their vehicle) and my words (they could take them meaning that I was getting 'past' their vehicle in order to prevent them from getting to customers first) I have caused a loss to the competitor company and brought my company into disrepute?
Of course this is not what actually happened, but if they have a reasonable suspicion that was the case.........
[/quote]
Just read this in relation to another person's query on a website.
The competitor company wants to cause as much trouble as possible, it could be implied that my actions (getting 'past' their vehicle) and my words (they could take them meaning that I was getting 'past' their vehicle in order to prevent them from getting to customers first) I have caused a loss to the competitor company and brought my company into disrepute?
Of course this is not what actually happened, but if they have a reasonable suspicion that was the case.........
Its almost certainly the words rather than the picture which will be important in the case. Especially if they are derogatory to the competitor or place your employer in a negative light. Whilst you say your settings are 'private' as an employer I would immediately question how someone you dislike has got a copy of the posting - surely they are not in your friends network ?
The outcome will almost certainly be determined by the desired result as perceived by your employer. As an example, we have recently issued three P45's as a result of negative comments made by the individuals aimed at another employee. Their extended posts were private, but included others outside the workplace. They decided for a laugh to suddenly copy in the other person - then delete them minutes later. A copy was however taken by that person. This was all clearly in contravention of works rules regarding social media, and a final warning would have probably been the result anticipated. However, two of the three were lazy troublemakers - and the third just a sometime troublemaker but otherwise good worker. Two should have been gone in their first two years but issues existed due to nepotism (say no more) in an area of the management structure. Therefore it was the desired outcome of the MD that the three should be let go due to the opportunity that presented itself.
So - nothing should be guaranteed I'm afraid. Does your employer just want to be seen to be going through a process - your warning sending a message to you and your colleagues. Or do they need to be seen to come down harder on you due to past regulatory issues. The possibilities are numerous.
Fingers crossed you get the result you desire.
The outcome will almost certainly be determined by the desired result as perceived by your employer. As an example, we have recently issued three P45's as a result of negative comments made by the individuals aimed at another employee. Their extended posts were private, but included others outside the workplace. They decided for a laugh to suddenly copy in the other person - then delete them minutes later. A copy was however taken by that person. This was all clearly in contravention of works rules regarding social media, and a final warning would have probably been the result anticipated. However, two of the three were lazy troublemakers - and the third just a sometime troublemaker but otherwise good worker. Two should have been gone in their first two years but issues existed due to nepotism (say no more) in an area of the management structure. Therefore it was the desired outcome of the MD that the three should be let go due to the opportunity that presented itself.
So - nothing should be guaranteed I'm afraid. Does your employer just want to be seen to be going through a process - your warning sending a message to you and your colleagues. Or do they need to be seen to come down harder on you due to past regulatory issues. The possibilities are numerous.
Fingers crossed you get the result you desire.
ClassicMercs said:
Its almost certainly the words rather than the picture which will be important in the case. Especially if they are derogatory to the competitor or place your employer in a negative light. Whilst you say your settings are 'private' as an employer I would immediately question how someone you dislike has got a copy of the posting - surely they are not in your friends network ?
The outcome will almost certainly be determined by the desired result as perceived by your employer. As an example, we have recently issued three P45's as a result of negative comments made by the individuals aimed at another employee. Their extended posts were private, but included others outside the workplace. They decided for a laugh to suddenly copy in the other person - then delete them minutes later. A copy was however taken by that person. This was all clearly in contravention of works rules regarding social media, and a final warning would have probably been the result anticipated. However, two of the three were lazy troublemakers - and the third just a sometime troublemaker but otherwise good worker. Two should have been gone in their first two years but issues existed due to nepotism (say no more) in an area of the management structure. Therefore it was the desired outcome of the MD that the three should be let go due to the opportunity that presented itself.
So - nothing should be guaranteed I'm afraid. Does your employer just want to be seen to be going through a process - your warning sending a message to you and your colleagues. Or do they need to be seen to come down harder on you due to past regulatory issues. The possibilities are numerous.
Fingers crossed you get the result you desire.
Basically they're saying that the picture could be interpreted to look like i'm blocking their bus in, and the words could be interpreted to mean I was trying to get past their vehicle in order to pick up more passengers than them.The outcome will almost certainly be determined by the desired result as perceived by your employer. As an example, we have recently issued three P45's as a result of negative comments made by the individuals aimed at another employee. Their extended posts were private, but included others outside the workplace. They decided for a laugh to suddenly copy in the other person - then delete them minutes later. A copy was however taken by that person. This was all clearly in contravention of works rules regarding social media, and a final warning would have probably been the result anticipated. However, two of the three were lazy troublemakers - and the third just a sometime troublemaker but otherwise good worker. Two should have been gone in their first two years but issues existed due to nepotism (say no more) in an area of the management structure. Therefore it was the desired outcome of the MD that the three should be let go due to the opportunity that presented itself.
So - nothing should be guaranteed I'm afraid. Does your employer just want to be seen to be going through a process - your warning sending a message to you and your colleagues. Or do they need to be seen to come down harder on you due to past regulatory issues. The possibilities are numerous.
Fingers crossed you get the result you desire.
Both have been taken out of context and my words have been twisted to mean something else.
The problem with social media is that it turns everybody who uses it into a "broadcaster". The main difference is that they don't usually understand or realise the fact that whatever they are posting may very well go "viral" and cause them immense difficulty. And, what's more, an incident from years ago may come back and do them damage much later.
And, unlike professional media (TV, radio, press etc) they won't be aware of the laws and regulations around what can or cannot be said in public - so are much more likely to fall foul of one or other of these laws.
And, unlike professional media (TV, radio, press etc) they won't be aware of the laws and regulations around what can or cannot be said in public - so are much more likely to fall foul of one or other of these laws.
It's not so much rules as consequences. If you post a message on a public forum of some sort, you may not understand how some people will take it. So, irrespective of rules and regulations, you could find yourself in trouble - perhaps years after you have forgotten that you posted the message.
Could it be that your words could be misconstrued as meaning you were in a hurry, i.e. driving recklessly ?
If their driver wants to park up and doss for 10 minutes, surely you deserve to pick up more customers? So I don't get why that's a bad comment?
Do you have it in writing what they have suspended you for? (Sorry if you've answered this)
If their driver wants to park up and doss for 10 minutes, surely you deserve to pick up more customers? So I don't get why that's a bad comment?
Do you have it in writing what they have suspended you for? (Sorry if you've answered this)
phil-sti said:
Have you admitted making the post?
You can be quite easily sacked for it and I'd make it as difficult as possible for it to be investigated. Bring up previous history between the drivers of company D and say this is concocted by them due to the route wars. Say that is photoshopped as you wouldn't be that stupid.
Would that mean telling lies?You can be quite easily sacked for it and I'd make it as difficult as possible for it to be investigated. Bring up previous history between the drivers of company D and say this is concocted by them due to the route wars. Say that is photoshopped as you wouldn't be that stupid.
Or doesn't that matter?
SpeedMattersNot said:
Could it be that your words could be misconstrued as meaning you were in a hurry, i.e. driving recklessly ?
If their driver wants to park up and doss for 10 minutes, surely you deserve to pick up more customers? So I don't get why that's a bad comment?
Do you have it in writing what they have suspended you for? (Sorry if you've answered this)
Reason for suspension was "postings about [other company] and [my company] on the Internet" If their driver wants to park up and doss for 10 minutes, surely you deserve to pick up more customers? So I don't get why that's a bad comment?
Do you have it in writing what they have suspended you for? (Sorry if you've answered this)
Gassing Station | Jobs & Employment Matters | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff