In message <***@4ax.com>, Vicky
<***@gmail.com> writes:
[]
Post by VickyThe point about it not doing any harm to the company as the group who
read it is small is a good point. There is an inbalance of power
between employer and employee and to use their might to stop the
employee moaning on twitter is controlling what they do in their spare
time. Is there a freedom of speech point here too?
I have seen murmurings about this - banning non-disclosure agreements,
at least where they involve employment (especially the termination of),
has been mentioned, though I suspect it'll be a long time (if ever)
before anything comes of it, because of limited parliamentary time, and
lots of other things that will get shouted about more will crowd it out.
(Note I didn't say other things that are more important.) There are even
cases that are similar to super-injunctions - where the fired employee
isn't even supposed to mention the _existence_ of the non-disclosure
agreement. (I may be one such, in which case I shouldn't be saying this
here!)
Non-disclosure agreements do have their place: for example, a company
may give details of a product to another company before the product is
released, so that the second company can develop products that use the
first company's product - possibly on condition that the second company
promises to buy a certain number of the product when it comes out,
though certainly not always. But I don't think it is right that they
should be used as, in effect, gagging clauses on ex-employees. Or
current ones, for that matter.
Sorry, not _directly_ related to the tweets, though close.
Post by VickyActually more harm is done to the company's reputation in my eyes by
their firing of the tweeter. More sensible would have beeen to tweet
Yes, but the imbalance of power is still there. (a): For each one like
this that we _do_ hear about, how many do we _not_ (especially if they
are fired under a gagging clause they - being now unemployed - don't
have the resources to fight)? (b): what harm _is_ actually done to the
company's reputation: OK, slightly more people than before will think "I
wouldn't want to _work_ for them", but is it likely to have more than a
tiny influence on that company's _sales_? I know a lot of people will
say, if interviewed, "I'm not going to buy from them", but how many
would keep to that - and that only really applies to products the public
buy, anyway: if the company is one whose customers are mainly trade, the
effect is going to be negligible (most companies don't go out of their
way to publicise who they buy from, quite the reverse).
Post by Vickythe information in good time to prevent employees trying to go in to
work, if they did publicise the closure in time. I believe they were
supposed to have on fb? But after the adverse tweet, one from the
company regretting the harm to the employee's car and that they didn't
get the information about closure would have been more indicative of a
caring company.
Indeed. (Possibly inhibited to some extent by the increasing assumption
that expressing regret can be taken as admitting liability,
unfortunately.)
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)***@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf
The web is a blank slate; you can't design technology that is 'good'. You can't
design paper that you can only write good things on. There are no good or evil
tools. You can put an engine in an ambulance or a tank. - Sir Tim Berners-Lee,
Radio Times 2009-Jan-30 to -Feb-5.