The dangers of online posts for your career

In the current era of digital technology, where social media sites are major channels for self-expression, employees might question how their online presence could influence their careers. Although workers frequently experience a sense of liberation when sharing on networks such as Twitter, Facebook, or LinkedIn, the truth is that their actions online could lead to serious repercussions, like losing their job. Experts in law and workplace consultants highlight the need to be aware of company policies and the protections—or absence of them—that are available to employees.

The topic has been examined closely after a Tesla executive was let go for criticizing Elon Musk, the CEO, on LinkedIn. Reports indicate that the manager’s remarks resulted in their firing, illustrating the narrow boundary employees tread when expressing views about their employers on the internet. Although there are certain regulations that protect employees in particular situations, these protections are restricted, and companies frequently have significant latitude in making termination decisions.

The issue has come under scrutiny following the recent firing of a Tesla manager who used LinkedIn to criticize Elon Musk, the company’s CEO. According to reports, the manager’s comments led to their dismissal, highlighting the thin line employees walk when voicing opinions about their employers online. While certain laws protect workers under specific circumstances, these safeguards are limited, and employers often retain considerable discretion over termination decisions.

What remains safeguarded and what does not

What is protected and what isn’t

For employees in other regions, specific forms of speech receive protection under legislation like the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA). This federal law protects employees’ rights to partake in “concerted activities,” covering dialogues about workplace conditions, pay, or employment policies. Catherine Fisk, an employment law professor at the University of California, Berkeley, emphasizes that this protection may encompass social media posts, especially if the employee is representing coworkers or discussing common concerns.

“The legal standard for obtaining protection under the law is fairly minimal,” Fisk states, noting that even something as basic as liking a coworker’s post can be included. However, the conversation must be specifically connected to workplace issues to qualify for protection. General complaints, like labeling a boss as “incompetent” or critiquing an employer without linking it to employment conditions, are unlikely to meet the requirements.

Public sector employees, including teachers, police officers, or government staff, enjoy extra protections under the First Amendment. These protections are in place when their speech pertains to issues of public interest and does not interfere with workplace functions. Nevertheless, this protection is not all-encompassing, and employees must still be careful about their online postings.

Public sector employees, such as teachers, police officers, or government workers, benefit from additional protections under the First Amendment. These safeguards apply when their speech involves matters of public concern and does not disrupt workplace operations. However, this protection is not absolute, and workers still need to exercise caution when posting online.

Employer policies and boundaries

“The National Labor Relations Board has determined that such policies are overly restrictive as they might discourage employees from exercising their rights,” Kluger explains. Nonetheless, companies are permitted to implement policies that prohibit the spread of false information, trade secrets, or defamatory comments.

Kluger also mentions that companies frequently suggest employees consider how their online posts might affect the company’s image. For instance, employees are generally advised against criticizing competitors or expressing opinions that could negatively impact the organization they work for. Certain policies also mandate employees to specify that their opinions are individual and do not reflect the company’s perspective.

Though these guidelines are designed to safeguard the company’s reputation, they also remind employees of the possible repercussions of their digital actions. “Social media posts can have enduring effects, so it’s crucial for workers to consider their language carefully before sharing,” Kluger advises.

Steps to take if dismissed due to a social media post

What to do if you’re fired over a social media post

“The unfortunate reality is that numerous employees are not informed about their rights, and even fewer understand the procedure for filing a complaint,” Hirsch states. For those who decide to move forward, the process can be time-consuming, but a favorable result could involve reinstatement and compensation for lost wages.

Not all situations are straightforward. Although the NLRB typically supports employees in obvious retaliation cases, intricate or borderline scenarios might be swayed by the political inclinations of the board members. This can lead to differing interpretations of what qualifies as protected activity.

Understanding the ambiguous zones

The overlap between social media and employment has grown more complex, especially during periods of significant political or social unrest. Kluger notes that disputes often become more common during election cycles or times of large-scale demonstrations, as employees turn to social media to voice their opinions on contentious subjects.

The intersection of social media and employment has become increasingly complicated, particularly during times of heightened political or social tension. Kluger observes that the frequency of disputes tends to rise during election seasons or periods of widespread protests, as employees use social media to express their views on divisive topics.

Simultaneously, companies are increasingly vigilant in observing employees’ social media activities, not only for posts tied directly to the company but also for content that might negatively impact the organization. This has sparked discussions about how far employers should be permitted to regulate personal conduct outside of work hours.

At the same time, businesses are becoming more proactive in monitoring employees’ social media activity, not just for posts directly related to the company but also for content that could reflect poorly on the organization. This has led to debates about the extent to which employers should be allowed to police personal behavior conducted outside of work hours.

Striking a balance

In the end, the connection between social media and employment is changing, and both employees and companies must evolve accordingly. Employers have to find a balance between safeguarding their brand and honoring employees’ rights, while workers should be careful and considerate in their online engagements.

As Kluger expresses, “Social media has empowered everyone with a voice, yet this voice carries responsibilities. Employees must keep in mind that their words can lead to repercussions, affecting not only themselves but also their employers.”

As Kluger puts it, “Social media has given everyone a voice, but with that voice comes responsibility. Employees should remember that their words can have consequences, not just for themselves but for their employers as well.”

In an era where personal and professional lives are increasingly intertwined, the importance of navigating this digital terrain with care cannot be overstated. Whether through clearer policies, better education on workers’ rights, or open communication, finding common ground will be essential for fostering mutual understanding in the workplace.