In the current digital era, where social media channels provide a main avenue for personal expression, employees might question how their online actions could affect their careers. While individuals typically experience a sense of liberty when sharing on platforms such as Twitter, Facebook, or LinkedIn, it is crucial to recognize that their online conduct can result in serious outcomes, including possible job loss. Legal and employment professionals highlight the necessity of being aware of company policies and the protections—or their absence—that apply to workers.
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 threshold for securing protection under the law is quite minimal,” Fisk clarifies, noting that actions as straightforward as liking a coworker’s post can be included. However, the conversation must be specifically linked to workplace issues to fulfill the requirements for protection. Broad complaints, such as labeling a manager “incompetent” or voicing discontent about an employer without connecting it to workplace conditions, are not likely to qualify.
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.
Company guidelines and limits
Numerous companies establish social media policies to direct employees’ conduct online; however, these rules need to comply with legal requirements. Businesses cannot forbid employees from expressing valid issues concerning workplace policies or conditions. Labor attorney Mark Kluger points out that excessively broad policies aiming to prohibit all negative remarks about the company are prone to face challenges.
“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.
“The National Labor Relations Board has ruled that such policies are too restrictive because they could deter employees from exercising their rights,” Kluger explains. However, companies can enforce policies that prevent the dissemination of false information, trade secrets, or defamatory statements.
Though these guidelines are designed to safeguard the company’s reputation, they also remind employees of the possible repercussions of their online actions. “Social media posts can have a lasting impact, so it’s crucial for employees to carefully consider their words before clicking ‘post,’” Kluger advises.
While these guidelines aim to protect the company’s image, they also serve as a reminder to employees about the potential consequences of their online activity. “Social media posts can leave a lasting impression, and it’s important for workers to think carefully about their words before hitting ‘post,’” Kluger advises.
Those who feel they were wrongfully dismissed because of protected activity have the option to lodge a complaint with the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB). This federal body examines cases and assesses whether an employer has infringed labor laws. If the NLRB deems the claim valid and the issue remains unresolved, it will initiate legal proceedings for the employee at no expense to them.
“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.
“The unfortunate reality is that many workers are unaware of their rights, and even fewer know how to navigate the process of filing a complaint,” Hirsch says. For those who do proceed, the process can be lengthy, but a successful outcome may include reinstatement and back pay.
However, not all cases are clear-cut. While the NLRB often sides with employees in instances of blatant retaliation, complex or borderline cases may be influenced by the political leanings of the board members. This could result in varying interpretations of what constitutes protected activity.
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.
“Whenever societal matters dominate public conversation, there’s an increase in instances where employees share views that might conflict with their employers’ values or guidelines,” Kluger explains. “This creates a situation that places both employees and companies in difficult positions.”
“Whenever societal issues dominate the public discourse, we see more cases of employees posting opinions that may be at odds with their employers’ values or policies,” Kluger explains. “It’s a dynamic that puts both workers and businesses in challenging positions.”
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
Ultimately, the connection between social media and employment is changing, necessitating adaptation from both employees and businesses. Companies must find a balance between safeguarding their image and respecting employees’ rights, while employees need to be careful and considerate in their online engagements.
Kluger explains, “Social media has empowered everyone with a voice, yet with that voice comes accountability. Employees should keep in mind that their words can impact 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.
