revise the essay according to the following guideline. THESIS: In order to strengthen your thesis, consider the following revision strategy and questions: DEVIL’S ADVOCATE Identify your opponent’s arg
BRIXX Fires Employee after Posting a Negative Comment on Facebook
Yirou Xiao
Professor Baker
ENG3107
6/7/2020
BRIXX Fires Employee after Posting a Negative Comment on Facebook
Introduction
BRIXX Wood Fired Pizza is a restaurant operating in Charlotte, North Carolina. In May 2010, the restaurant faced a problem involving Ashley Johnson, a 22-year-old waiter who had posted a complaint on her Facebook account about a customer who had occupied a table for 3 hours and only left her a $5 tip. BRIXX resulted in firing the disgruntled employee. The solution of firing Ashley that BRIXX restaurant implemented to deal with employee negative communication on social media worked effectively because it helped the business salvage its image from possible backlash from the post while deterring its employees from engaging in such behavior in future.
Evaluation of Solution
At this age, social media has become such a powerful tool, and any organization cannot ignore its impact. Employers bear the responsibility of maintaining their organization's public image and reputation. As such, they are obligated to monitor their employees' behavior and actions that may compromise the reputation of their companies. We live in a world where the boundary between people's professional work and personal lives is blurry. Social media is a platform where employees communicate issues about their lives, which at times includes work-related issues that, at times, may have damaging effects on the organization. In retrospect, many organizations have resulted in enacting social media policies that prohibit their employees from posting work-related issues on their personal social media pages.
BRIXX restaurant is one of the organizations with social media policies prohibiting employees from discussing work-related issues on social media. As such, firing Ashley was based on the restaurant's employee policy that forbids workers from posting negative comments about the organization on any social media pages. Ashley was bound by the stipulations of the contract she signed as an employee and was obligated to follow them to the latter. In its explanation of the firing, BRIXX's management emphasized that its social media policies prohibit its employees from disparaging their customers on social media platforms.
Nonetheless, the decision to monitor employees' social media accounts is controversial. Many people argue that it contravenes with people's right to freedom of speech. However, it is important to note that the freedom of speech guaranteed by the First Amendment guards against the intrusion of freedom of speech by the federal government and does not apply to private actors that include employers (Nagele-Piazza, 2018). Nevertheless, employees' right of speech is not eliminated fully, as the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) grants unionized and non-unionized workers the right to communicate about the terms and conditions of their employment (Nagele-Piazza, 2018). Employees' freedom of speech further extends to discussing unlawful conduct in their organizations, whereby they can complain about safety violations, harassment, discrimination, among other issues.
Since the freedom of speech does not apply to employees in the private sector except in the identified situations, do employers' restrictions on communication extend to the periods when employees are off the clock? How do these restrictions extend to employees' use of social media? According to Nagele-Piazza (2018), employee discussions on social media platforms are protected if they are addressing working conditions and other issues related to labor relations. Ashley had a right to use social media and perhaps talk about BRIXX restaurant on issues about terms and conditions of employment and other unlawful conduct. However, in her case, her complaint does not address terms and conditions of employment, nor does it deal with issues stipulated in the National Labor Relations Act. Nevertheless, it is important for employees to note that they can still talk about employment conditions even if it sounds damaging to the organization.
In understanding employees' responsibility to their organization off the clock, it is essential to emphasize that workers are obligated to safeguard the reputation of their employers. Employees are not just mere workers, but they are the ambassadors of their organizations who are at the frontline in promoting and protecting their employers' image. When employees sign a work contract, they owe their employers a duty of sincerity, integrity, and fidelity. As a result, the employer may punish employees whose conduct in their private life is below expectations or if the conduct becomes a disgrace to the organization/employer (Nagele-Piazza, 2018). Signing a work contract elicits a responsibility and duty of protecting the interests and the image of the employer and the overall organization. By complaining that a customer occupied a table for three hours and left a small tip $5, Ashley was communication would be interpreted that BRIXX restaurant does not appreciate customers who have no or little tips to give to their employees. Besides, Ashley's profane language (Thanks for eating at BRIXX, you cheap piece of **** camper) may be interpreted as the organizations' lack of respect for its customers.
Social media is a powerful tool and has established a hyper-connected culture, whereby posts and comments made on these platforms are read and shared by millions of people. As such, modern HR professionals are always on the frontline protecting their organizations' reputations, each time employees communicate negative messages on social media (Bell, 2018). Organizations are put in awkward positions of explaining their employees' online posts if they project poor reflections on them. Given the offensive nature of Ashley's complaint, the Facebook post had a high likelihood of backfiring on the restaurant. Although her Facebook page was private, her friends would still share the post to other strangers just as the post was shared with her manager, who is not her Facebook friend.
Conclusion
It is imperative that employees take responsibility for their actions in both their workplaces and off the clock. In a world where our communications on social media spread very fast, employees are obligated to maintaining professionalism and integrity since they are the primary ambassadors of their organizations. Organizations need to establish and sensitize employees on their responsibilities to their organizations off the clock. Employees should be made aware of their social media policies to avoid incidences like those of Ashley, who admitted to posting a bad tip complaint but was not aware that such action could get her fired. Also, employees should be aware that there is no privacy with the internet, as anything they share leaves digital footprints that can be used against them. Overall, they should always remember that they are the primary ambassadors of their organizations and are obligated to safeguard their employer's interests and reputation. For BRIXX restaurant, firing her was the best solution that saved the restaurant from the possible backlash that the post would have elicited if it was shared with other people. In addition, firing Ashley was a revelation for other employees that their communication off the clock is highly monitored and subject to review and subsequent disciplinary actions if jeopardizing the organization's reputation.
References
Bell, J. D. (2018). Firing for Online Behavior. SHRM. Retrieved 6/4/2020 https://www.shrm.org/hr-today/news/hr-magazine/0918/pages/firing-for-online-behavior-.aspx
Nagele-Piazza, J.D. (2018). What Employee Speech Is Protected in the Workplace? SHRM. Retrieved 6/4/2020 https://www.shrm.org/resourcesandtools/legal-and-compliance/employment-law/pages/employee-free-speech-in-the-workplace.aspx
