Vetsurgeon.org, Twitter, Facebook

Re: Vetsurgeon.org, Twitter, Facebook

Mark Holmes — Thu, 11 Nov 2010 12:54:53 GMT

[quote user="Rob Reid"]

On the plus side Mark, you are being compared to Tom Cruise !!

[/quote]

I would like to pretend its not the first time!

Re: Vetsurgeon.org, Twitter, Facebook

Rob Reid — Thu, 11 Nov 2010 12:49:13 GMT

On the plus side Mark, you are being compared to Tom Cruise !!

Re: Vetsurgeon.org, Twitter, Facebook

Mark Holmes — Thu, 11 Nov 2010 12:41:36 GMT

Bugger, don't you hate it when you form an opinion all on your own and then find it in a film!

Re: Vetsurgeon.org, Twitter, Facebook

Arlo Guthrie — Thu, 11 Nov 2010 12:37:20 GMT

[quote user="Mark Holmes"]If you refer to a film I haven't seen it.[/quote]

One of the all time great Jack Nicholson moments. Taken from the film, A Few Good Men

www.youtube.com/watch

Re: Vetsurgeon.org, Twitter, Facebook

Mark Holmes — Thu, 11 Nov 2010 11:22:45 GMT

If you refer to a film I haven't seen it.

Re: Vetsurgeon.org, Twitter, Facebook

J G Wray — Thu, 11 Nov 2010 11:08:40 GMT

[quote user="Mark Holmes"]Confidentiality is s separate issue but if you are worried about criticism based upon truth it follows that you must therefore be ashamed of that truth.[/quote]

When I read this, I pictured a snarling Jack Nicholson and a fresh faced Tom Cruise. That's Hollywood, not real life. I can tell the difference.

JGW

Re: Vetsurgeon.org, Twitter, Facebook

Mark Holmes — Thu, 11 Nov 2010 10:04:00 GMT

[quote user="Jonathan Wray"]

Nope, I don't think it matters if it is true. Once you are employed, you have a contract which governs your behaviour for a reward. It is conditional. There is plenty of scope for the conditions to be legal yet remain confidential or inappropriate to discuss in a public forum.Beyond these there are a whole host of issues that are discussed on this forum which, with minimal effort could be traced back to the person who originated the matter.

[/quote]

Confidentiality is s separate issue but if you are worried about criticism based upon truth it follows that you must therefore be ashamed of that truth.

Re: Vetsurgeon.org, Twitter, Facebook

Lizzie Lockett — Thu, 11 Nov 2010 09:57:50 GMT

Interesting thread.... I read this story in the Metro this morning which relates:

http://www.metro.co.uk/tech/846842-woman-in-legal-battle-to-be-able-to-insult-boss-on-facebook

It may be in the US but no doubt any decision will be carefully watched over here...

Lizzie

Re: Vetsurgeon.org, Twitter, Facebook

Arlo Guthrie — Thu, 11 Nov 2010 08:16:07 GMT

[quote user="Jonathan Wray"][quote user="Arlo Guthrie"]Largely, I think the use of social networks can be governed by common sense and the standards of behaviour you should expect from an employee online are really no different to the standards of behaviour you would expect from them offline.[/quote]

If someone, stricken with guilt at a misjudged comment, felt they had overstepped the mark would you offer them the opportunity to remove a posting? Would you do this with a note to the effect or without?[/quote]

[quote user="Laurence Webb"]You always have the opportunity to edit your previous posts on this forum but you can't do anything about those people who have read the original post.[/quote]

Laurence is right.

To that, I'd add that I moderate the forums closely, and if I see something which I think is going to cause offence, I usually intervene (I might suggest the author rewords their post, or delete some or all of it). However, as the site becomes busier, so it becomes harder for me to read every post, and it is down to members to complain to me about anything they find offensive. I'm surgically attached to my computer, so can usually respond in minutes, rather than hours or days.

But it is important to keep all this in perspective. In my experience, most people aren't by nature deliberately rude or offensive. And the occasions when someone slags someone else off in a professional forum are pretty rare. JGW, I think anyone who slags their boss off online must already have reached a point where they don't really care about their employer's policy on the subject - either that or they're a few cards short of a full deck .

Re: Vetsurgeon.org, Twitter, Facebook

J G Wray — Thu, 11 Nov 2010 07:28:51 GMT

[quote user="Mark Holmes"]I guess it depends if it's true.[/quote]

There is a concept called discretion and another called accountability.

[quote user="Mark Holmes"]imply banning people from speaking about it does not seem the most constructive way to approach it.[/quote]

Who said anyone would be banned? The consensus reached in our workplace is that trust extends beyond the workplace and should that trust be breached a complaint may arise which would result in an internal disciplinary process. As someone said earlier, there are ways of making a point without being personal about a third party.

JGW

Re: Vetsurgeon.org, Twitter, Facebook

Mark Holmes — Thu, 11 Nov 2010 00:09:28 GMT

[quote user="Jonathan Wray"]

I wonder how any of you that employ staff would feel if one of your employees posted something like:

"..My employer who is obv more driven by finances than anything else at present.." on one of these websites.

[/quote] I guess it depends if it's true.... There may be lots of reasons why you need to be driven by finances. If it's not true you might need to communicate better with your staff to find out why they feel this is the situation. Simply banning people from speaking about it does not seem the most constructive way to approach it.

Re: Vetsurgeon.org, Twitter, Facebook

Laurence Webb — Wed, 10 Nov 2010 22:20:57 GMT

[quote user="Jonathan Wray"]If someone, stricken with guilt at a misjudged comment, felt they had overstepped the mark would you offer them the opportunity to remove a posting?[/quote]

You always have the opportunity to edit your previous posts on this forum but you can't do anything about those people who have read the original post.

Re: Vetsurgeon.org, Twitter, Facebook

J G Wray — Wed, 10 Nov 2010 21:55:33 GMT

[quote user="Arlo Guthrie"]Largely, I think the use of social networks can be governed by common sense and the standards of behaviour you should expect from an employee online are really no different to the standards of behaviour you would expect from them offline.[/quote]

Just curious

JGW

Re: Vetsurgeon.org, Twitter, Facebook

J G Wray — Wed, 10 Nov 2010 21:28:52 GMT

[quote user="Evelyn Barbour-Hill"]Who were "we"?[/quote]

Staff included nurses and receptionists and, oh yes, vets.

Interesting how my first posting in this thread has been interpreted.

I wonder how any of you that employ staff would feel if one of your employees posted something like:

"..My employer who is obv more driven by finances than anything else at present.." on one of these websites.

JGW

Re: Vetsurgeon.org, Twitter, Facebook

Evelyn Barbour-Hill — Wed, 10 Nov 2010 18:45:25 GMT

[quote user="Jonathan Wray"]

It is easy to ask permission. It is easy to write in the third person or anecdotally, without harming a person or the practice.

Our profession is small and it is easy to work out who is who. Harm can be done, beyond just a bruised ego.

[/quote]

Two very good points.

[quote user="Jonathan Wray"]We have had a discussion at work.[/quote]

Who were "we"?

Re: Vetsurgeon.org, Twitter, Facebook

Mark Holmes — Wed, 10 Nov 2010 18:44:01 GMT

I think it depends upon what is said, if you make assertions publically that are untrue then there are laws to prevent that and so your act is illegal and therefore subject to disciplinary action. If you openly criticise what is either true or difficult to disprove then I am not sure dismissal is as easy. I am not a lawyer so I might be talking rubbish.

Re: Vetsurgeon.org, Twitter, Facebook

Rob Reid — Wed, 10 Nov 2010 18:17:34 GMT

I can understand people wanting the right to free speech but this hasn't stopped several cases already where employees have been fired for bad mouthing their boss or employees on social networking sites (I believe it happened to a couple of Council workers last year) - Employment Law hasn't saved these people from being show the door.

I am an assistant personally, but I hope that if someone had a problem with me or my work, we would be mature enough to discuss it face to face rather than 'backhandedly' comment about it online. Recent issues aside, I would also like to think that as a profession most of us still maintain some sense of honour.

Re: Vetsurgeon.org, Twitter, Facebook

Bob Russell — Wed, 10 Nov 2010 17:33:21 GMT

[quote user="alex gough"]

You can fire people for confidentiality breaches. And of course vets can be struck off for bringing the profession into disrepute.

Alex

[/quote]

Beyond the valid points above it is free speech!!!!

Re: Vetsurgeon.org, Twitter, Facebook

Mark Holmes — Wed, 10 Nov 2010 17:31:26 GMT

Critisism is not confidentiality breach, and recently there has been a couple of vets who could well have been accused of bringing the profession into disrepute and they are still on the books.

Re: Vetsurgeon.org, Twitter, Facebook

Alex Gough — Wed, 10 Nov 2010 17:09:09 GMT

You can fire people for confidentiality breaches. And of course vets can be struck off for bringing the profession into disrepute.

Alex

Re: Vetsurgeon.org, Twitter, Facebook

Mark Holmes — Wed, 10 Nov 2010 17:00:33 GMT

[quote user="i am ed"]

What right to free speech?

[/quote]

Well as far as I am aware free speech is considered a basic human right, and I was under the impression that employment law operated under human rights leglisaltion. Even if an employee appeared on national TV and called you a ******* **** I don't think you can sack them for it. I'm sure you might want to find out why they feel like that but I think you would have to be careful about an official reprimand if that comment was legal and did not impact on their competance at work.

Re: Vetsurgeon.org, Twitter, Facebook

Arlo Guthrie — Wed, 10 Nov 2010 16:45:36 GMT

Rightly or wrongly, I'm rather flattered by the positioning of VetSurgeon.org in amongst such illustrious names in the title of this thread!

It reminds me of a time when, years ago, I was telephone by a Sunday Times journalist who wanted to interview me about my great grandfather's yacht. Two weeks later, the double page spread began something like: "The boat, which was bought by Guthrie, then bought from his estate by Niarchos, who sold it to Gucci." Guthrie-Niarchos-Gucci. I thought that had a nice ring to it. Let's just say that I was expecting the dinner party invitations to start rolling in (they didn't, as it happened).

Interesting point about policies towards social networks. I was reading an article about this which said that in the early days, many employers just banned employees from using them, but that they have become so ubiquitous that it's no longer sensible to do that. Besides, people have come to recognise what a valuable work resource they can be.

Largely, I think the use of social networks can be governed by common sense and the standards of behaviour you should expect from an employee online are really no different to the standards of behaviour you would expect from them offline.

Re: Vetsurgeon.org, Twitter, Facebook

Edward Jones — Wed, 10 Nov 2010 16:45:32 GMT

What right to free speech?

Re: Vetsurgeon.org, Twitter, Facebook

Mark Holmes — Wed, 10 Nov 2010 16:41:28 GMT

So if somebody dis-agrees with you in a public arena they are subject to sanctions, I think the Chinese government has a similar policy. Are you entirely sure employment law would find this is consistent with a person's right to free speech?