Mfoa social media presentation 2
•Download as PPT, PDF•
0 likes•363 views
The document outlines risks that municipalities face with employees' use of social media and offers recommendations for managing those risks. It discusses issues like employees expressing negative views about their work online, altering photos of supervisors, and becoming targets of online harassment. The document recommends municipalities adopt two policies - one to guide all employees and another for "deputized communicators." It also suggests a model for licensing communicators with clear objectives and oversight. The goal is to balance organizational control with individual creativity online.
![Outline ,[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object]]()
Recommended
More Related Content
What's hot
What's hot (19)
Viewers also liked
Viewers also liked (9)
Similar to Mfoa social media presentation 2
Similar to Mfoa social media presentation 2 (20)
More from Dan Michaluk
More from Dan Michaluk (20)
Recently uploaded
Recently uploaded (20)
Mfoa social media presentation 2
- 1. Managing Social Media Risks and More 2011 MFOA Annual Conference September 22, 2011 Dan Michaluk
- 23. Managing Social Media Risks and More 2011 MFOA Annual Conference September 22, 2011 Dan Michaluk
Editor's Notes
- Management lawyer from Hicks Morley Very open minded about social media Also know risks Deal with them on a near daily basis now Here’s outline -dealing with employees who blog as employees -dealing with employees who blog as municipality -model for dealing with both risks -hard topic – how to handle when current employees are targeted
- Here’s a scenario for you Seems kind of yester-year How many of you think that Bob and Sue have engaged in employment-related misconduct? Purely private No legitimate reason for employer to take issue with this Healthy in a sense
- This is the sad reality today Great sociological questions about why this happens But it happens How many think this is misconduct? What if he doesn’t take the picture from the company? What if he’s publishing only to five friends?
- Duty of loyalty and fidelity – don’t do something that is likely to negatively affect a legitimate employer interest That’s the test about whether it is public or not Is it likely to negatively affect an employer interest We look for “nexus” and the nexus does not have to be physical Too simplistic, not the law
- Here are the most common interests that are affected In informal order of moral hierarchy -preventing another employee from attending at work… functioning well at work – strong ground -ability to do job – e.g.
- So that’s issue number one Issue number two is about corporate use of social media Here’s a scenario that illustrates a danger of jumping on the corporate communications social media bandwagon without thinking through some important employment-related issues How many of you are concerned that Tim has just assigned work?
- I am Here are the two legal risks flowing from that statement… And I think they are relatively self-explanatory to most of you So as HR or legal, reach out to your communications pros Work with them, but make sure they understand these risks
- I am Here are the two legal risks flowing from that statement… And I think they are relatively self-explanatory to most of you So as HR or legal, reach out to your communications pros Work with them, but make sure they understand these risks
- Topic number two Internet publication issue We might be living with this one for a while eh? Let’s start with a scenario
- Internet troll scenario How many of you have dealt with scenarios like this? How often do on a monthly basis? How bout on a weekly basis? … Key messages for clients His/her reputation is different than the company’s reputation Why is it that you want to make her/his problem yours? You may have a duty to provide a safe and harassment free workplace But that doesn’t mean you must engage with an internet troll on their behalf Engagement means true engagement, and comes with many costs
- If there is a nexus to the workplace, you may have a positive duty Example -60 year police officer -Police officer bulletin board -Disparage officer… bag of bones… useless… -Officer comes to you Nexus? Duty to Act? What might that mean? -Investigate and sanction wrongdoers -Exercise managerial power to cause a “takedown” -Communication to force -And so on…
- Does it encompass a duty to sue in defamation? Particularly important question when the wrongdoer is not an employee -Parents and educators -Students and educators -Citizen advocates -Irate customers -Irate departed employees Start by looking at what a defamation claim is about -About harm to reputation -Often about vindication rather than money -Intense -Because of it’s a trial of a reputation -Because injunctive relieve is generally not available -Because the time limits are (arguably) abbreviated Not a claim for corporations Not even a claim for most people
- So… Very questionable that a duty to employee will require engagement Must have interests that are very aligned to justify voluntary engagement -e.g. senior executive -e.g. collateral reputational damage to organization (students) Do check express indemnification promises though (And look at them differently in light of this issue.)