http://www.powerhousemuseum.com/dmsblog/index.php/2008/04/14/updating-your-social-media-and-staff-blog-policies/

All employees are under an implied duty not to act against the business interests of their employer. This usually works to prohibit things like moonlighting for competitors. I suspect it generally wouldn’t fetter the freedom of speech of standard employees outside of work time. However, the more senior an employee, the more it might be expected they take positive steps to promote – or at least protect – the corporate brand, rather than bad mouth it.

Of course, it’s up to an employer to put whatever express restrictions in a contract they see fit.

http://larvatusprodeo.net/2009/08/20/facebook-social-media-subjectivity-and-workplace-privacy/

3. Has anyone actually heard of this being made this compulsory? Just curious.

Thus, you’re legally free to discriminate on lots of issues. For example, this is how a family run shop can employ only family members etc, or why a Catholic school can refuse to hire a gay teacher.

(3) I’m not sure about. I was once asked to have a “profile” page on a corporate website (photo, bio etc), I refused (I wanted no public association with the company) and checked with Privacy NSW who confirmed that I could not be compelled to participate (on privacy grounds). I’m guessing this may apply equally to Facebook if personal information is made public through this practice.

On the issue of generations (which is always an annoying fauxcategory) I think there might be something special about the ‘generation’ who grew up as the internet itself grew up. I’m not sure what. Maybe I just hate being lumped in with either emo kids on myspace or my mum.

I’d say the person in scenario (1) would be in trouble, unless they can argue that somehow it was a political belief? Really if they are an actor it should NOT MATTER at all if their actual personality is that of a partygoer, because the whole point is that they act, surely. My sister did a lot of amateur theatre, and she’s a shy person in reality, but did some extraordinarily out there performances.

Re (2) – yes, discriminating against someone on the basis they are in a union is illegal in this country. The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) is incorporated into Australian law by the Australian Human Rights Commission Act 1986. Article 22(1) of the ICCPR says that:

Everyone shall have the right to freedom of association with others, including the right to form and join trade unions for the protection of his interests.

As for (3) – very interesting question. I don’t think the law has gotten around to covering this one yet. I suspect employers are going to start having policies which attempt to force employees to toe the line with applications like Facebook. Personally, on just an ideological basis, I don’t think people should be forced to communicate on Facebook with clients if they don’t want to do so. Or the organisation should have a Facebook page or something.

It devalues the whole application if people have updates spruiking the benefits of their company or products, eg, “Come and have a look at our products!” I’d stop being friends with a person who had status updates like that.

I have a friend who regularly updates with things like “had really successful business meeting – came to great resolution of issues” and while I love him dearly, I have considered hiding his updates because that’s not what I want to hear about on Facebook.

(3) is interesting educationally as well. We have students doing group projects for assessment, and they are required to use a discussion board thingy as part of it. The problem is that the university software is so clunky and buggy – which is why we no longer use the terrible wiki. Some students asked yesterday if they could use a FB group instead, and the answer has to be no, because it would be an invasion of their privacy if we had to access their FB activity to mark them.

That kinda shades into the issue of whether employees’ comments about their employer on social media can be the subject of action taken against them.

So, let me talk about some specific examples that I heard in class, bearing in mind that my brain was tired after 5 hours of teaching…

1. If an actor was trying out for a role which involved playing a conservative character, and the casting agents saw that the person was more of a partying type in their public FB profile, would it be discrimination if he/she didn’t get the role for that reason? It seems from what Legal Eagle writes that this *would* be discrimination, but is it the case that only politicised identity categories (gender, race, ability, sex pref) are actually named in law as the basis for discrimination?

2. If a potential employer asked for a FB profile to see whether or not the person was in a union, had affiliations with activist groups, or had connections with certain people, would that be discrimination?

3. And finally (this is the one that I think relates to a lot of people right now): If an employer made it compulsory to use FB at work to communicate with clients and colleagues would it be discrimination if the employee refused?