Public servants and social media

Flow-Rider

Burner
Pretty much. Social media guidelines are there for a reason. Criticise your private company, or release confidential information (inc pics) and you'll find yourself finding it hard to stay.
Going back to about 2007 a mate and his work colleagues that worked for a well known world wide corporation were asked for their Farcebook log in details, I've noticed since then he's hardly ever posted anything up on it.
 

Calvin27

Eats Squid
I have no issues with intrusion into my personal cyberspace. Just make it commensurate to the salary. A peon earning under $50k should not have the same policy as, say a dept sec for example. Yet they are pretty much bound by the same rules.
 

pink poodle

気が狂っている男
It is difficult to cut the dead wood from the public service. A lot of IT policies are written in such a way that they can be used as an easy lever for removing troublesome employees. I recall the inappropriate use of IT facilities policy at one stage explicitly stating that you could be in breach for too much work related email or storing too much data (extending well beyond the usual don't look at porn etc) and having a team leader bin called into question over the frequency of his internet use.

At that stage internet access was highly restricted and he was in charge of a large chunk of the agencies Web site and thus the nationwide go to for checking it was working. These things don't always make sense.
 

bardynt

Back in his day.....
I think its simple you have to sign a confendiatial agreement were you work and not alllowed to dicuss what is going on. I dont understand why that people think they can do what ever they want and expect to get away with it.

Im sure if someone leaked something from work what had big affect on you like personal details that many would be up in arms.

So as far im concerned if you cant agree to the keeping private details for youre work confidental , then dont work there.

Also i dont understand why people post and bitch about there work on facebook for all to see then wonder why there fired a few days later.
 

ozzybmx

taking a shit with my boobs out
Ozzy - I work for the middle man in that equation, and know where you are coming from
We have to do online modules every 12 months which are legally binding, *Confidentiality *Internet security *Information security.... ect, there is about 15-20 of them every year, taking about 6-8 hours to complete.

My fakebook account says I am - Homer Simpson at Springfield Nuclear Power Plant. I never mention my employer, who they are or anything else, that keeps the pay coming in every fortnight.
 

pink poodle

気が狂っている男
We have to do online modules every 12 months which are legally binding, *Confidentiality *Internet security *Information security.... ect, there is about 15-20 of them every year, taking about 6-8 hours to complete.

My fakebook account says I am - Homer Simpson at Springfield Nuclear Power Plant. I never mention my employer, who they are or anything else, that keeps the pay coming in every fortnight.
Ha! You wish Frank Grimes.
 

pink poodle

気が狂っている男
these protections only kick in if the public servant makes a formal PID to the relevant person ie not the media.
It is a little more flexible than that, but not much and certainly not an easy route. I've seen it used to protect workers in a few non-conventional ways. A good union organiser has plenty of tricks up their sleeve. That said it isn't likely to save you from saying the boss is a dickhead on your Facebook page and it has been about 5 years since I was there.

You live below a bowling alley?!
And above another bowling alley?

Had to Google that, yep... same job
Second greatest Simpson's episode ever. From the golden season.
 

pharmaboy

Eats Squid
I noticed heaps of indignation on social media about this, then I thought, hang on, I would never mention my employer or speak against them on media.

It's interesting that some in the public service don't see that they have any loyalty towards their employer or responsibility outside work. All the EEO laws operate outside of the workplace as well.

So you probably have a right to say whatever you want, but your employer also has a right not to employ you anymore if what is said crosses their line.
 

johnny

I'll tells ya!
Staff member
I think its simple you have to sign a confendiatial agreement were you work and not alllowed to dicuss what is going on. I dont understand why that people think they can do what ever they want and expect to get away with it.

Im sure if someone leaked something from work what had big affect on you like personal details that many would be up in arms.

So as far im concerned if you cant agree to the keeping private details for youre work confidental , then dont work there.

Also i dont understand why people post and bitch about there work on facebook for all to see then wonder why there fired a few days later.
We're not talking about leaking though, this is about the public service having an opinion about politics - essentially saying they don't like the policies they are employed to implement.

It's the balance between free speech and being able to have faith that the policies of the people we elect are being faithfully implemented by a dispassionate bureaucracy. I'm sure there's many other elements to it as well.
 

johnny

I'll tells ya!
Staff member
I noticed heaps of indignation on social media about this, then I thought, hang on, I would never mention my employer or speak against them on media.

It's interesting that some in the public service don't see that they have any loyalty towards their employer or responsibility outside work. All the EEO laws operate outside of the workplace as well.

So you probably have a right to say whatever you want, but your employer also has a right not to employ you anymore if what is said crosses their line.
I agree with that but I think that working for the government is a little different as their work of govt effects us all and discussion and free media are a bedrock of democracy. On one hand you're taking away a right given to the general public to participate in the democratic process and to voice an opinion about the job that their elected officials and the people their taxes pay for and the whole social contract thingy. Of course the other hand holds a contrary position that we all understand and that you've pointed toward.
 

Shinigami

Likes Dirt
I noticed heaps of indignation on social media about this, then I thought, hang on, I would never mention my employer or speak against them on media.

It's interesting that some in the public service don't see that they have any loyalty towards their employer or responsibility outside work. All the EEO laws operate outside of the workplace as well.

So you probably have a right to say whatever you want, but your employer also has a right not to employ you anymore if what is said crosses their line.
The issue is that government changes frequently and covers all aspects of life in this country, you are holding public servants against a political parties campaign platform. so a public servant isnt allowed to hold a view on anything the gov does, even if it is not at all related to their APS job.



I agree with that but I think that working for the government is a little different as their work of govt effects us all and discussion and free media are a bedrock of democracy. On one hand you're taking away a right given to the general public to participate in the democratic process and to voice an opinion about the job that their elected officials and the people their taxes pay for and the whole social contract thingy. Of course the other hand holds a contrary position that we all understand and that you've pointed toward.

further than this, a lot of the current social media brouhaha is about public servants weighing in on the marriage equality debate. it has nothing to do with the APS at all, the only place it is at all related to is DHS and they have recognised gay couples as couples for years and treats them no differently.
 

pharmaboy

Eats Squid
I agree with that but I think that working for the government is a little different as their work of govt effects us all and discussion and free media are a bedrock of democracy. On one hand you're taking away a right given to the general public to participate in the democratic process and to voice an opinion about the job that their elected officials and the people their taxes pay for and the whole social contract thingy. Of course the other hand holds a contrary position that we all understand and that you've pointed toward.
Yeah, maybe the big difference is I'd expect teachers to not comment on the Dept of education, but maybe that's seperate from general govt.

Eg your employer is perhaps your Dept and not the govt.

I have had a brief discussion with a teacher friend before who seemed genuinely surprised that I had contractual obligations that clearly restricted my social media profile that brought my employer a poor reflection. It is your public face.

That's the good thing about closed groups where we can swear and carry on like morons till the cows come home, same for this site which is not open to all and pseudonyms allow me to be more of a dick than usual

;)
 

bardynt

Back in his day.....
We're not talking about leaking though, this is about the public service having an opinion about politics - essentially saying they don't like the policies they are employed to implement.

It's the balance between free speech and being able to have faith that the policies of the people we elect are being faithfully implemented by a dispassionate bureaucracy. I'm sure there's many other elements to it as well.

Well just cause you work for the place, dosent mean every single person in the company has to agree with the policies. I think everyone these days thinks that they dont agree with something that they can change everything

I think most work places would laugh at you if you ask to pick and choose what policies you agree with.

The way i see it esp govt that its politics ,the public vote on who gets put in power and they set the policies.

This generation of kids have never been told no , so they end up spoilt entiltled brats. This creates problem cause when they end up in work , they get told what to do and there is policies put in place, but cause they never been told no, they do what they want and of course alot of them get in trouble or fired,

If you dont agree with what you work does then you can try change it . You can try free speech on social media but dont be suprised if you get fired.

Alot of people do a job but dont agree with stuff but have too get a paycheck
 

born-again-biker

Is looking for a 16" bar
Good thread. I feel smarter.
(Who hacked into Knuckles account?)

I work for a company that is sub-contracted to a state government owned company. Even though my employer is a private, global business, we have to abide by all policies & restrictions handed down from the govt corp. thru the contractual arrangement. Because we deal with the gen. pub. every day the policies around representing the business are extensive & ruthlessly enforced.
There are a few things I really, really dislike about my industry but there's no f@cking way I would voice that in specifics on FuckwitBook or InstaWank.
If you don't like something about your employer you might have a lot more luck making change by getting more involved & agitating from within?

I do think, however, that pub. servants should be considered a very valuable & worthy contributor to debate about our government/democracy/social issues/F.O.S etc. I think it's wrong to muzzle the people who work at the coal face of public policy. Is FuckwitBook the correct forum to harvest their input? Shit no. I'm sorry, but it's largely a moronic space.

What does everyone think about the repeated attempts (& recent failure) of the coalition to keep the workers, contractors & care professionals silent on manus island & nauru?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Top