 |
|
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
David 
to wish impossible things
Joined: 27 Jul 2003
Location: the edge of the deep green sea
|
| Post subject: Codes of control: brand managing our humanity |  |
|
I've been arguing about this topic for years now, but thought it was time to actually write an article about it. Hopefully this encapsulates my views on the issue:
https://overland.org.au/2016/11/codes-of-control-brand-managing-our-humanity/
| Quote: | Today, it is no longer uncommon for businesses to place regulations on their employees’ behaviour beyond the workplace. Such provisions will now often form part of an employee’s contract; sometimes couched in terms of a specific social media policy, or else as a general exhortation against bringing the company into disrepute.
The arbitrary quality of this latter clause makes it especially far-reaching. If it is perceived as possible for a company’s brand to be negatively impacted by an employee’s behaviour off the job, then a wide range of ‘disreputable’ non-workplace actions become punishable. As we see in cases both here and overseas, these can include anything from genuinely antisocial and illegal acts to drinking alcohol or expressing political dissent. We are lectured uncritically on the increasing blurring of our professional and private lives and the need to more carefully regulate what we say in public – suffice it to say, this blurring does not come with an hourly pay rate attached.
That companies would seek greater control over their employees’ lives should not be surprising. What is alarming is how little social resistance this has provoked. Indeed, not only do many people believe that a company has a right to exert this kind of control; in many cases, it is seen as a duty. |
_________________
"Every time we witness an injustice and do not act, we train our character to be passive in its presence." – Julian Assange |
|
|
|
 |
Tannin 
Can't remember
Joined: 06 Aug 2006
Location: Huon Valley Tasmania
|
| Post subject: | |
|
Pfft.
Business have been regulating employees' behaviour for 600 years. The only reason I don't say "6000 years" instead of "600 years" is that businesses, say, 900 years ago weren't really "businesses" as we think of the term today. Nor were "employees" employees as we think of that concept today. But you still got told what to do and mostly had to obey on a 24/7 basis.
In 1732, it's true, your employer probably wasn't watching your Twitter feed, but only because Twitter didn't exist. But if you didn't turn up to church - and the "right" church too - or you had funny ideas about marriage, or you were disrespectful to the wrong ideas or people, or you failed to do any of the many other things you were expected to do, you were in very, very deep poo.
Until the rise of effective trade unions, you were comprehensively screwed. Now that unions have practically no power again, there is no one to stand up for you. Once again, you are screwed.
Why? In one word, power. You haven't got any. Your employer has all the power, you have practically none. You probably don't even have reliable employment anymore because your position has been outsourced and/or casualised, and/or turned into one of those Uber-style sham "independent contractor" jobs to remove all your rights and sidestep legislative protections.
I'd hate to be 17 or 26 today.
_________________
�Let's eat Grandma.� Commas save lives! |
|
|
|
|
think positive
Side By Side
Joined: 30 Jun 2005
Location: somewhere
|
| Post subject: | |
|
Yeah I agree. Add to that today's youth going into their first jobs with their 'world revolves around me' attitude! Make for some fireworks! Both my kids had part time jobs in retail thankfully, nothing like Christmas shoppers to smack some fun reality into you!
After 4 years of choosing her own hours with uni and part time work, I reckon my eldest is in for a bit of a shock when she starts her 9-5 job next week!
One thing she doesn't need to worry about is social media- she shut down her face book page ages ago, and has never been a twit thankfully.
We have had this discussion many times David. And while I get where your coming from, I also get where the other side comes from.
_________________
You cant fix stupid, turns out you cant quarantine it either! |
|
|
|
|
Mugwump
Joined: 28 Jul 2007
Location: Between London and Melbourne
|
| Post subject: | |
|
I can accept what you say about power, Tannin but having spent years on the other side of the table from unions whose main mission in life seemed to be to defend to the death the lazy and chippy and thieving, when not extracting rents from the consumer via their grip on the means of production, I would far rather there was an employment law prohibition on employers interfering in an individual's private affairs in this way.
_________________
Two more flags before I die! |
|
|
|
|
think positive
Side By Side
Joined: 30 Jun 2005
Location: somewhere
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| Mugwump wrote: | | I can accept what you say about power, Tannin but having spent years on the other side of the table from unions whose main mission in life seemed to be to defend to the death the lazy and chippy and thieving, when not extracting rents from the consumer via their grip on the means of production, I would far rather there was an employment law prohibition on employers interfering in an individual's private affairs in this way. |
But how far would you want that law to go?
_________________
You cant fix stupid, turns out you cant quarantine it either! |
|
|
|
|
HAL
Please don't shout at me - I can't help it.
Joined: 17 Mar 2003
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| Who is your favourite Science Fiction author? |
|
|
|
|
David
to wish impossible things
Joined: 27 Jul 2003
Location: the edge of the deep green sea
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| Tannin wrote: | Pfft.
Business have been regulating employees' behaviour for 600 years. The only reason I don't say "6000 years" instead of "600 years" is that businesses, say, 900 years ago weren't really "businesses" as we think of the term today. Nor were "employees" employees as we think of that concept today. But you still got told what to do and mostly had to obey on a 24/7 basis.
In 1732, it's true, your employer probably wasn't watching your Twitter feed, but only because Twitter didn't exist. But if you didn't turn up to church - and the "right" church too - or you had funny ideas about marriage, or you were disrespectful to the wrong ideas or people, or you failed to do any of the many other things you were expected to do, you were in very, very deep poo.
Until the rise of effective trade unions, you were comprehensively screwed. Now that unions have practically no power again, there is no one to stand up for you. Once again, you are screwed. |
I think this is true to an extent, and it's something that I do touch on somewhat in the article. Pre-19th Century Village life was undoubtedly oppressive and surveilled in an absolute way, but keep in mind that many (perhaps most) people worked for themselves, or for a feudal land owner. So, while the phenomenon of being scrutinised for your private virtue was very much a part of that way of life (probably much more so than it is today), the source of power was the village, not an employer per se.
The industrial revolution gave people more freedom in this sense because it separated them from their community environments and totally depersonalised them. The average factory boss likely didn't care whether you were a Catholic or whether you murdered people on the weekends; you were a production unit. Of course, in every other sense, this was a totally oppressive environment, and it was only the birth of the union movement that permitted some basic human rights to creep into such workplaces.
I acknowledge that the phenomenon I'm talking about has probably existed to some extent or other throughout. But with the enlightenment liberalism that replaced religion's role in society becoming unfashionable, I feel like this kind of control is having a resurgence.
_________________
"Every time we witness an injustice and do not act, we train our character to be passive in its presence." – Julian Assange |
|
|
|
|
Pies4shaw 
pies4shaw
Joined: 08 Oct 2007
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| Something about the industrial revolution creating a "formally free" pool of labour might be apt, here. Where's Max Weber when you need him? |
|
|
|
|
stui magpie 
Prepare for the worst, hope for the best.
Joined: 03 May 2005
Location: In flagrante delicto
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| Mugwump wrote: | | I can accept what you say about power, Tannin but having spent years on the other side of the table from unions whose main mission in life seemed to be to defend to the death the lazy and chippy and thieving, when not extracting rents from the consumer via their grip on the means of production, I would far rather there was an employment law prohibition on employers interfering in an individual's private affairs in this way. |
I think the balance is about right at the moment, but that to a degree depends on the employer. For every sensationalised situation presented in the media there are thousands of interactions where people just get given a reality check.
It's not just the attitude of the employers wanting to control their employees lives 24/7, it's the attitude of the general public who increasingly want to hold companies to account for the behaviour of their employees whether on duty or otherwise.
We see numerous examples of how the perpetually offended can drive an organisations reactions to angry social media. Way too many narrow minded numbats with delusions of self worth ready and waiting to eviscerate anybody who offends or disagrees with them.
_________________
Every dead body on Mt Everest was once a highly motivated person, so maybe just calm the **** down. |
|
|
|
|
Mugwump
Joined: 28 Jul 2007
Location: Between London and Melbourne
|
| Post subject: | |
|
Broadly agreed, Stui. It is probably a little more complicated than my quick post from an airline lounge made it sound. There are clearly grey areas, and in most of the more lurid cases we are talking about the exceptionally megalomaniac employer or the exceptionally reckless employee. One should not make law for the more deranged ends of the spectrum.
Still, there are issues when a teacher shows up in a porn movie, or is arrested for assaulting police at a demo, etc, or a doctor demonstrates in favour of euthanasia, or an employee acts in a public demonstration against the employer. Professional and business relations are sustained by trust and credibility. Actions which significantly undermine that trust, even outside work hours, are a legitimate matter of concern for an employer.
The only point is that an out-of-hours act needs to seriously undermine trust or credibility in a way that is truly relevant to the profession or business in question. Short of that test, cautionary or disciplinary action exceeds the reasonable control of an employer over an employee's personal life. I imagine a legal test of that would be possible.
_________________
Two more flags before I die! |
|
|
|
|
Pies4shaw
pies4shaw
Joined: 08 Oct 2007
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| Perhaps - but the relevant law is predicated on the notion that employees owe, amongst other things, fiduciary obligations and a duty of obedience to their employers. When one person owes such enforceable duties to another entity, the reach of those duties is likely to be unhappily broad. |
|
|
|
|
HAL
Please don't shout at me - I can't help it.
Joined: 17 Mar 2003
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| Go on, tell me more. |
|
|
|
|
watt price tully 
Joined: 15 May 2007
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| Pies4shaw wrote: | | Something about the industrial revolution creating a "formally free" pool of labour might be apt, here. Where's Max Weber when you need him? |
Max is out drinking some spirits of capitalism with a wee protestant ethic chaser.
_________________
“I even went as far as becoming a Southern Baptist until I realised they didn’t keep ‘em under long enough†Kinky Friedman |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You cannot download files in this forum
|
|
The Rules
FAQ
Usergroups
Calendar
Search
Log in
Register
