Much of course depends on what you might say, but one UK Apple employee with surname Crisp suffered the ultimate consequence after writing a comment on Facebook critical of his employer, as People Management reports.
[...] Crisp, who worked in an Apple Store, posted derogatory statements on Facebook about Apple and its products. The posts were made on a “private” Facebook page and outside of working hours. One of his colleagues, who happened to be a Facebook “friend”, saw the comments, printed the posts and passed them to the store manager. Crisp was subsequently dismissed for gross misconduct.
The employment tribunal rejected Crisp’s claim for unfair dismissal. Key to the tribunal’s decision was the fact that Apple had a clear social media policy in place and had made it absolutely plain throughout the induction process that commentary on Apple products, or critical remarks about the brand, were strictly prohibited. Interestingly the tribunal took into account that such comments would be particularly damaging for Apple as image is so central to its success.
In fact, the story has received widespread media coverage, social and mainstream.
Two elements to this story stand out to me:
- Apple has a clear social media policy in place, says People Management’s report – it would be great to see it although I doubt it’s Apple’s style to publicly share it – and “had made it absolutely plain throughout the induction process that commentary on Apple products, or critical remarks about the brand, were strictly prohibited.”
- The employment tribunal cited that fact as central to its decision to reject a claim for unfair dismissal.
Equally interesting is use of the word “commentary.” It doesn’t say “negative commentary” or “critical commentary,” just “commentary.” So I presume that is literal: any commentary about Apple or its products is not allowed. I assume the social media policy sets out the consequences if an employee doesn’t abide by the policy which, I assume again, can mean dismissal as happened to employee Crisp.
Whatever you may think of any company that has such a forbidding policy in place, if it is in place, and explained and communicated to all employees, and an employee then goes and does something plainly against the policy, well, there are consequences. Should that surprise anyone?
In Apple’s case, it’s no secret that the company rigidly enforces control over who can say what publicly, certainly at Apple itself and clearly also in its retail store operations. This case reminds me of a report a few years ago that I wrote about quoting a feature about Steve Jobs and Apple written by Times journalist Bryan Appleyard, which included this text:
[...] secrecy is one of Apple’s signature products. A cult of corporate omerta – the mafia code of silence – is ruthlessly enforced, with employees sacked for leaks and careless talk. Executives feed deliberate misinformation into one part of the company so that any leak can be traced back to its source. Workers on sensitive projects have to pass through many layers of security. Once at their desks or benches, they are monitored by cameras and they must cover up devices with black cloaks and turn on red warning lights when they are uncovered.
It sounds extreme, doesn’t it? Yet wholly believable if you are an observer of Apple. Indeed, I’m reading Steve Jobs’ biography and such a story rings very true indeed as it is illustrative of Jobs’ control freakery and the iron grip over communication he wielded at the company and of which there’s no indication of any change since Jobs’ death last month.
Who’s to say which is right and which is wrong? Yet I know which kind of company I’d prefer to work for.
[Later] I posted this story on Google+. There are some insightful and interesting comments there.