Qantas Employee Censorship

[fishers.ghost]

Are you a social networker?
Social networking sites, such as Facebook, can be an effective form of communication for you, your friends and family around the world. It’s also a very public way of communicating, which is why it’s important to remember that what you publish on social networking sites can be seen by many and is treated as public information that’s not necessarily private or confidential.

Employees are bound to protect commercial in-confidence information and to demonstrate and promote a high-level of professionalism, honesty and integrity when refering to their employment at any time. When off duty you still represent Qantas and you need to be mindful that information published online, especially negative information about Qantas, may be in conflict with the Qantas Standards of Conduct Policy and your obligations as an employee. If you’re not sure whether what you’re posting is appropriate, then err on the side of caution, in other words, “If in doubt, leave it out.”

When communicating via social networking sites, remember you’re not an official spokesperson for Qantas and your views do not necessarily reflect those of Qantas.

To protect you and Qantas, the transmission of important information needs to be reserved exclusively for approved Qantas-approved, official communication channels.


This is a direction from qantas managment regarding employee posts on Facebook.
How enforcable would company policy be in a court of law?
Just because something is written in a public forum that allegedly contravenes company policy is it indeed automatically deemed illegal.?
Is this illegal censorship and does it cut across individual rights of discussion?
From a Qantas perspective you are an employee 24 hours a day and as such Qantas is entitled to dictate your behaviour 24 hours a day.
Who the hell do they think they are ?
"To protect you".......from whom ? Your employer presumably ?

[Tidbinbilla]

Fishers.ghost,

I'm not sure of the legalities from a common law perspective. However, being reasonably familiar with the QF, its subsidiaries, (and others) contracts of employment - I suggest you may indeed face disciplinary action up to, and including dismissal, should you release any "commercial-in-confidence" information (or, it appears, post anything derogatory about your employer).

It's clearly written in your contract..... I don't know how successful you would be fighting an unfair dismissal case after the fact.

Through my contacts, I am aware of at least three employee of QF (and subsidiaries), and one from VB who have been disciplined of late. One of which was terminated.

It comes back to what we Mods have advised time and time again: Don't post anything (even anonymously), unless you are prepared to back it up with facts in court. Now it appears you also need to consider the consequences you may face with your employer, should they deem you to be in breach of your employment contract. Remember, with this type of medium you are broadcasting to the world.:)

Regards from TID.

[DEFCON4]

Can you for example have two opinions?
1.Qantas as a collective of employees is amazing
2.Qantas managment on the other hand are ****e
While pouring scorn on a particular manager are you then guilty of denigrating Qantas.?
Corporately sensitive information in the aviation industry is sensitive for about a minute before it becomes public knowledge ...aircraft deployment..new routes.....uniforms...new livery....etc.
Qantas in particular uses corporate policy to silence employee criticism of management.It is all part of the fear and intimidation style used by the executive and initiated by Scrotum Face.
Qantas as an entity is praiseworthy.Its management is not.Anyone in the Qantas legal department will tell you that litigation initiated by employees against management is one of the highest of any corporation in Australia.
Then again perhaps they wont...because it may be deemed corporately sensitive
All this is circumspect and opinion only ....not based on any verifiable fact(s)
Information can be portrayed as opinion or speculation without legal recourse.
If it portrayed as fact....well then....thats another matter entirely...but thats purely speculation of course

[Ken Borough]

Anyone in the Qantas legal department will tell you that litigation initiated by employees against mangement is the highest of any corporation in australia

What's the basis for this outrageous claim? Perhaps this is precisely why QF staff are urged to exercise restraint on these mickey-mouse social networking sites.

As a listed entity, QF has every right to insist on a proper communications policy, just as it can determine, for example, a dress code for employees.If you don't like QF's terms of employment, you have a choice - exercise it and move on.

[Worrals in the wilds]

fishers.ghost, I don't work for an airline, but that policy is broadly similar to my company's policy. They're getting fairly standard these days.

[DEFCON4]

There was a theory in some business schools that if you keep an employee under pressure that employee will be more productive.That theory fell into disrepute around ten years ago.
Some employers have not caught up with current thinking.Fear and presssure ultimately lead to employee disengagement.A high level of disengagement can actually damage a company and its brand.Qantas is a perfect example.
Engaging your employees in the business actually leadf to productivity increases at zero cost to he company
Company policy,dress codes and censorship can/and are used as threats against employees.
How much does it cost for an employer to prosecute one of its employees and what is the benefit of doing so?It adds nothing to the company's bottom line but it does send a (negative)message to the rest of the workforce.
This leads to further disengagement and loss of productivity.This does affect the company's bottom line.The whole process is self defeating.
Happy engaged employees do not generally intentionally breach company
policy.
As for the old cliche "if you dont like it leave" it is generally irrelevant.Most disengaged employees stay in the hope that they can "stick it" to management further exacerbating the problem

[packrat]

At Qantas when we talked about the company it used to be we and us.
Thanks to company policy/censorship it is now them and they.
I know which I preferred

[neville_nobody]

When off duty you still represent Qantas

How does that work?? Is there any legal grounds for such a claim??

For example the Prime Minister can do certain things in the capacity as Prime Minister, the local member, or as a private citizen.

He is still the PM but not acting in that capacity.

Same with QF. If you are in uniform, or on company business you are acting as an employee of the company, if I am on holidays or on a RDO I am acting as a private citizen so QF cannot have any say over what I do.

What legal grounds do QF have to control your personal opinion?

Say you flew on a competing carrier and Twittered that the competing carrier service was far and away better than QF's are QF going to haul you over the coals?


Employees are bound to protect commercial in-confidence information and to demonstrate and promote a high-level of professionalism, honesty and integrity when refering to their employment at any time

I think there is an American judge who may have a differing opinion about certain members of QF management.

[beaver_rotate]

I suggest leave it out and I believe YES (first-hand) you'll get in the sh*t.

Seen first hand a fellow employee nearly get the chop after a racial slur with reference to the company all in 1 'status update'. Lucky boy

[Ka.Boom]

During Christmas a QF consultant stood in for an absent manager.
The first thing she did was instruct CC not to adorn their uniform with tinsel or wear any type of christmas hat.
It was against company policy.The hats and tinsel did not comply
That edict lasted about twenty minutes before it was taken down

[Worrals in the wilds]

...if I am on holidays or on a RDO I am acting as a private citizen so QF cannot have any say over what I do.

I'm certainly not a lawyer, but I've recently had to write an internet use policy for a small business that employs Facebook loving teenagers and this is my understanding of the issues.

It's not so much a question of what you do, but what you publish. Posting on the internet is legally considered publishing. If you wrote and published a book slagging off Qantas while an employee, I assume they'd be terminating your employment. Tweeting etc is legally the same concept, particularly if you are identifiable by name and therefore as an employee. It's certainly not like criticising them in a private letter to an individual, although many people seem to see Tweets / Facebook in this way.

Qantas has no say over what you do in that they can't stop you doing it, but they can choose to dismiss you if you breach the terms of your employment. You could maybe chase an unfair dismissal claim based on the 'harsh, unjust or unreasonable' clause in the Fair Work Act (s385)(b) but I don't know how you'd go.

From what I can see, your only legislated workplace rights involving complaints about the company are the right to complain "to a person or body having the capacity under a workplace law (http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/num_act/fwa2009114/s12.html#workplace_law) to seek compliance with that law or a workplace instrument (http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/num_act/fwa2009114/s12.html#workplace_instrument);" (s341(1)(c).

If you have agreed to abide by a code of conduct as a condition of employment, your employment is conditional on abiding by that code of conduct. I haven't read the Qantas Standards of Conduct policy referred to above, but I imagine it has a clause about not publishing nasty things about the company, whether on or off duty? Most of them do. Legally, Qantas is not trying to silence you as such, but excercizing their right to dismiss you for conduct breaching their code. No-one has a 'right' to be employed by a particular organization, particularly if they have breached an agreed term of employment.

If they considered your publication defamatory they could press charges, but otherwise once you were dismissed there wouldn't be anything they could do to silence you.

The Act does not seem to specify rules for codes of conduct, but my guess would be that unless a requirement is discriminatory, unlawful or harsh/unjust/unreasonable, an employer can specify pretty much anything they choose. At the end of the day, being a bastard to work for is not in itself unlawful.

[Sunfish]

Neville Somebody:

When off duty you still represent Qantas
How does that work?? Is there any legal grounds for such a claim??

If your Facebook page tells the world you are a Qantas pilot and displays lovely photos of you in the cockpit, etc. etc.

Then you can expect trouble if you post anything derogatory or confidential.

You can also expect trouble if you join Facebook groups like :

"On a scale from Zero to Brendan Favola, how drunk are you?" or

"Society for the protection of Swedish lingerie models".

Of course if you can't be identified as an employee of Qantas, that's is, I think , a different matter, but why you would be telling an employer to their face that they are not your ideal is anyones guess.

[captainrats]

Most work contracts were drawn up when Facebook ,twitter and the internet didnt exist.In some cases work contract clauses relating to conduct couldn't have related to the internet but are being applied to it by over officious employers.
The law is lagging way behind technology.
Test cases are needed.
Any volunteers ?

[neville_nobody]

Thanks for that Worrals most informative. I wasn't aware that Tweets and such were considered legally as publishing.

[psycho joe]

Of course you could always argue that whatever defamatory slur you published on the internet was merely copied from that which was published on the toilet walls of the QANTAS sim centre at Mascot. Which was clearly written to "demonstrate and promote a high-level of professionalism, honesty and integrity when refering to their employment at any time". Of course, you may run into legal problems regarding publishing rights. QANTAS may also take you to court over royalties etc as QANTAS clearly own the toilet walls on which the slur was originally published. Of course you could circumvent this by finding the identity of the original said publisher, which is unlikely. Or you could sign your own name next to the ranting slurs on the toilet walls, of which there are many, thus claiming them as your own...... But that would just be insane.

I hope that helps.

[ennui]

Oh Psycho Joe. . . .

That IS the BEST I have EVER read here.

Thank you, I needed that laugh!

Shukran Habibi! (Thanks mate!)

[Skyler King]

As an outsider with friends who work for Qantas it appears to be a very intrusive employer.
Have a second job?Qantas wants to know.
Critical of the Corporation ?Your arse is grass
Sick leave.?You are called at home.
Talk about paranoia.
It would appear resistance is futile.
Is any of this legal ?.To an outsider its more like harrassment and persecution

[Di_Vosh]

Sounds like a bit of gratuitous Qantas bashing :hmm:

"Codes of conduct" including restrictions on people from postings on websites are nothing new, nor are they limited to airlines, or Qantas.

IIRC, there were a group of Virgin UK flight attendants that were sacked last year due to their facebook postings.

re: Tweets: You may want to ask Catherine Deveney (Columnist for "The Age") about whether inappropriate tweets can get you sacked. She was sacked just over a week ago for her twitter postings re: the Logies.

The sad thing is, is that people don't apply common sense to their internet postings, and corporations are forced to impose such policies.

As Sunfish said, if you publicly identify yourself as an employee of a company, and then slag off said company, you can expect a "Please explain".

When I was in Iraq, we had soldiers return from patrols, and then post video clips of their patrols on Youtube/Myspace! :ugh: :ugh: :ugh:

DIVOSH!

[Buai Bob]

I am sorry if my lack of technical savy cause any offence, however it would seem to me that the obvious solution to this problem would be to ensure that you are not identifiable to the company when you are the process of slagging them off - simple!!

[Di_Vosh]

Baui Bob

Sounds pretty simple, doesn't it? But you'd be suprised at those that don't get that simple concept...

[AerocatS2A]

It's pretty simple isn't it? If you were to slag off the company in real life you probably wouldn't stand up in a shopping centre with a microphone and amplifier and proclaim "I work for Qantas and this is why they suck!" Or if you did you'd reasonably expect them to be unhappy with you. Same if you started shouting out stuff that they consider to be commercial in confidence. When you slag the company in real life you probably do it in private to friends and work mates.

Well when you post stuff on social networking sites you are metaphorically shouting from the top of a tall building. The more "friends" you have the more public your ramblings are. Needless to say that if the company find out what you've been saying then you haven't been discrete enough.

[Biggles78]

I am sorry if my lack of technical savy cause any offence, however it would seem to me that the obvious solution to this problem would be to ensure that you are not identifiable to the company when you are the process of slagging them off - simple!!
Problem is that unless you post using a proxy then your IP can be traced back to you. There is that company in SYD that scours the Net for comments made by potential employees applying for a job. If they are found to have commented about their previous employer what is to stop them doing the same when they fall out with their potential new one.

If QANTAS (or any other company) paid me 24/7 then I would be obligated to follow their rules but they don't. Now what people have to learn is what gets posted online stays online and NEVER disappears. Just 10 seconds on Facebook and then you decide to delete your comment/image etc is 11 seconds too long online. Even email can come back to bite you on the bum. As has been stated on several TV programs lately, if you can't say it to a person's face then do NOT post it online.

For the record, I would like to say I hold every single person on the Internet in the highest possible esteem. :oh:

[tail wheel]

".... it would seem to me that the obvious solution to this problem would be to ensure that you are not identifiable to the company when you are (in) the process of slagging them off - simple!!"

Wrong. You post on the internet (or even visit many web sites) they record your IP address. An aggrieved or offended party (including your employer) applies to an appropriate Court for an Order requiring the site publisher to release the IP address and your ISP to release your name and address. It has happened a number of times over the years with PPRuNe.

You have no anonymity when the law gets involved. Buai Bob, Check your PMs!

Criticise or libel your employer, even anonymously on the internet, and you are probably inviting termination of employment.

Solution: Don't post anything on PPRuNe, Facebook etc that you would not say or publish publicly in person.

[Ace Wasabe]

According to all the above comment Freedom of Speech is a Myth.
Corporations cannot be criticized by employees publicly.
We have gone backwards by a hundred years

[Wizofoz]

According to all the above comment Freedom of Speech is a Myth.
Corporations cannot be criticized by employees publicly.
We have gone backwards by a hundred years

No, Ace, your rights to criticize still exist, there's nothing to stop you saying it (up to the point of libel).

HOWEVER right cut both ways. Companys have rights as to what they expect from their employees. You are paid in order that your service benefit the company.

If you actions make that not so, the company has the right to terminate you.

Is it the case that you want your rights protected, but companies rights curtailed?

[max1]

Wizofoz,

You are paid in order that your service benefit the company.
That is all very true.

Many posts on these forums tend to point out perceived errors that individual managers have made. Not really denigrating the company per se, but through frustration, highlighting from the individuals point of view, where they believe a manager/s have stuffed up.

Is it therefore okay for 'mismanagers' to silence those who highlight their mistakes under the guise of 'protecting the company'. What they are really attempting is to protect themselves and their jobs.

Sure there are supposed to be internal mechanisms inside companies to allow 'top-to-bottom and bottom-to-top communication' in line with 'worlds best practice' delivering a 'flattened manangement structure'.But in reality with todays current management practices how often does this really occur.

How often would you see a manager pass up the chain of command that they had come up with an idea or proposal that those underneath pointed out with constructive criticism would not work in its present form. Said project falls over for exactly the reasons those below said it would. Does the manager look at the end result , realise they stuffed up and fall on their sword. Correspondingly, a manager realises that something that comes down to them to implement is a dogs' breakfast and will not work in the real world. Does the manager point out to their superiors that in its current form that it is unworkable and be seen as a non-team player, or go through the motions and wait for the idea to die a natural death.Path of least resistance?

More often than not it is an individuals frustration with a lack of accountability that leads them to make disparaging remarks on the internet, rather than a genuine desire to harm the company that puts the food on their plate.

[Worrals in the wilds]

Very true, max1.
The current huge divide between managers and doers is harming businesses everywhere. Until each group starts to trust and respect each other, inefficient, stupid ideas from people with no real world experience will continue to fail despite the doers' best attempts to warn them, staff will be demotivated and bitter and they will continue to voice their frustration wherever they can. :sad:


According to all the above comment Freedom of Speech is a Myth.


Correct. Show me an Act of Parliament that guarantees your freedom of speech. Don't say the Constitution, because it doesn't.

http://www.comlaw.gov.au/comlaw/comlaw.nsf/440c19285821b109ca256f3a001d59b7/57dea3835d797364ca256f9d0078c087/$FILE/ConstitutionAct.pdf

Australia has no Bill of Rights and Australians have no inherent, inalienable rights to anything. There are certain legislated rights provided by Acts of Parliament such as the right to remain silent et al (Crimes Act 23F-W) and workplace rights as listed above, but you only get those 'rights' because the government has granted them by legislation. Theoretically, they could all be repealed the next time parliament sits. Australians solidly voted against the bill of rights proposal included in the 1988 referendum.

While the country is signatory to a number of UN conventions, the UN has no legal power to enforce compliance and about the worst thing they can do is throw your country out of the UN.

[LowTime]

I was always taught... 'If you don't have anything nice to say about someone, don't say anything at all'

On a more serious note, if you are going to post something derogatory or bash whatever company or person that has pissed you off, you had better be prepared to defend your actions in court.

The days of anonymously posting is over see:
Bladeslapper • View topic - Cyber Poison Pen (http://www.bladeslapper.com/content/bb/viewtopic.php?f=13&t=2660&p=22103&hilit=sued#p22103here:)

Food for thought before you decide to go and be nasty.

Cheers & Beers
LT

[packrat]

In one post WITW has managed to put the frustrations and feelings of QF employees in a nutshell.
He has also highlighted the shortcomings of our constitution and the absurdity of not having a Bill of Rights
For years there has also been debate as to whether or not the Australian government actually has the legal right to collect taxes

[psycho joe]

I joe do solemnly rescind, abrogate, annul, revoke & repeal any & all negative comments that I might have made, alleged or insinuated about QANTAS. Further to this I do not believe that the nom de plume fishers ghost bears any simile or comparison to Fysh’s ghost i.e. the ghost of Hudson Fysh. Further to this, Fishers ghost is not an identity borne from the QANTAS IT Security department. If there was a QANTAS IT security department, which there is not, it would most definitely not be trolling internet forums looking for dissention amongst employees by appearing to post as an individual. Said department, if it did hypothetically exist, would not seek to manipulate forum moderators, knowingly or otherwise, into responding. QANTAS is in no way involved in tracking & spying on individuals. Furthermore, Qantas is the true spirit of Australia. QANTAS management are the most brilliant in their field, if not any field, seek only the best for their subordinates and are the finders of lost children. This statement was in no way coerced.

Joe crazyhorse.

[Angle of Attack]

Wrong. You post on the internet (or even visit many web sites) they record your IP address. An aggrieved or offended party (including your employer) applies to an appropriate Court for an Order requiring the site publisher to release the IP address and your ISP to release your name and address. It has happened a number of times over the years with PPRuNe.


Well as long as you are using your own computer, using multiple internet cafe's will provide multiple IP addresses, and if you are in Iceland, well they are about to become a haven for internet freedom including anti-libel laws so I guess Wrong! is not the right word, depends where you are! In Iceland you will be able to bag everyone and every company with impunity! Go for it! and show these internet nazis the way!

There are already pseudo firewall softwares routing your IP address so I guess it comes down to how much you know about the net hehe!

[teresa green]

God, all the fun has been taken out of flying, not like the good ol days! QF managers should be taken on a tour of aircrew bars around the globe if they want a first hand view of what employees really think of them! Start with NRT always a good read, some of it been there for years, shows nothing changes, just the faces....:rolleyes: