Ethics Assignment 1: Your Private Blog vs Your Job?

It's notable from the Washington post article (February 13, 2005; B6) that there is indeed a tug-of-war between the ethical perrogatives of a right to privacy and the obligations of a professional in a work environment. This is evident by looking at the growing numbre of peopl ewho have been laid off because of their candid (or improper?) musings about work. While it's possible to argue that privacy is forfeit when someone posts on the internet (a public domain), it's also arguable that off the clock and away from work, an employees opinions are not the business of the boss.
Obviosly, conflict in the workplace exists, and has always existed. While it may be somewhat unhealthy to stifle feelings and not voice work related concerns, the fear of confrontation and social humility act as a buffer to naturally prevent these conflicts from erupting. Change the face to face confrontation, and post thought under a guise of anonymity however, and the buffer is removed. And with the removal of this buffer, comes a different set of rules. The rules on one side say everyone is an individual, and a citizen, and therefore entitled to unalienable rights of free speech. On the other side, professional ethics tell us loyalty to a company supercedes individual and personal gains. In order to decide which of these rules are better, a number of issues must be considered about what a blog might do:

· Potential harm to morale & work ethic of other employess
· Potential harm to business by disenfranchising clients/customers
· Connotation and semantics of blog content
· Respect of privacy

Obviously, a serious slur which causes economic harm to a business, especially if untrue, is punishable by termination. In this sense, a person blogging as an employee about a product or manpower deficiency should be punished accordingly. It may even be prudent to say the employer can treat a case such as this as if the person had stood on street corner, and announced it to the world. The only difference in these situations is the avenue by which the message is delivered. Using the internet to state opinions is moving the author from private to public sector. The complication arises when the employer posts anonymously. True anomynity is difficult to maintain, and should therefore be a burden put on the blogger. If anonymity can be maintained, then the blogger won't be caught in the first place.
As important as that is, it still simply brings up the dilemas and applicability issues associated with work conflict. Calling a fellow employee a "fat lard" may or may not be punishable by termination. So, as stated before, the same rules should apply for electronic and acoustic communication. i.e., whether the comment was typed or spoken.
The other issue that the buffer destruction brings is that of personal openness. Things that would not be admitted in the workplace, such as sexual orientation, or religion can create an tense workplace. As regressive-thinking as it is, giving someone a reason to be biased against someone else is still a concern. And this very situation may actually INCREASE discrimination i nthe workplace.
As I understand it, the U.S. military has instituted a blogging policy for it's soldiers abroad. While on duty the soldier has an obligation to not reveal strategic in formation like troop positions and tactical plans, for obvious reasons. This policy keeps a strict position that a blog is only a means of communication, and not a special no-blame machine. So, if you can talk dirty and not get caught, it's a professional ethics violation. If you talk dirty and get caught, you shold accept the fact that your message was indeed public, and take whatever consequences are offered. By that same token, being discriminated against because of a personal trait should also be combated as rigourously as if it had been brought up in confrontation.
-Daniel Vega