Union, GSA at odds over personal use of social networking sites

Union employees at the General Services Administration claim agency managers walked away from negotiations over rules restricting workers' personal use of social media -- a directive members say violates employees' right to free speech.

Casey Coleman, chief information officer at GSA, issued an order on July 17 establishing a policy that dictates how employees should behave when communicating through social media channels, including blogs, podcasts, video-sharing websites such as YouTube, social networking sites including Facebook and virtual worlds such as Second Life.

The National Federation of Federal Employees' primary concern is the order encroaches on workers' civil liberties by stipulating the way employees conduct their private and informal communications on the Internet. Specifically the guidelines bar staff who identify themselves as GSA employees online from engaging in abusive language or offensive terms targeting people, endorsing commercial products or companies, backing politicians or political parties and lobbying Congress about GSA resources.

"People think they have free speech, constitutional rights at work. You absolutely do not," said Charles A. Paidock, a regional vice president for the federation's council of GSA locals.

GSA employees have requested a mediator be appointed to help the groups arrange an agreement because top agency managers would not consent to adding protections proposed by NFFE, union leaders said.

A spokesperson said in a statement, "GSA encourages the use of social media technologies to enhance communication, collaboration and information exchange in support of GSA's mission. GSA is currently in negotiations with NFFE to go through normal labor management processes to reach resolution. Last fall, GSA successfully completed negotiations with another labor organization representing GSA employees on this same issue."

Paidock said part of Coleman's order overrides union employees' contractual right to pursue their private lives without interference by their employer. The policy states workers should not have any expectation of privacy: "Be aware of your GSA association in online social networks. If you identify yourself as a GSA employee or have a public facing position for which your GSA association is known to the general public, ensure your profile and related content (even if it is of a personal and not an official nature) is consistent with how you wish to present yourself as a GSA professional, appropriate with the public trust associated with your position, and conforms to existing standards such as Standards of Ethical Conduct for Employees of the Executive Branch. Have no expectation of privacy."

GSA employees argue the guidelines expand rules on personal use of e-mail they say already have prompted unreasonable disciplinary actions. Agency leaders have curtailed union efforts to use GSA e-mail accounts to contact members about their activities, according to Paidock. "They tried to censor the union," he said. "They tried to discipline me for routine communications."

Paidock distributed a press release on Tuesday outlining the union's opposition to GSA's social media policy using his GSA e-mail account. "If they come after me, so be it," he said. "I'll be the poster boy."

Union leaders alleged the six pages of rules are overly broad and impractical. Some of the provisions, such as prohibitions on "personal attacks of any kind," could be applied arbitrarily, they noted.

Likewise, employees opposed a blanket ban on the "endorsement of political parties, candidates or groups." The union proposed substituting that line with "routine sharing of views or opinions of candidates running for office, current issues or social events, or legislation pending, is not prohibited."

Members said most employees likely would not adhere to a line that states employees should "consider a disclaimer" when publishing content on a non-GSA website that mentions subjects associated with GSA. According to the memo, a disclaimer should state something like the following: "The postings are my own and do not necessarily represent GSA's positions, strategies or opinions."

The union proposed that the use of a disclaimer should only be recommended, not required.

"People are going to be putting disclaimers in their messages? It's not going to happen. That's why we tried to write some clarification on this. We're not precluding you from having some kind of policy in place," Paidock said.

An analyst who advises the federal government called the situation difficult, and said the union is assuming a right held by personnel in few other places of employment.

"If you were working for a large retailer and identified yourself as an employee, you'd be fired" for violating standards of employee conduct anywhere online, said Greg Parston, director of the Accenture Institute for Health and Public Service Value, a research arm of the consulting firm that focuses on service delivery. "You're hurting the company's ability to pay you."