ORIGNAL ARTICLE: A former T-Mobile employee is speaking out about her terrible last few months working at a call center in Nashville, Tennessee. According to Kristi Rifkin, her ordeal started when she became pregnant with her second child and her pregnancy forced her to take a few extra breaks.

As Rifkin tells it in a blog post on MomsRising.org called Why I Believe in Paid Sick Leave, everything was going fine at her job until she got pregnant.

“It was a very, very rough pregnancy. I was taking medication to keep me from going into labor. I was going to the doctor twice a week, seeing both a regular obstetrician and a high-risk obstetrician. I had to drink a lot of water and go to the bathroom pretty frequently, which is what normal pregnant women do,” she says.

But her supervisor quickly warned her that frequent trips to the bathroom may cause her productivity to drop, which could result in her termination.

“Being on the phone was my job, so if I wasn’t, I risked being written up and possibly fired. Essentially the message was, ‘You can go, but understand that if you don’t meet that metric at the end of the day, week and month, we have the opportunity to fill your seat.’ They didn’t tell me that I couldn’t use the toilet. But the reality was that this is a metric on how your job is measured and if you don’t meet it, then you do not have your job.”

Eventually, her supervisor told her that if she really had a medical necessity to use the bathroom so often, she should get a doctor’s note. Of course, she and her doctor thought it was ludicrous, but she complied.

After a sit-down with H.R., it was decided that Rifkin could use the bathroom as much as she wants, but T-Mobile wasn’t going to pay for it. That meant that she had to clock out and back in for every bathroom break.

“At the same time, I was under so much pressure to keep my sales up. I would sprint – as much as a heavily pregnant woman can — between my desk and the bathroom to make sure I squeezed every second I could out of my work day. Everything I did was scrutinized. I felt picked on. Someone was always watching over my shoulder, monitoring my performance,” says Rifkin.

In the end, she says she wound up using vacation time just to go pee.

Eventually, her doctor ordered full medical leave. The Family Medical Leave Act requires that employers provide up to 12 weeks of unpaid leave and job security for eligible employees – so Rifkin’s job was there when she got back after 7 weeks.

But not for long. According to ABC News, she was soon fired over what amounted to a small clerical error; apparently she “failed to remove an extra-charge feature from a customer’s account, the commission for which was 12 cents.”

“Moms shouldn’t have to choose between their jobs and the health of their families. But too often, companies that are fixated on their bottom lines force women to make this choice. I know. It happened to me,” says Rifkin.

T-Mobile has made a statement. Although they won’t discuss specific employees, a spokesman said this:

“T-Mobile employees enjoy generous benefits including paid-time-off and short and long-term disability coverage. The company has leave of absence policies in line with regulatory requirements.”

UPDATE: I’ve received a lengthy and detailed comment from T-Mobile U.S. Chief People Officer Larry Myers:

Sensational headlines are hard to ignore. Here are some facts you should know:

• Of course we make reasonable accommodations for all of our employees when they need time away from servicing our customers’ needs – and we did that three years ago in 2010 for this employee.
• Our industry-standard policies have been in place since 2008 and are understood by all of our call center employees.
• Beyond the breaks that are built into every shift for all of our call center employees, we have additional flexibility to give employees the time they need – especially when there is a medical need.
• After all reasonable accommodations have been exhausted, employees have a choice – they can take additional, unpaid breaks, or they can choose to apply their paid time off benefit. These decisions do not result in adverse performance evaluations.
• When a medical situation is involved and there is even more need for time away from the job, we work closely with our employees to consider potential Leave of Absence (LOA), then consider Family Medical Leave Act (FMLA) time off.
• For this particular former employee, all of these things were discussed and utilized.
• T-Mobile is a values-based organization that has 5 times in a row been awarded as one of the “World’s Most Ethical Companies.” And our employees continue to tell us that they enjoy working at T-Mobile. In a recent anonymous third party employee satisfaction survey, 78% of T-Mobile’s employees said they are satisfied with their job and 83% said they are proud to work at the company, placing T-Mobile on par with the top 25% of all companies surveyed in the United States.

Please consider the facts, and judge for yourself.

Larry Myers, Chief People Officer
T-Mobile US, Inc.

Although CISPA as a whole saw bipartisan support, one last-minute amendement that looked to curtail a worrisome practice by employers was shot down on party lines.

Colorado Democrat Ed Perlmutter attempted to tack on a provision to CISPA that would make it illegal for employers to require prospective employees to hand over their social media passwords as a condition of acquiring or keeping a job.

Has an employer even demanded one of your social media passwords as a condition of being hired or keeping your job? What was your reaction? Let us know in the comments.

The proposal was voted down 224-189, with Republicans in the majority.

“People have an expectation of privacy when using social media like Facebook and Twitter. They have an expectation that their right to free speech and religion will be respected when they use social media outlets. No American should have to provide their confidential personal passwords as a condition of employment. Both users of social media and those who correspond share the expectation of privacy in their personal communications. Employers essentially can act as imposters and assume the identity of an employee and continually access, monitor and even manipulate an employee’s personal social activities and opinions. That’s simply a step too far,” said Perlmutter.

This isn’t the first time that Perlmutter has introduced this sort of legislation. Last year, the same employee password protection language was rejected in the House.

Last year, the practice of employers demanding the Facebook passwords of prospective employees became a hot topic. Both state legislatures and the U.S. Congress introduced measures to counteract the rising trend. One particular bill, the Password Protection Act of 2012, was introduced in both the House and the Senate, but went nowhere.

That bill was introduced by Democratic Senator Richard Blumenthal. Before the bill was presented, back in May of 2012, he, along with Senator Chuck Schumer (D-NY) sent a letter to both the Department of Justice and the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission asking them to “launch a federal investigation into a disturbing new trend.”

Soon after that letter was sent, a motion called “Mind Your Own Business on Passwords” failed in Congress. It would have made the employee password issue one monitored by the Federal Communication Commission. They would have had the right to declare the practice illegal.

So, the Password Protection Act of 2012 moved forward. The language made it a crime that any employer “for the purposes of employing, promoting, or terminating employment, compels or coerces any person to authorize access, such as by providing a password or similar information through which a computer may be accessed.”

But it died, and has been referred back to committee.

The Password Protection Act of 2012 isn’t the only federal bill proposed to deal with the issue. Say hello to SNOPA, or the Social Networking Online Protection Act. It aims to do what the PPA tried to do, but with even clearer languge:

To prohibit employers and certain other entities from requiring or requesting that employees and certain other individuals provide a user name, password, or other means for accessing a personal account on any social networking website.

It’s been introduced, and referred to committee. No movement yet.

On the flip side, some states have had success in passing bans on the practice. First, the state of Maryland enacted a law banning password snooping. And this year, laws in both California and Illinois went into effect.

“It’s not déjà vu — this is the same amendment I introduced twice last year, so people have had plenty of time to study and discuss it. It has bipartisan support. It wouldn’t kill the underlying cyber-security bill; it wouldn’t send it back to committee. It merely safeguards an individuals’ personal privacy as they use their own personal social media accounts,” said Perlmutter of his CISPA add-on.

It’s important to note that Perlmutter did in fact vote yes on CISPA.

But despite those claims, the provision was crushed. If the past year is any indication, password protection legislation must be tackled at the state level, as it’s the only place that its been able to see any sort of success.

Do you think that we need a federal law banning the practice of password snooping by employers? Do you think that it’s better left to the states? Or, do you see no reason for any such legislation on any level? Let us know in the comments.

“In addition to the thousands of people we’ve hired for full-time jobs this year, we’re proud to be adding more than 50,000 seasonal jobs this holiday,” said Dave Clark, vice president, Global Customer Fulfillment. “We’re hiring at our sites across the U.S. for talented individuals to help us deliver a great experience for our customers this holiday season. Temporary associates play a critical role in meeting increased customer demand during the holiday season, and we expect thousands of temporary associates will stay on in full-time positions.”

These 50,000+ seasonal employees will work alongside the 20,000 full-time employees of Amazon’s U.S. fulfillment centers.

How does this stack up with some other retailers? Well, Walmart is also hiring 50,000 seasonal workers, they say. That’s a slight uptick from last holiday season. And Target says they’ll hire somewhere between 80,000 and 90,000 this season. So if you’re looking for a job in the next few weeks, holiday consumerism and the companies that deal in it may be able to help.

If you’re interested in a seasonal job from Amazon, you can apply at their fulfillment hub today.

California was one of the states to quickly propose legislation barring the controversial practice, with two bills rising from the Senate and the Assembly. The first, AB 1844 proposed a ban on employers requiring a current of prospective employee to “disclose a user name or account password to access a personal social media account.” The second bill, SB 1349, sought to keep passwords safe in another realm – postsecondary education.

Now, both bills have been signed by Governor Jerry Brown. Passwords are on their way to being protected in California.

Here’s what Jerry Brown had to say about the legislation on Twitter:

Follow @JerryBrownGov

Jerry Brown
@JerryBrownGov

Today I signed two bills to prohibit universities and employers from demanding your social media passwords.

 Reply  ·  Retweet  ·  Favorite
19 hours ago via web · powered by @socialditto

Follow @JerryBrownGov

Jerry Brown
@JerryBrownGov

California pioneered the social media revolution. These laws protect Californians from unwarranted invasions of their social media accounts.

 Reply  ·  Retweet  ·  Favorite
19 hours ago via web · powered by @socialditto

While AB 1844 prohibits employers from demanding passwords related to social media account, it does not cover employer-issued electronic devices (like a work phone). “The bill further stipulates that nothing in its language is intended to infringe on employers’ existing rights and obligations to investigate workplace misconduct.”

SB 1349 reads the same way, with a stipulation that universities are still allowed to investigate “misconduct,” just not via demanding access to a student’s personal social media account.

Let’s conclude with a warning to other states from SB 1349 sponsor Leland Yee:

“[W]hat has happened is that there are just more and more states that are beginning to understand that the social media accounts so, in fact, have personal and private information, and if states do not somehow enact their own laws, that they are putting the residents in those states at risk. It’s extremely important that individual states respond to this emerging problem.”

But did you know that Google cares for their employees even when they’re no longer Google employees? No I don’t mean when they get fired, or quit. I mean when they’re six feet under.

In an interview with Forbes, Google’s Chief People Officer Laszlo Bock revealed a never-before-heard-of perk of working for the search giant: Death benefits.

If you are a Google employee and happen to meet your end, your spouse or domestic partner will continue to receive 50% of your salary for an entire decade. Not only that, but there’s no tenure requirement to be eligible for this perk. It doesn’t matter how long you’ve been working for the company, you’ll receive the same death benefit as everyone else. That’s a big commitment to Google’s 34,000-odd employees.

Like I said before, it shouldn’t surprise anyone to learn of another awesome perk handed out by the folks at Google. But this one, which has no real benefit for Google the company, is pretty amazing.

Here are some other perks that Google employees enjoy, you know, if you’re job hunting or something:

• Fun stuff around the office, including bocce ball courts, bowling alleys, and a giant climbing wall
• Free gourmet food
• On-site medical care
• Travel insurance, even for personal vacations
• Paid maternity leave, for moms and dads (18 weeks & 6 weeks, respectively)
• Reimbursement for classes and degree programs completed while an employee
• Free legal advice and low-cost legal representation
• Occasional product giveaways, like customized Galaxy Nexus smartphones

Plus, Google’s on the cutting edge when it comes to benefits for LGBT employees and their partners. Earlier this year, they expanded their transgender benefits to include coverage of procedures like facial feminization and pectoral implants.

It’s nice to hear that Google takes care of their own in life and in death.

[Image Courtesy]

This wonderful news is certain to make both obsessively diligent workers and taskmaster bosses cringe comes by way of a new study by UC Irvine and the U.S. Army. The study revealed that cutting out the irresistible habit of constantly checking your email reduces stress and dramatically improves your ability to focus.

Yes, these days, with many of us plugged into more than one device that allows us to check our email virtually anytime and anywhere, the notion of not checking your email might be enough to give you separation anxiety and hasten your heart. Predictably, then, and somewhat humorously, the researchers didn’t have such an easy time finding people willing to sever themselves from the tether of their email.

Nevertheless, eventually enough people were collected so that the research could proceed. The study, “A Pace Not Dictated by Electrons,” involved a small group of participants who were attached to heart rate monitors as they used computers in a suburban office setting. The computers were equipped with software sensors to track how often the participants switched between screens. Participants worked in a variety of positions and were evenly split between sexes.

The results revealed that the people that checked their email flipped between screens twice as much and were in a constant state of “high alert” as they had more constant heart rates. However, those with no email – they were without email for five blissful days – were not perturbed by technology’s siren song and were observed to have more natural heart rates.

“We found that when you remove email from workers’ lives, they multitask less and experience less stress,” said UCI informatics professor Gloria Mark, who co-authored the study. The participants who had email felt a persistant itch to check their email and couldn’t help but scratch it: they flicked between screens an average of 37 times per hour. Those who had no email only switched screens about 18 times an hour.

“Email vacations on the job may be a good idea,” Mark added. Based on this knowledge of how email impacts people’s ability to stay focused, restructuring the way people communicate in the office could achieve a higher level of productivity. Mark suggested that one way to lessen the nag to check email so constantly was to bundle emails into a batch or even create an automated system that controlled how frequently an employee could log-in to their email.

One negative experience that participants reported was that, due to being disconnected from their email, they felt a bit isolated. If that may be too much for you to handle, Mark said that getting up from your desk and walking around a bit, maybe even visiting your officemates provides some physical rescue, too. Previous studies have advised people stuck behind a desk to do this anyways, as sitting down all day at your job is a deadly occupational hazard.

At what point did the appearance of doing work become more important than not only actually doing work, but producing quality work? In the past few decades we’ve developed this septic complex with how we approach our professional lives where we can never be attentive enough and can’t risk missing the latest memo to the point that our physiological response is a quickened heart rate. As the study discussed above, it’s also fracturing our minds to the point that we’re as focused as an over-caffeinated playground of second graders.

Some of us put in a mind-numbing amount of hours to the point that it’s actually counter-productive. We as imperfect human beings really only have about a good 40 hours to dedicate to productive work in a week. Our brains just aren’t wired for it. Yet we continue onward in spite of the fact that studies have shown that working more than 40 hours a week makes you a less efficient worker over both the long and short term.

So not only are we killing ourselves for our jobs, but we’re not even doing a good job at our jobs.

Say what you want about Google and Facebook with their various bad habits, one thing about them has seemed to remain true: they seem like amazing places to work. Facebook was ranked as the number one place to work in the tech industry in 2012 by due to the feedback from employees and if you’ve ever seen a video of what it looks like inside the Facebook’s Menlo Park headquarters or inside the Googleplex, it looks unlike any office you likely have ever worked in. Look at Facebook’s digs in this video and become filled with awe and envy (the Facebook feature starts at 2:08).

It’s like a land of really hip lotus eaters inside that place. So when it comes to the design and approach to work in the rest of the world, why haven’t we taken a clue from these companies?

With nearly every innovation that has advanced our society, we’ve adjusted and changed according to the technological potential of the time. We use computers instead of typewriters, we ditched land lines for cell phones, we send emails now instead of snail mail or inter-office memos. While the environment around our work lives has changed dramatically in the past twenty years, changed so much to the point that it’d hardly be recognizable to someone from 1980, why are we still structuring our jobs the same way we did two generations ago?

We’re literally killing ourselves by trying to keep up with the hare’s pace of technology by riding along with a turtle’s desperation.

I have been immersed in the social web for more than three years. It’s a big part of my job.  I teach about it. I consult about it, and of course I write about it. And here is a conclusion that I can confidently make: Social media marketing can be very, very difficult to do successfully.

Why force social engagement?

So why do so many people insist that we should be shoving social media down the throats of employees at every level of the company?  This is like forcing me to do accounting.  It would not be a good fit … I just don’t have that mindset.  Not every person has the right mindset, ability, or openness to succeed with social media but that doesn’t mean they can’t still fit in your company.

Of all the people I interact with on the social web, I would say I am most in-tune with Jay Baer. He is a true intellect and I highly recommend a regular dose of his blog Convince and Convert. But we disagree somewhat on this point.

I’m not picking on Jay … his viewpoint is widespread.  But his recent post Speak No Evil – Why Trust Isn’t a 4 Letter Word in Social Media, is a good focal point for the issue.

A hiring problem?

Jay concludes that “it’s everyone’s job to represent the company on the social Web” and that if you don’t have employees who can represent you, ”you don’t have a social media problem, you having a hiring problem.”

The underpinning of this hypothesis is that every employee should be both skilled and trustworthy on social media or you are not running your company well. This logic gets further twisted for me with claims that people are communicating stupid things to the outside world in emails any way … so why not trust them to put it out into public on the social web?  Seems like apples and oranges. Emails don’t go viral.  Just ask NFL player Rashard Mendenhall.

Should everybody tweet?

Jay uses the example of Mendenhall and his recent litany of tweets that were outside mainstream American thinking.

Let’s look at the Mendenhall example. Yes, he was out of step with mainstream thought.  But who isn’t to some degree? The man was hired to carry a football toward a goal line, not necessarily to “stay on message” during a news event.  So did the Steelers make a ”hiring mistake” because he sends out stupid tweets?  No.  The guy is one of the best football players on earth.

Part of the ”social media is for everybody” myth is that we should humanize our companies — trust people to be themselves and everything will be OK. Again, this is just too simplistic and disconnected from reality. You just might get what you ask for, as the Steeler ownership discovered.

I work with an extraordinarily gifted man who is one of the best sales people I have ever met. He is kind of “folksy,” maybe even leaning toward redneck.  But he is a perfect fit for his marketplace and there is nothing he would not do to serve his customers. The man is a star and he has single-handedly built up his business — he’s probably the most valuable employee in the whole company.

Putting this fella into the public social media spotlight 140 characters at a time would be a disaster.  I imagine his tweets would come across as incredibly embarrassing — taken out of the context of the individual and his environment. Does this company have a “hiring issue?” Of course not!  His customers understand and love his quirky humor but that doesn’t mean the whole world would.  Here is what I would say to him — “You just keep selling your heart out buddy. Don’t worry about Twitter.”

Uniform political correctness is impossible

When consultants pontificate that every employee should have enough common sense to be on the social web, what they are really saying is we need to hire people who are always politically correct. Which of course will create the most boring, ineffective companies — and who would even want to work there?  Not every employee has good judgment about everything — especially when we are turning them into public spokespersons.

Before you drink the Kool Aid on this perspective of “cover the world with social media,” ask yourself one question. Think about some of the best bosses and employees you have ever had. Would they take naturally to the social web? And if not, does that make them a bad hiring decision?

Let’s put this into a practical context

Theoretically I agree with Jay. But I think applying social media effectively requires business sense and balance. We wouldn’t force everybody into a sales role. We wouldn’t put everybody into the glare of the six o’clock news in a PR role. Why would we set an expectation that everybody should be able to have a role in social media or that is a sign that we have a “hiring problem” if we don’t?  Being adept at social media is NOT EASY for everybody. And we should be able to live with that human diversity.

Instead I think it makes sense to encourage social media participation in the context of the goals of the company, the available resources, the competitive environment, and the talents of the employees:

1. I agree with Jay that the PR or marketing department hasn’t cornered the market on social media greatness. Certainly employees can become online ”beacons” for your brand, but don’t force them to do it or dismiss it as a “hiring problem” if they don’t want to blog or participate in Twitter.
2. Acknowledge that social media participation is going to occur, sanctioned or not.  An explicit social media policy is a must.
3. If employees do want to be formally active on the part of a company, give them the training and guidelines they need to do it well. Explain how it connects to strategy and the implications of representing the voice of the company.
4. With the increasing importance of social participation, start adding this to the job requirements of new employees, if that is key to their role in the company.  For example, I certainly would not care if a star engineer doesn’t want to blog. You know, some people have to be about the business of actually making stuff.  Again — “context.”

What do you think?

So I absolutely recognize and appreciate the opportunity that Jay and others put forth, but I think this nuance is important –  It’s not that everybody SHOULD be a marketing voice for you company. It’s that everybody COULD be a marketing voice for your company depending on context.  This approach simply recognizes human diversity and that an employee can be extremely valuable … even if they don’t participate in the social web. What do you think?

Originally published at {grow}

This stemmed from a quip Gary had made to an event attendee who was asking a few times about the ROI of social media, to which Gary replied, “What’s the ROI of your mother?”

A throwaway quip, but one I thought was indicative of why so many people are confused (or afraid) when it comes to using social media for business. I said as much in the comments, and Chris Theisen raised an interesting point with his question: “Do companies actually measure whether each employee has a positive ROI on the company?”.

If they don’t, then they should.

What’s the point in running a business and employing the folks you need if you’re not measuring their impact? Questions you should be asking (and measuring) include:

• Does John the sales guy bring in enough sales to cover his costs? Great, he may be bringing in $100,000 worth of sales, but if they’re to 100 different customers and I need to hire more customer service advisors to handle their queries, John’s value immediately diminishes.

• Does Karen the customer service advisor upset my customers? She may be awesome in the office, but if she’s caused 10 customers to leave in the space of twelve months, and they each spend $5,000 per year, her salary of $30,000 per year is now actually $80,000 per year.

• Does Peter the marketing guy piss off fellow team members and lower their morale because he thinks he’s “all that”? If so, does that stop them doing their job properly and cost me sales, or quality service for my customers? Does it make my employees want to leave, costing me more money to train new hires (not to mention losing the team spirit that had been fostered before Peter’s arrival)?

These are just three examples of where you could start looking, and measuring the impact each employee has on your business. There are many more, and some that are unique to individual businesses and industries – but they’re good starter points, and a pointer for a full organizational development analysis. This can then tell you how to make sure your employees feel as valued by you as they are valuable to you.

If you’re not already measuring the ROI of your employees, then are you really measuring the success of your business?

image: TruthOut.org

Originally published at dannybrown

More WebProNews Videos

How strict are you when it comes to employee social media use? Have you taken the time to develop a social media policy? Guidelines for staff to follow? 

Deb Schultz, a partner with the Altimeter Group shared some advice on things to consider when crafting such guidelines in a recent interview with WebProNews. 

"One thing that’s really important to keep in mind is that this is all a very new exercise for large businesses or even medium-sized businesses," she tells us. "Companies traditionally deal very much in sort of ‘telling and selling’ and one-directional yelling – one to many. And really what the social web and social media is all about is an ongoing connection/dialogue/conversation. It’s a whole new way for companies to think about the role of the employee, their role in the marketplace, where they want to be, and so it’s very important for companies to think about what kind of connections do they want with their customers  - is it an ongoing one? Is it with all of their customers? Is it customer service-related? Is it product related?"

"Truthfully, at Altimeter, we don’t love to use the word ‘policy’ so much because it sounds very heavy and sort of legislative, and really it has to be about…" she adds. "Charlene [Li - founder of Altimeter Group] loves using the term sandbox covenants – I think about them as experiments, and it has to be fluid, so companies need to understand that the policy isn’t written in stone. It’s something that’s going to change over time."

The lines between personal and professional interactions are often blurred when it comes to social media. Even something as simple as a status update or a photo upload can be considered a representation of the brand, depending on the environment in which it is broadcast. For example, how public it is. 

"It has to be flexible," says Schultz. "It has to come from within the employees themselves and within the company and what works for the company, and it also has to understand that connecting and conversing with customers in a business context is very different than [in] a personal context in some regards because the motivations are different, but in other ways it’s really not. I mean the social web is about our human selves. It’s about being very real and transparent and open."

"It’s important for companies to realize also that since this world today – we’re all networked together – sort of weaving this global network of connections – understanding that…the relationship between company and employee and customer and employee is very porous," she adds. "So I might work for Altimeter and be a partner there, but I’m also Deb, and those walls are not as solid as they used to be, so that’s something that needs to go into it."

Part of being flexible is that there has to be room for growth and change. "The important thing is for them to realize that number one – it’s going to change," says Schultz. "Number two – it’s got to smart small. Number three is that it has to be very simple up front. It can have a lot of complexity behind it, but it has to be written in plain English. It’s got to be something that’s not just put on paper and thrown on the back of the website, but really discussed with employees, and allowed for a period of back and fourth dialogue around the issues, and most importantly – the best way to do a social media policy…is to use examples – case studies. For instance goes a long way."

"I always joke that companies are now in relationships with their customers, and relationships are ongoing, and every relationship is different," she says. "So examples, case studies – what does work – what we think is right – what we think isn’t right…doing this on your Facebook page/on your personal account vs. not. And the truth of the matter is, when I was at SixApart, we used to joke that blogs don’t get people fired. People get people fired. Let’s not blame it on the technology. Just blame it on a good set of standards, practices, and behavior."

If employees are the ones that the policy is constructed for, it makes sense that they should be very familiar with it and, and understand the implications that come with it. For that reason, perhaps they should be heavily involved in the creation of the policy, whether that come from feedback, or a more proactive approach. 

"The one I always love to bring up is IBM because they’re one of the earliest ones who actually asked their employees to write their social media policy for them," notes Schultz. "So it was a blank slate, and they said, ‘Ok guys, what do you want the policy to be?’ and they’re a really large company, so that’s really indicative. If IBM can have an internal process then anybody can." 

"I love the way they do it, and it really depends on the company," she continues. "Zappos is a really personal company, so they allow employees to really be themselves no matter what way, shape or form they are…regulated industries have a whole different issue. If you’re in the pharmaceutical industry or if you’re in the financial services industry, you probably have to be a little more cautious and careful about how you think about the role of employees and going out."

"And you also have to understand the way your company is organized," she adds. "So is it a very top-down company, very decentralized? Those are some of the things that I think about."

What are some of the things you think about? Do you give it enough thought at all? Share your opinions with us. 

Related: How SHOULD Employees Use Social Media?