Tag Archives: security

Romney Adds Insult to Stupidity

02 Sunday Feb 2014

Posted by in Communication, Crisis Management, Opinion, Politics, Public Image, Public Relations, Respect, Travel

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , , ,

Mitt Romney

It’s Romney’s nature to be insulting, but couldn’t he just get a radio talk show so we wouldn’t notice him?

In 2012, Mitt Romney embarrassed himself and our country when he was asked about Security at the 2012 London Summer Olympic games. He could have said:

I’m not part of the security planning for the games this year, so I can’t answer that, but I those people involved in planning security for the games know what is at stake and I’m sure they will do everything possible to anticipate and address any security threats to the safety of the London Olympic games.

Or he could have just said:

I’m not part of the organizational committee this year, so I can’t answer that question.

Instead he said that he saw:

...a few things that were disconcerting……The stories about the private security firm not having enough people, supposed strike of immigration and customs officials, that obviously is not something which is encouraging.

He insulted Great Britain, the International Olympic Committee, the London Summer Olympic games, and cast doubt on the safety for everyone attending the London games. In the end, the London Summer Olympic games went without any security issues and Mitt Romney lost the election.

Fast forward to 2014. The Sochi Winter Olympic games have been overshadowed by fears of terrorist attacks as the games are being held near areas of recent bombings. In addition, the Sochi games have been notable in making Russian President Vladimir Putin’s friends rich and the games have been labeled as the most corrupt in history.

So what is business-oriented Mitt Romney’s response when he is asked about security at the Winter games. He could have said any number of things that would have made up for his past insult and avoided placing him in a position of judgement on Russia or Great Britain, but this is Mitt Romney, so he said:

I believe the Games will be safe…

SLAP! Without mentioning that he was wrong in 2012, he implies that the Russians know what they are doing and the British didn’t. Romney insults Great Britain again and suggests that he knows something he really doesn’t. He then says that he would be comfortable sending his family to the Sochi games. London was risky, but Sochi could be a family vacation? Ouch.

Great Britain, I sincerely apologize for Mitt Romney. But to be fair, you’ve had your share of badly behaved Royals. We are trying to make up for it with stupid rich people. I think we’re winning.

HR/Security Hot Topic: Should you watch your employee’s personal Internet activities? (Facebook, MySpace, Twitter, etc.)

28 Thursday Oct 2010

Posted by in Branding, Business, Communication, Consulting, Crisis Management, Customer Service, Employee Retention, Ethics, Government Regulation, Honor, Human Resources, Information Technology, Internet, Management Practices, Pride, Privacy, Public Relations, Re-Imagine!, Recreation, Relationships, Respect, Rotary, SEO, Social Interactive Media (SIM), Social Media Relations, Violence in the Workplace, Website

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

by Paul Kiser
USA PDT  [Twitter: ] [Facebook] [LinkedIn] [Skype:kiserrotary or 775.624.5679]

Paul Kiser

One of the hottest topics in the world of employment is whether or not an employer should monitor his or her Internet activities. This is a subject I’ve written about before, but it is an issue that is still emerging and has yet to have any significant case-law to provide guidance to employers.

It is well-known that a large number of employers perform a ‘Google’ search on the Internet before they hire an applicant, but now companies are feeling the need to continue to monitor an employee’s Internet activities after hire. Many experts, especially those involved in employee liability prevention support an employer’s right to monitor an employee’s Internet activities even when those activities occur off-duty and offsite. The logic is that it is prudent to aware of anything an employee might say or do that could embarrass the employer, or any indication that the employee might take an action that might involve the company and its facilities.

These are rational arguments, but I believe that monitoring an employee’s activities is opening the door to bigger liability issues. Sound odd? Here’s the scenario I see happening in three Acts.

Should the Employer be Big Brother?

Act One: A busy-body employer or manager casually checks his or her employee’s Facebook, MySpace, and/or Twitter accounts. The employer might even do a Google search on an employee from time to time. When the employer or manager finds something that they see as objectionable they confront the guilty employee and take the proper action. It becomes known throughout the company (and the employee’s family) that the employer monitors its employee’s personal Internet activity.

Act Two: An employee has been reprimanded for content they have posted on the Internet. Six months later the same employee posts information on the Internet that he  is considering suicide and describes in detail how he is going to kill himself. Two weeks later the employee carries out the suicide as described. The family is aware the employer monitors the employee’s Internet activity and sues the employer claiming that the employer should have reasonably been aware of the planned suicide and taken action.

Act Three: Companies find themselves with two polar opposite choices. Either the company does not monitor their employee’s Internet activities or the company assigns resources to constantly monitor the Internet on every employee to insure they capture any relevant data for which the company should take action.

I was trained in Human Resources under the policy that what the employee did on her or his own time was off-limits to the employer unless it had a direct impact the job performance. That policy has had to be adjusted in a world where work and off-duty time can often be hard to differentiate, and where drug testing, researching credit scores and background checks have become standard operating procedure for many companies. However, an employee’s personal Internet activities is almost impossible to track in a society that is increasing involved in hours of daily online social networking. The question is whether an employer wants to be liable for monitoring its employees 24/7/365 and being held responsible for taking the appropriate action, or whether the employer would be better served by not being sucked into liability issues that can be avoided by simply not playing the role of Big Brother ?

I know which strategy I would recommend to my clients.

More Articles

Business: Public Relations, Management, and Social Media Related

Rotary Related

Science Related

Personal Experience Related

Our Country and History Related