The difference between companies that WANT their employees to blog and companies that ALLOW their employees to blog

re: The difference between companies that WANT their employees to blog and companies that ALLOW their employees to blog

HeatherLeigh — Wed, 27 Oct 2010 05:35:09 GMT

Well, neither are actually "employees", at least not of Microosft. They are both employees of third party companies, so yes, both on contract. An "a-" is a temporary employee. A "v-" is a vendor and has been hired for a specific project.

Rates differ by agency, job, etc. So one doesn't necessarily pay more than the other. There are a number of factors on the pay. If you are considering either, just understand what the scope, term and pay rate are for the work and you should have the main info you need.

re: The difference between companies that WANT their employees to blog and companies that ALLOW their employees to blog

Suja — Tue, 26 Oct 2010 19:30:15 GMT

I still dont have a clarity about the difference between a A- employee and a V- employee... both are for contract... The only difference is that A- has to take a compulasory 100 days break inbetween projects.The rates differ between these.. Am I right ??

robhyndman.com » Blog Archive » The One Sentence Corporate Blogging Policy

robhyndman.com » Blog Archive » The One Sentence Corporate Blogging Policy — Wed, 05 Apr 2006 09:58:36 GMT

PingBack from http://www.robhyndman.com/2006/04/05/the-one-sentence-corporate-blogging-policy/

Corporate blogging policy : Don't be a dumb ass

LexBlog Blog — Sat, 01 Apr 2006 21:56:46 GMT

Dennis Kenendy picked up on a great discussion by Julian at EXCELER8ion and Heather Hamilton, publisher of the Marketing at Microsoft Blog. Julian concludes a suggested one sentence corporate blogging policy When blogging: better to be a smart ass than..

re: The difference between companies that WANT their employees to blog and companies that ALLOW their employees to blog

HeatherLeigh — Wed, 29 Mar 2006 18:28:41 GMT

tod-that is a good point. People working onsite through a vendor are actually managed by the vendor company.

If we had extensive blogging policies or didn't have the freedom to blog that we have, I probably wouldn't be blogging at all. Can't say that I would have a personal blog outside of work. I know it sounds strange for a Microsoft employee, but outside of work, I really don't spend much time online. I'm just glad you don't have to go the Dilbert route.

re: The difference between companies that WANT their employees to blog and companies that ALLOW their employees to blog

tod — Wed, 29 Mar 2006 17:42:54 GMT

Michael & Heather: In the past, I've worked as both a vendor and a contractor for Microsoft before becoming a full time employee. The relationship from Microsoft --> Vendor company A or Contract agency A --> employee can be a very complicated one. In SOME circumstances (emphasized because not all situations are the same) I've worked in, the Microsoft FTE who directly managed the work of a contract employee could not give direct feedback or reprimands to that contractor. Due to contractual requirements and legaleze the Microsoft mangaer was forced to go through the contractor's vendor/contract agency management. Additionally, the Microsoft manager had little control over whether or not individuals were hired/fired by the vendor/contract agency because of the contract.

A lengthy comment, but in short I'm trying to say that situations such as Michael's aren't always directly controlled by Microsoft employees or Microsoft policies. Often it is controlled by the vendor or contract agencies policies, which might be much more stringent.

Heather: With regard to the topic as a whole, if Microsoft did not have such an open policy I would probably blog as I do now, but withhold my employer's name simply to be cautious. All of the content would still be the same, but I would refer to my employer with some sort of goofy nickname like Dilbert's infamous "pointy-haired boss."

re: The difference between companies that WANT their employees to blog and companies that ALLOW their employees to blog

HeatherLeigh — Tue, 28 Mar 2006 17:22:15 GMT

Michael- well, we have all made dumb blunders (you are right about the hindsight!). I just don't want to profess to know anything about the situation. I think that when someone's work is terminated and that person has a blog, people assume that it's simply about the blog (meaning the company doesn't want them to have it) and it's always possible that it's not or that the blog is just part of it (which it sound like from your post). And then the blogger turns into a kinf of folk hero that people rally around. But again, I don't want to pretend that I know anything about that situation or make judgement about how it was handled (on either side) other than what I have read on your blog because I know nothing. I have to say that your self-criticism is realy admirable. We should all face tough circumstances (even based on a "dumb blunder") so gracefully. : )

Interesting Finds

Jason Haley — Tue, 28 Mar 2006 15:49:30 GMT

re: The difference between companies that WANT their employees to blog and companies that ALLOW their employees to blog

Michael Hanscom — Tue, 28 Mar 2006 09:51:41 GMT

APerson: Maybe it's just me, but I'd hardly consider two and a half years ago to be "recently". ;)

Heather: I was a contractor (3rd party, in fact...a temp employee contracted to Xerox, who ran the on-campus print shop for Microsoft). I did, however, do my best to fess up to making a rather dumb blunder (hindsight is always 20/20), and "grin and bear it," as APerson said.

If you're at all curious, my wrapup of the event a few days afterwards (and a few days into the publicity it garnered) is here:

http://www.michaelhanscom.com/eclecticism/2003/10/fifteen_minutes.html

re: The difference between companies that WANT their employees to blog and companies that ALLOW their employees to blog

HeatherLeigh — Tue, 28 Mar 2006 03:46:07 GMT

APerson-I don't know the person involved (who was a contractor, right?) or the situation. So I can't really comment on why the person's contract was ended or whether they were "nice enough" to "grin and bear it". Or if there was more involved with the story.

Tim-at least they say "please" ; )