Viral video about collecting likes from employees generates debate; see limits "If you have an employee who never likes anything you post, never shares anything from the company and never comments on anything, send them away." It was with this phrase that influencer and facial harmonization specialist Ariana Almeida provoked a wave of reactions on social media in recent days. ?? Do you have any reporting suggestions? Send it to g1 In the video, she argues that companies should value professionals who support the business beyond day-to-day tasks and states that the lack of interaction with the company's publications may indicate a lack of commitment to organizational culture. "A good employee is not just the one who performs the task. A good employee is the one who buys the idea, he is the one who understands that when the company grows, everyone grows", she says in the recording. The speech quickly opened up a larger discussion: the advance of companies into spaces that were previously seen as exclusively personal. ? If the profile belongs to the worker, can the company expect it to be used to promote the brand? Can liking, commenting or sharing employer posts be treated as a demonstration of commitment? And what happens when this engagement stops being spontaneous and becomes expected? Influencer Dr. Ariana Almeida's speech about firing employees who do not interact with the company's posts reignited discussion about work and social networks TikTok/ Reproduction Days after the repercussions, Ariana published a new video stating that her speech had been taken out of context. "No one is obliged by law to like my posts, the company's posts, share, but the company is also not obliged to keep those who don't have a cultural fit (...) The working relationship is not just about clocking in and leaving", he stated. The controversy, however, ended up bringing to light at what point does the company's management power end and where do workers' rights to privacy and personal life begin? For labor lawyer Elisa Alonso, partner at RCA Advogados, labor legislation does not impose on employees the duty to publish company publications and, although the employer has the right to organize and supervise the provision of services, this power finds limits in the fundamental rights guaranteed to the worker. "Expressions such as 'wearing the shirt' or 'defending the brand' do not authorize the company to demand behaviors that do not arise from the employment contract, nor do they justify punishments or unequal treatment among employees", says the lawyer. Below, find out more: Can liking publications be part of the contract? Can the company monitor employees' social networks? When can billing become a problem? Can the worker be warned? What if there is a dismissal? How to prove it? Can liking posts be in the contract? Elisa explains that, for most workers, using personal profiles to promote the company simply does not integrate the activities for which they were hired. "The employee is hired to provide the services inherent to their role, and not to demonstrate, in their personal profiles, alignment with the company's purpose." ?? This does not mean that companies are prohibited from encouraging this behavior. According to Elisa, it is legitimate to encourage employees to participate in campaigns, share the organization's achievements or contribute spontaneously to strengthening the brand. The difference is between invitation and obligation. "Turning this behavior into an obligation or using it as a criterion for punishment or threats can generate questions in court." But there are exceptions! In some professions, the use of social networks may be part of the contracted activity itself. This is the case of communication, marketing, advertising, content creation and social media management professionals. "Depending on the role performed and the terms of employment, the use of personal social networks may be part of your duties." Can the company monitor employees' social networks? If a worker publishes content on a profile open to the public, the company can view this material in the same way as any other internet user, explains the lawyer. This does not mean, however, that there is authorization for unrestricted monitoring. "The company cannot demand access to private profiles, request passwords or invade the employee's personal life." According to Elisa, it is also not recommended to use social networks as a permanent monitoring tool for behaviors that are not linked to professional activities. "The right to supervision exists, but it must be exercised with respect for the worker's privacy and personal rights." When can billing become a problem? In the expert's assessment, the warning sign appears when the company begins to associate digital engagement with staying in a job, the possibility of promotion or performance evaluation. "The problem arises when the company starts to embarrass, threaten, adopt criteria for promotion or harm the employee because he did not like, comment or share a post." Depending on the intensity and frequency of these charges, the conduct can be interpreted as abuse of management power and, depending on the circumstances of the specific case, even moral harassment. The expert emphasizes that the same goes for situations in which the company tries to associate likes or shares with notions of purpose, loyalty or belonging. "Linking the employee's commitment to the fact that he interacts with the company's social networks, treating this behavior as a demonstration of 'purpose', that he 'wears the shirt' or that he is a 'brand defender', can go beyond the limits of management power." Can the worker be warned? A warning based exclusively on the employee's refusal to use their personal networks to promote the company can be challenged in court, explains the lawyer. "If it is proven that the warning, negative evaluation or any other professional loss resulted from the worker's refusal to use their personal social networks to promote the company, the measure may be challenged in court." Depending on the circumstances, the worker may ask for the punishment to be annulled and, if there is embarrassment or loss, even compensation for moral damages. What if there is a dismissal? The situation is more delicate. Brazilian legislation allows companies to carry out dismissals without just cause, without the need to present a specific reason for the dismissal. This means that a company can fire an employee without even formally explaining why. Still, the motivation behind the dismissal can be analyzed by the courts. "If it is demonstrated that the dismissal was used as a form of reprisal for the employee's refusal to promote the company on social media, depending on the case-by-case analysis, there may also be discussion about possible compensation for moral damages." In these cases, however, the debate does not typically revolve around reinstatement to employment. The main discussion tends to be the possibility of compensation, says Elisa. How to prove it? According to the lawyer, this is usually the most difficult part of the process. Rarely does an employer officially record that the layoff occurred because a certain worker did not participate in the company's digital engagement. The evidence typically comes through messages, internal conversations, emails, corporate groups and witnesses. "Normally there will be some internal comment or, for example, a group that didn't participate in that may have been fired for that reason." Therefore, Elisa recommends that the worker ask for clarification about the reasons for dismissal. "The test is very difficult, but it can even be done, for example, by the person asking their boss why they were being fired and eventually registering that via message." Without documents, colleagues who have witnessed charges or comments can also serve as witnesses.