Question about "diversity"

[Bucky Ball]

The question is, (and there may be a policy about this here), ... 
do you think people who have a very public intentional presence on the internet, including their work history, 
which includes their present employers, have a public obligation to act according to their corporate diversity policy when they create public posts with their names on them?
Just asking.
https://www.wellsfargo.com/about/diversi...inclusion/

[Silver]

No.

It's an infringement on one's private life to make such a demand.

[Ravenshire]

The question is, (and there may be a policy about this here), ... 
do you think people who have a very public intentional presence on the internet, including their work history, 
which includes their present employers, have a public obligation to act according to their corporate diversity policy when they create public posts with their names on them?
Just asking.
https://www.wellsfargo.com/about/diversi...inclusion/

If they are presenting themselves and their opinions as Joe of Bob's Widgets, yes. If they are presenting themselves as Joe Schmuck, private citizen, then no.

Having said that, how much you can separate your personal life from your professional life can be questionable. For John Q. Smith, it'll likely never be a problem (unless he works for a really nosey, asshole boss), but if Bill Gates makes a public gaffe, it may affect Microsoft's share value.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

[peripheral] When I was hunting deserters for the USN we occasionally had situations where the media wanted statements from me. I handed them off to the uniformed officers. However there was time when I killed a guy who was coming at me with a big ass knife. I NEVER shot to wound. I was in the back alley and alone when he jumped out of a second story window and charged me. There was a police hearing and I was supported by the neighbors who had been looking to see what I was up to. (White guy in soft clothes in their alley? Z'up with dat?) Unanimous support from them, the dude I shot was a major dick.

The point of the above was that it was a situation where I hadn't "composed" any statement and didn't have permission to make them if I had done so. When in doubt, "don't" is the rule I worked under. [/peripheral]

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

The question is, (and there may be a policy about this here), ... 
do you think people who have a very public intentional presence on the internet, including their work history, 
which includes their present employers, have a public obligation to act according to their corporate diversity policy when they create public posts with their names on them?
Just asking.
https://www.wellsfargo.com/about/diversi...inclusion/

Absolutely not. As Tomato said, one’s private life isn’t the same as one’s professional life (not should it be).

The exception would be if the employee is making public posts on behalf of the company or under company aegis. For example, an employee might complain about the number of gay people at her company in a tweet, but not post about an open position stating, ‘Only straight people need apply.’

Boru

[Bucky Ball]

The employee has been very public about where the employment is.
It is fairly common in the US for management level employees to be terminated for their imprudent use of social media.

[Astreja]

There are very, very few Internet posts under my legal name, which is sufficiently unusual that it would quickly "out" me. I've held fairly significant roles in a couple of workplaces and served on a few executive boards, and if you were to Google my RL name you'd find those roles and very little else. I keep my Internet rants completely separate from my professional life.

[Bucky Ball]

Thanks everyone for your valuable insights.
My grandfather sold his 4 (at the time) small "rural" banks to the company in question,
(he was a beloved small town banker who catered almost exclusively to first generation farmers).
Many of those families we still know and love, and talk to all the time. We know their kids and grandkids.
The "special" class of stock created for that transaction is now worth a fortune, (although totally inaccessible at this time).
It's offensive to many of us that a bigot is a known entity and posts on the internet and presents itself as an employee of the firm.
Whatever we do will be a totally private matter. Thanks again.

[Pat Mustard]

The question is, (and there may be a policy about this here), ... 
do you think people who have a very public intentional presence on the internet, including their work history, 
which includes their present employers, have a public obligation to act according to their corporate diversity policy when they create public posts with their names on them?
Just asking.
https://www.wellsfargo.com/about/diversi...inclusion/

If they are using their link to the company in any way, shape or form to promote themselves, influence the way others think or give weight to their opinions, yes. If they are clear that it is personal opinion only then not necessarily.

However, there are a couple of caveats to the second part, if the person is so closely tied to an organisation that their posts would harm it or if their posts are visible enough to adversely affect their work colleagues in work, then they should also be constrained by company policy in what they write.

[Angrboda]

And then there's Elon Musk