Since yesterday afternoon I have had a number of individuals contact me to ask my thoughts on a situation which has occurred with The REC and their IRP LinkedIn group.
The facts that I can report are that at least two people have been removed from the group as posts they made “breach the sites protocol”. The individuals concerned were asking questions around the recently lost employment tribunal, the recent Chair issue and some other seemingly pretty minor concerns.
This is part of the REC’s response (made in the LinkedIn group):
…Unfortunately, as a result of persistent breach of this protocol two individuals have had their access removed from the group.
The REC would like to make it clear to all Members that this decision has not been taken lightly. We have engaged these individuals and written to them on many occasions. We also issued final warnings that they need to modify their approach or they would be removed. These have been ignored.
I guess what I can’t quite decide is if this is newsworthy.
Is it about freedom of speech and/or censorship? Are the REC avoiding dealing with these members’ concerns? Is it an issue which should be dealt with within the REC rather than in a public forum? Should disgruntled members just leave the REC?
What do you think?
Hi Louise,
I’m sure you might get a big response to this – if your blog post about a similar issue with the IOR earlier on in the year was anything to go by…
My stance on this is clear: If these members have been saying anything about the REC in public which is slanderous, then why haven’t the REC issued legal threats to these members, rather than just removing them from the group? We all know that should legal proceedings occur, everything has to come out in the open – and perhaps that’s what the REC is trying to avoid?
We’d expect these antics from the IOR who were still learning the ropes when they started out. I wouldn’t expect this behaviour from the REC however. If your own members have serious concerns, and want others to know about them – why not deal with them in public for all to see? If members have an issue with the REC, everyone should know about it. Has the REC not learned from the whole Twitter scandal of late… you cannot keep people quiet anymore!! Everyone now has to be extremely careful about how they operate their businesses, trade bodies especially. Their members, employees, clients, customers all now have a way to make their complaints public knowledge in a very quick space of time. There’s nowhere to hide anymore… which is the mentality that the REC seem to have. The recent AGM was the perfect opportunity for the REC to apologise for their recent behaviour and put the concerns of the Manifesto group at ease…
Instead, the REC have now made Martyrs of the Manifesto Group… and I’m certain that they will go on to regret this recent move. You cannot control free speech – to try to do so is futile and will result in an uprising. The REC members will vote with their feet, that’s for sure. Interesting times to follow…
Louise,
As one of those removed from the REC IRP LinkedIn site I can say from experience that I do not beleive I have written anything that could be construed as slanderous against the REC. I have raised questions that I believe should be asked and answered and the REC, knowing the answers would be embarrassing, have deleted my questions and failed to provide an answer.
Last time I looked, the REC was a trade membership organisation not a Limited Company being run for the benefit of a few shareholders. Given that most members openly admit to being so primarily for the use of the legal helpline plus there are many examples of ex-members that have not seen any loss of business as a result of leaving the REC, along with the ever increasing costs of being a member – I fail to see how the recent actions of the REC is going to help them grow.
Companies that don’t take a long hard look at themselves now and again are the ones most likely to fail. The REC is no different but they seem to be happy to blindly follow the leader without asking where they are going.
This issue is not going to go away however much the REC are wishing it would.
I seem to be the only one of the manifesto group not yet thrown out. Is that a good thing? Not sure I should post anything on the REC Linkedin group again.
I really don’t understand why REC are doing this. It looks like they are shooting themselves in the foot.
I recently attended one of REC’s “The Round” events, to gauge the climate at REC on social media – and it wasn’t even on the agenda. I was asked to call head office for more info, and left 2 messages – calls were not returned.
I found this strange as to many recruiters this is either a major threat (their corporate clients starting major social recruitment campaigns, recruitment consultants abusing online access to data etc…), or a fantastic opportunity (finding candidates and contacts has never been easier). I know this as it’s one of my roles to advise on this element – it’s very exciting / worrying time for many recruiters out there.
Some of my clients are either considering leaving REC or are not even members (and they’re pretty reputable outfits) – and their reason? They feel that the organisation is “toothless” (ie.naughty recruiters not kicked out of membership). Interesting that they bare their teeth in an online forum though – or maybe the opposite by removing the content and not dealing with openly?
It’s interesting that someone above my comment is one of those who made what appears to be innocent comments online and have been penalised for it… But surely what goes online stays online – and if you try to snuff it out, it resurfaces louder than before (hence this blog and no doubt the comments that will ensue).
I’m really interested to see how this continues to develop over the coming weeks. Surely the LinkedIn group is classed as a benefit of joining, thus those paying members not able to use the group are not getting this benefit?
(I help to run a member’s only national Directors LinkedIn group, and we have very clear guidelines about what can and can’t be said in the group – but we would never remove content unless it was offensive to other group members, and prefer to deal with negativity openly and in a way which does not mis-market the organisation.)
Is this incident a bit of an own goal?
There appears to be scope for REC to consider it’s social media policy, and the online tools it uses to engage with members not able to use the group are not getting this benefit?
(I help to run a member’s only national Directors LinkedIn group, and we have very clear guidelines about what can and can’t be said in the group – but we would never remove content unless it was offensive to other group members, and prefer to deal with negativity in a way which does not mis-market the organisation.)
Is this incident a bit of an own goal?
Phil: sorry, I should have also mentioned that I truly believe the manifesto group have NOT said anything which can be taken as slanderous. It seems as though the REC ate trying to claim that there could be damage done by the manifesto group – but if so, and they have genuine proof that what’s been said is slanderous, then you should call their bluff! Unless they take any legal action, it is clear that they know they have done wrong and are trying to cover up rather than solve their issues for all to see.
This is one of the main reasons why I do not believe that the REC or IOR are in any position to Improve our industry – not when they cant even prove that they have the right people leading those organisations.
If you want to make a difference, lead by example. Simple.
I am the 3rd of the 4 Manifesto Group Members terminated by the REC.
I can’t help but wonder how far the REC will go in this ridiculous attempt to shut down open debate, for although there are only perhaps 5 of us who have been regularly vocal, the Manifesto Group is, in fact a growing number of concerned Members. If the REC keep on deleting folk there will be very few left posting on the LinkedIn Group!
To clarify, the so called ‘Manifesto Group’ is not simplistically a number of grumpy old men and women or troublemakers as the REC would apparently have us believe. We are a group of passionate like-minded and long serving (and in some cases senior) REC Members who on the one hand are concerned about a number of things that have and have not happened in recent months, and on the other hand have put some pretty interesting proposals to REC. We ‘met’ through making similar comments on LinkedIn, then in autumn last year we tried to engage with REC and present our concerns and ideas privately and directly to the Council. Sadly at every turn we have either been snubbed or ignored. Eventually the questioning moved onto LinkedIn and the rest is history.
As I said in my ‘Last Post’, the one that saw me executed, expelling Members from the LinkedIn Group is a silly approach as discussion will only continue in the public domain, outside the confines of a closed Group limited to REC Members. This is exactly what is happening now. And, revealingly, the discussion outside of LinkedIn has not been started by any of the terminated Manifesto Group Members!
In our opinion, if the REC were to openly engage with the Membership it would show the organisation to be progressive and dynamic. Instead, rigidly enforcing the Group Protocol, stifling debate, and refusing to engage has served only to cause frustration and anger (which regrettably has become evident in some posts) and made the REC look like a Third World Dictatorship (another comment that got me executed).
If you are an REC or IRP Member and would like to know more about the Manifesto Group, please contact us on the ‘Manifesto For Change’ LinkedIn Group. We’d be happy to tell about our ‘Manifesto’ and the history of the past year. And, unlike REC, we welcome debate and *don’t* expect everybody to agree with everything we say!
Social networking channels are there for people to contribute and start discussions that are happening all over the world in all subjects matters. If you take away freedom of speech within social networking, this channel of communication becomes irrelevant, and almost pointless. Owners of the 2 hugest online networks: Facebook’s Mark Zuckerberg and Google’s Eric Schmidt have spoken out against talks of government regulation of the internet, warning it would be a bad idea, after the recent G8 discussions on matters such as internet regulation, privacy and copyright issues. Zuckerberg made an interesting comment which I will finish this response with “You can’t isolate some things you like about the internet and control other things that you don’t”.
Just posted this on the IRP site – but some former members will be unable to read it:-
People have different problems with REC. My main criticism is that years ago we had FRES, the previous name for REC and a separate organisation called the ‘Institute of Employment Consultants’ (IEC) for individual members. The two groups combined to form the current REC in 2000 (I think that was the year).
That was all ran very well until in 2009 the decision was made (by whom, why?) to split corporate and individual members again by forming the IRP. This seems to have cost the REC a great deal of money which resulted in increased membership fees. In other words REC spent a lot of members of money to get the organisation back to where it had been 10 years earlier. As far as I can see the split has not resulted in increased membership.
As far as I know the membership were not asked or consulted on this and I have never spoken with a member who wanted the split. Apart from increased fees (which resulted in us giving up our corporate membership) we also all had to have stationary re printed to change from FREC to FIRP etc.
Since writing this I have received another email from REC regarding new qualifications – you guessed it. The fees have increased substantially.
REC seems to have become an organisation designed to extract maximum fees from its members.
I, too, apparently have been thrown out of the Linkedin group. The REC has accused me of bringing the industry and the REC into disrepute for my posts on 30th June. I have asked them for copies of these posts as I feel that I did not put anything that did bring either them or the industry, which I love, into disrepute. To date, I have received nothing from them.
For those who don’t know me, I spent the years 2004 – 2008 putting together the strategy and spending huge amounts of my time, unpaid, fighting the AWD in Brussels and here for the REC and the industry in my capacity first as a Board member and then as Chair of the REC’s Employment Policy Committee. In 2008 alone, the REC had 18 days of my time. It is work which the REC gave me an Honorary Fellowship for. In my view, I have asked perfectly valid questions of the REC’s management, which they have failed to answer in many cases and which as a member I am perfectly entitled to ask. It is this, in my view, which has caused them to throw me out of the Linkedin group.
There are two issues here. Firstly, the REC is a membership organisation. The Executive are accountable to the membership. It is not down to them to tell us the members how they will run our organisation but for us to tell them and for them to listen and implement. Their strategy for social media currently leaves a lot to be desired.
Secondly, the REC are discriminating against their smaller members by the way it is treating myself, Ray Ellis, Martin Smith and Phil Harmsworth. We all run small agencies and find ourselves thrown out of the LI group for daring to ask questions repeatedly until we get answers. This could hardly be classed as bringing the REC or the industry into disrepute. In contrast, those large members who were fined by the government for price fixing, simply received a letter from the REC telling them not to do it again and were not thrown out of membership – but then, they pay a lot more into the REC’s coffers.
Ahh the good old REC. Blimey, are people still members of this archaic old organisation; besides staff of Hays, Reed, Manpower, and other influential corporates who plough many £1000s into the REC’s pockets each year for some kind of standards immunity?
– What if a leading figure in Hays had made such questions? – would they have been ejected?
– If the REC see it fit to remove these people from their exclusive members-only LinkedIn club; sorry; group, then why hasn’t it seen it fit to also remove their membership? – oh yes, of course… fees.
REC has been a champion for a corporate money-feeder for years, and chooses to ignore the smaller business owner. It doesn’t surprise me to subsequently learn that the ejected LinkedIn voices were small business owners/operators.
And as for their `social media responsibilities`… well don’t get me started on organisations such as the REC.
If paid members can’t make challenging public observations without censure, then surely their membership rights are invalid and their membership should be refunded.
As the first to be ejected I am extremely suspicious about the way in which this happened.
Some young gun appears (ex irp) extolling the party line, another who is an Regional Director (not employed by an agency) and not truly able to say he is representing us and a committee member reciting what looks like a script.
Very poor.
What my complaints hinged around were the timing of price rises originally.
I then locked horns with with an intransigent person who was actually working in a rolemusing powers when the tenure of her office was lapsed.
This brought me into conflict wig others and more issues came to light.
I have done nothing wrong except to fight for higher standards!
I think this is a slippery slope that the REC have put themselves on – once you start ejecting people from the LinkedIn group just because they are questioning things, it is difficult to know where to draw the line. Will they remove anybody who questions, not just the rising prices, but anything that might seem as if they are not conforming to everything the REC say? Where will they stop?
After the debacle with the IOR and all the build up of negative apprehension towards their launch that caused, I would have thought that the REC would not make a similar mistake and open themselves up for dislike/criticism.
I think that when you have an organisation such as the REC, you must be ready to accept the opinions, both positive and negative, of all the members or else risk isolating them and others.
As with any complaints, the way to solve them is to address them surely, not ignore them and hope that nobody noticed?