Social Media - Do you take it to work?

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Cody W. on July 3, 2009 at 8:45am

There is a time and a place for "social networking". But from the time a unit is dispatched to the time it is placed back in service are total no-go times for twittering, facebook, etc. The priority is taking care of the patient and doing your job, not making sure everyone you know is aware that you are doing that. If this does not make clear perfect sense to someone, re-evaluate your priorities.
Having said that, down time is down time, but there are far better ways to utilize the time between calls than "networking". But keep in mind that while nothing is going on and you are tapping away on your iPhone, that it does not project the best image for you to your co-workers, nor does it project the best image to the general public.
Just my $.02

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Dave Konig on July 4, 2009 at 9:31am

To be honest Asysin2leads, I agree with you regarding the amount of "noise" that social media can generate. However I think that noise and the filtering of it is up to the end user. For example I personally don't follow more than 200 people on Twitter because if it grows beyond 200 I tend to miss things from important people. While there are Tweetdeck advocates who would say just place all the "important people" into a separate column, well that's just smoke and mirrors and those not placed in that column would end up being ignored entirely. So the people I follow are people who are a) interesting b) people I have connections with and c) trusted sources of information.

Ultimately, it is being a trusted source of information that is important. To expand upon your example, sure there were plenty of rumors on the morning of 9/11. Being on Albany Street between South End Avenue and West Street that morning we contended with not only the rumors of additional attacks, bombed bridges, bombed tunnels, and so on but we did so with a communications blackout since there was no cell service or radio repeaters in the area post collapse until the early afternoon. The rumors were coming in through word of mouth, but were quickly dispelled when Chief John McFarland made his way through the area. He was recognized as a trusted source of information. So instead of generally branding all social media as non-trustworthy, EMS Agencies should be taking the lead and become trusted sources of information in social media themselves.

As someone who is technologically proficient I am sure that you are then using the FireFox web browser with AdBlockerPlus. While technology has advanced to slow if not completely stop the spam advertisements, the pop-ups, and the sites that attempt to infect your computer with viruses... these malware attempts will undoubtedly evolve as well and it will not take a visit to a site to do it. Sure there are risks involved, but I am not endorsing the idea that an agency be providing the hardware and software to do these activities. I am simply advocating that EMS Agencies pull their head out of the proverbial sand and address these issues before they find themselves confronted with it.

Oh, and as to what my answer would have been had you used your wiseass answer regarding reading JEMS... your bathroom solution is called a Kindle and if you haven't heard of it I suggest you snuggle with your hard copies now... because the Kindle and the further evolutions of e-readers are the DNR for traditional print media... at least in my opinion.

asysin2leads said:

Dave, I think you're still missing something. Social networking sites can indeed bring information to a person very quickly, more quickly than phone calls or the news. However, given the fact that pretty much anyone, and I mean anyone, can create an account and start sending messages, the raw output of social networking sites is pretty much useless. It is the opinions, conjectures, theories, hopes, dreams, and fantasies of millions of people, and a few useful facts sprinkled here and there. How are you supposed to take seriously any information that comes to you that's wedged between offers for penis enlargement and your latest score on Mafia Wars? You can't. Anybody can send anything, and that means, you can receive anything. Its like Wikipedia. Sure, there's some interesting reads, but I wouldn't use it to do a research paper or base a decision on the information provided. One of the biggest challenges in a disaster scenario is to start sorting out what is actually going on, given the sheer volume of input and information coming in. The last thing you need is for people to start Twittering with what they think is happening and then going on that information. This why we have protocols for dissemination of information. This why we have ICS. For every one instance where someone might get the right information at the right time from a social networking scenario, I can pretty much guarantee you that you'll have 20-30 instances where people get the wrong information, and possibly offers for cheap Xanax and Viagra. To be blunt, even if information about a plane crash, or earthquake, or water rescue, came in before the 911 calls did, no one in their right mind would go sending resources to it, and if you think that you're going to go take the ambulance around the corner because of a text message or a Twitter you got, you really need re-examine your take on the world. On 9/11, there were thousands of conflicting reports flying about. Bridges being blown up. Suicide bombers in ambulances, missile launches, you name, it someone was talking about it. If we start acting on those same sound bites of information just because they come through social media, we will be in a lot of trouble.
You asked me about what the difference between JEMS online and in print is, and while my wiseass answer would be something along the lines of having to lug the computer into the bathroom, my actual answer is that there is very little chance of the JEMS magazine downloading a virus or a worm that could possibly cripple the network that is vital to EMS operations, and the ability to click on a page of JEMS and have it instantly change to pictures of the Dallas Cowboy's cheerleaders topless has yet to be proven. I don't think a copy of JEMS has ever provoked an EEO complaint, but I'm pretty sure the same computers that were used to access JEMS probably have here and there. I don't say these things because I'm a technophobe. I'm actually technologically very proficient, and that's what I base my opinions on, not because of what I don't understand, but because of what I do understand. Keep social media for sports scores and Hannah Montana updates.
Dave Konig said:

Asysin2leads allow me to first emphasis the fact that I am not endorsing nor promoting the use of mobile devices inappropriately during calls/runs. With that said, I vastly agree with you in that we are responsible for providing an acceptable, and as safe as possible, work environment. Not a Club Medesque environment as you have indicated my intent was.

However I have to ask what the difference is between a responder reading a physical copy of JEMS Magazine or reading an electronic copy of JEMS Magazine is? If you are going to permit someone to read a magazine, trade or otherwise, then how do you tell the same person they can't read the latest news or related content online through their personal device? Once again, I am not talking about during calls/runs. I am talking about the time inbetween when you may be parked on a street corner or sitting in the station kitchen with a lack of chores or duties to perform. I also think that we are disconnecting in our opinions between the term social networking and social media. These are two separate things. Specifically in our line of work, it is quite possible that we may learn about an incident from the Social Media outlets before our own dispatchers. Earthquakes in California, the plane landing on the Hudson River, and the delays on the Washington DC Red Line due to the crash were all reported through Social Media and quite often before actual 911 calls were dispatched. So is there a place for social media at work? Considering the instantaneous ability to connect with one another, our jobs and our agencies definitely have a place in social media.

Fifteen years ago everyone carried a pager on a hip and only the richest had a cellphone that could be carried in a backpack. When your pager went off you found a payphone or a landline and called back the number, and this was the norm. As cellphones became smaller than a VCR, with better functionality and reliability they gained popularity and a mere 5 years later that cut the pager market by 50%. Then 5 years after that phones were no longer just for making phone calls but also for sending e-mails, and now 5 years later they have been able to fit the entire Internet onto a cell phone. This type of accessibility has now become the norm and ingrained in the culture coming up to the point that there is a stong likelihood that your responders under the age of 35 do not have a landline phone from the phone company.

What it is that I am advocating is that EMS Agencies take the responsibility to recognize the shift in culture from where they recruit. Before going through EMT training candidates do not necessarily know that we expect them to take a blood pressure, pulse, AND respirations. They learn our expectations through the dissemination of information in education. Before going out on calls/runs we need to disseminate our policies regarding the use of mobile devices (for both online and non-internet related functions) and educate them on our expectations regarding the use of social media that has become the norm to them. To penalize responders when we have failed to make our positions clear is irresponsible.

However, and to get this post back on topic, adopting a draconian policy regarding Social Media may not be in an agency's best interest. An agency that adopts such a policy may have a hard time enforcing, and may be viewed negatively by those who involve themselves in the medium which is where opinions, en masse, are formed.

asysin2leads said:

Dave, I think you are confusing "making sure employees have an acceptable working environment" with "caring for their providers". Caring for your providers is making sure they have the necessities of a good work environment, access to facilities, time for meals if possible, adequate staffing to ensure appropriate time away from work, etc. Caring for your providers does NOT mean making sure they have everything they want. I may want my own personal masseuse, but I'm not going to get it. There is no reason, nor necessity, for interaction with social networking, by computer or by phone, while you are at work. Cell phones, as much as I don't like using them, have proven their usefulness, when properly implemented, at work. You can contact an employee in the case of radio failure. Those of us with families enjoy the little extra piece of mind we get from having to leave home for long periods.
Social networking, on the other hand, is purely recreational, and any recreation you are able to achieve, while on duty, being paid, is an absolute privilege, and no manager or supervisor should ever have to reach a middle ground on it. You are not the center of the universe. You are not special. You are not a movie star. The world will go on if you are out of contact with your friends for the couple of hours a day you are at work. And if your work requirements, in your opinion, take too much of a toll on your social requirements, then you need to find another job. I would suggest becoming independently wealthy. Then you can have all the time to network you want.
Revolutions are not necessarily a good thing. You might see "social networking" as the next big thing, but others, such as myself, see it only as one more nail in the coffin of the productivity of the American workforce. But if you'd like to run a company, based on the opinions of people on Twitter, go right ahead. Personally, when I read some of the comments on Youtube, or Facebook, or Twitter, I just shake my head and wonder how some people are able to walk and breathe at the same time. However, if you really want to say "NO! These people's opinions are important!", and live your life and base your livelihood on what they think, go for it, you are braver man than I.

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Skip Kirkwood on July 4, 2009 at 10:35am

For all of you technologically proficient out there:

Please don't copy the full text of the whole thread with your message. It just clogs up the page and makes the thread harder to follow. Use the outer-most "reply to this" and the problem goes away. If you must quote another writer, just quote the sentence that you need - not the whole freakin' thing!

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by asysin2leads on July 4, 2009 at 7:42pm

To save bandwidth, I'll quickly rehash what you said. You said the key for social media communications to work is to that it be a trusted source of information. That is the key phrase there, "trusted source of information", and so long as social media is set up the way it is, Facebook, Twitter, Myspace, etc, can not be relied on to be a "trusted source of information" when it comes to making operational decisions. I'm not advocating the ignorance of technology, in the right circumstances, sending a mass text message out to people in the field from a central source could be extremely valuable. However, suggesting that using information from social media with no verification or authentication sounds like a great way to really screw up a situation. In an MCI situation, professionals following orders and protocol make the difference between a catastrophe and a disaster. Any military tactician or historian can tell you that a great way to screw up the other side is to disseminate conflicting and confusing orders over the communications of the enemy. This is basically what you are suggesting when you say that we could save time by responding to plane crashes or earthquakes based on social media. Its not a good idea. I mean, lets take your example of 9/11. Let's say you're an outside responder without any idea of who is who or what is what. You get a couple messages almost simultaeneously:

#1: AS PER EMS CHIEF MCFARLAND NO EXPLOSIVES FOUND, PROCEED NORMALLY
#2: COMMISSIONER JONES FROM TASK FORCE 917 STATES SEVERAL IEDS FOUND, STAGE AT SAFE AREAS AND AWAIT INSTRUCTION
#3: MICHAEL JACKSON MURDER OR NATURAL? WATCH EXCLUSIVE ON ET
#4: WHAT ARE YOU GUYS DOING THERE I SEE YOU ON THE NEWS LOL TXT ME BCK

Now, unfortunately, Commissioner Jones is the self-elected head of his newly founded Task Force 917, which is a group of guys with some CERT training who get together every weekend to play paintball and drink beer. He has not the first clue what is going on but saw a strange looking oxygen cylinder and got scared. However, because of the nature of social media, his message gets just as much credence as Chief McFarland's. Now, add the fact that there is one Chief McFarland, and several iterations of Commissioner Jones at work all sending their own messages, and you can see what would happen.
BTW, the reason cell phones didn't work wasn't because of the repeater, it was because the lines were clogged with people making phone calls. This is what a flood of non-essential information will do to the flow of essential information.

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Nathan on July 4, 2009 at 8:02pm

You cannot tell someone that they cannot access "social sites" while in their downtime on their own devices! Let me emphasize DOWNTIME. If there is something that you need to be doing, should be doing or could be doing, save the texts for later. But if all your chores are done.......... why not!? Sure you probably could be doing something more useful with your time, but thats where being a RESPONSIBLE ADULT comes in its your decision! Make wise decisions and if you dont than you get fired...... Blanket rules based on the problem of one or two people are almost never a good idea.

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Joe P. on July 4, 2009 at 11:26pm

In a lot of services responsible adults are few and far between. What ever happened to understand that the people who are buying your time can set restrictions on what you can do?

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by asysin2leads on July 4, 2009 at 11:46pm

nathan said:

You cannot tell someone that they cannot access "social sites" while in their downtime on their own devices! Let me emphasize DOWNTIME.

Let's pretend I'm your boss. Ahem. "Nathan, I'm your boss. Stop accessing social networking sites on your downtime or your fired." In other words, so long as you are at your station getting paid, in uniform, your supervisors CAN actually tell you what to do. At least that's what they keep telling me. Downtime is not free time. Free time is at home, possibly in underwear eating Chinese food.
Again, I read some of these posts and just shake my head as what passes for EMS structure in some parts of the country. We once had to fight tooth and nail to keep pictures on the inside of our lockers in the name of preventing EEO and harassment suits, and here in some places some people don't get what the big deal of sexting during downtime is. What a country.

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Gul Dukat on July 4, 2009 at 11:50pm

About 5 years ago our family took a trip to Washington D.C. for Memorial Day weekend. We went to the Memorial Day concert at the steps of the Capital building. All along the bottom of the steps were probably about 150 uniformed Police Officers forming a human barricade between the public and the Capital. I stopped counting after 50 the number of officers who were on their cell phones.

I thought to myself at the time, my how times have changed. Can you imagine this happening just 10 years before that? The funny thing, to me anyway, was that I was probably the only person who even thought anything about it.

We have recently had to update our Cell Phone/PDA policy. You would think that I would not have to type the words “Do NOT text while driving”, but I honest to God had an employee tell me not more than a month ago that he didn’t think it was wrong because our policy only covered using the phone portion of the cell phone.

AAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!

I felt like Andrew Jackson at the moment and wanted to hang the first man I saw to the first tree I could find.

Honest to God, how dumb do you have to be to not understand that you shouldn’t be sending/receiving text messages while driving your own P.O.V. let alone an oversized vehicle that is using Red lights and sirens in an urban area.

Sorry, had to vent there.

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Joshua Todd on July 5, 2009 at 4:47am

I think this all comes back to a basic level of trust in your personnel. If you cant trust your employee to drive safely by not texting or provide a patient with their full attention then they probably shouldnt be entrusted to provide them medical care. How specific do you plan on making your policies? We have a new policy that prevents you from falling asleep in the day room and requires that if you do choose to go lay down in one of the beds you must use a blanket. When is this silliness going to end? Write a policy that outlines your expectations that your crews will be proffessional, safe, courteous etc. But dont micromanage through written policy's.

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by TheCannulator on July 5, 2009 at 5:29am

What a crock of shyte.

Now we'll have to hold in farts unless given permission too?

asysin2leads said:

nathan said:

You cannot tell someone that they cannot access "social sites" while in their downtime on their own devices! Let me emphasize DOWNTIME.

Let's pretend I'm your boss. Ahem. "Nathan, I'm your boss. Stop accessing social networking sites on your downtime or your fired." In other words, so long as you are at your station getting paid, in uniform, your supervisors CAN actually tell you what to do. At least that's what they keep telling me. Downtime is not free time. Free time is at home, possibly in underwear eating Chinese food.
Again, I read some of these posts and just shake my head as what passes for EMS structure in some parts of the country. We once had to fight tooth and nail to keep pictures on the inside of our lockers in the name of preventing EEO and harassment suits, and here in some places some people don't get what the big deal of sexting during downtime is. What a country.

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Dave Konig on July 5, 2009 at 8:05am

Asysin2lead, while I believe we have once again wandered off topic, I don't believe you actually understand the true nature of social media. Social media is not just a simple push of information indiscriminately, it requires you to opt-in to receive that information. For the sake of berevity and the scroll wheel deficient reading this thread I'm just going to go with the example you gave and let's say these are from a Twitter account they would actually read something like this:

#1 FDNY (a Twitter Verified Account): AS PER EMS CHIEF MCFARLAND NO EXPLOSIVES FOUND, PROCEED NORMALLY
#2 NYCBuff :COMMISSIONER JONES FROM TASK FORCE 917 STATES SEVERAL IEDS FOUND, STAGE AT SAFE AREAS AND AWAIT INSTRUCTION
#3 ETOnline : MICHAEL JACKSON MURDER OR NATURAL? WATCH EXCLUSIVE ON ET
#4 917-C-Platoon-Partner: WHAT ARE YOU GUYS DOING THERE I SEE YOU ON THE NEWS LOL TXT ME BCK

Out of the 4 messages above, I can identify one of them as coming from a trusted source. Having a Verified Twitter account, such as the one the Los Angeles Fire Department has, gives validity to the messages from that account. As for the other three accounts, since I've opted-in for their messages I know that their trust level does not exceed that of the first account. I can then proceed normally, and if time allows I can make sure the ketchup stains from lunch are hidden under my turnout coat, quickly set my DVR remotely to record the ET show, and message back my C Platoon that he should call in to the Resource Desk because we may need him. The truth is that the key for ANY communication during a crisis to be effective is that it needs to come from a trusted source, not just communication from Social Media.

So now just to clarify over the entirety of this thread, I am not endorsing Responders using their mobile devices for Social Media while on assignment, I am not advocating EMS Agencies selling off their portable radio systems to invest in Blackberries for their Responders to use Twitter for intra-agency communication, and I am not supporting the use of masseuses while Responders play Mafia Wars on agency computers. What I AM advocating is that EMS Agencies be responsible and recognize the shift in culture of those they are now bringing onboard and be prepared to explain the Agency's position on these type of activities. I am also supporting the idea that EMS Agency's do not have to be draconian in their policies, since policies such as that tend to be viewed negatively in the forum where opinions are created and spread. Finally, I am endorsing the idea that EMS Agencies themselves should become engaged in Social Media. Constantly people complain about a lack of respect, how EMS is often forgotten, and how the media seems to attack us more than it seems to help us. If EMS Agencies accept the responsibility to engage in Social Media, become a trusted source of information, become advocates for themselves, and commit to a better relation with the up and coming generation then a myriad of problems are no longer at the forefront of our minds and we can devote energy to other areas that require attention.

And finally just to address the technological issue about clogged phone lines, it was actually the loss of the cell tower and the repeaters that caused the communications blackout. Even had the landlines and cell sites been jammed, my phone would have shown having service although connecting would not have been possible.

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by asysin2leads on July 5, 2009 at 3:45pm

I still think basing operational decisions based on whether Twitter verifies your account or not to not be a particuarly sound security measure.

▶ Reply to This

▶ Reply to This

• First
• Previous
• Next
• Last