Back and Forth....

On my last post I was talking about the National Labor Board when writer Emily Bennigton on Monster that employers need to make sure they don't step over the boundaries and try to not hire someone or fire due to something on Face Book. She stated   "While many of the off-duty conduct laws were drafted to address an employee's use of tobacco off the work sites, many of them written broadly enough to encompass use of social media, blogging, or other online activities. In addition, the NLRA protects an employee's right to engage in "concerted activities " regarding the terms and conditions of employment. I decide to look into this further since I feel I didn't dig down far enough on this. 
So I went onto the actual site of National Labor Board and what it states is that "Even if you are not represented by a union, federal law gives you the right to band together with coworkers to improve your lives at work - including joining together in cyberspace, such as on Face book". Now this makes it sound like I am gearing towards the side of the coworkers that employers must watch themselves. But, I started to think about that statement from the NLB it's self that workers can ban together on social media and talk about a issue at work , but what if what they are talking about is a rumor not the facts? You could end up with a reverse law suit and the company going after the employee. This brings me the question should we just completely leave work out of the social media? But doesn't that mess with our freedom of speech? I could go back and forth and then we just end up with another issue that people are sue happy no a days.
I understand both side's have a point; on the business side we have to many people that are easy to vent on their lunch break on their cell phone, even if they don't mention the company name but under profile it does say where they work. Is that a total negative about the company? So much that they could be fire for slander? But then you look at, who has that much time to see a comment of someone and then go on their profile to see where they work? If a company sees it , is it because they were going through their employees social media? Again with my point of we could go back and forth all day long.
If this is such an issue of business's going to far and "snooping" in a sense, why isn't there more control of this? Now Maryland State, posted in NY Daily News has been the first state to make it illegal for an employer to ask for a potential employee pass word on the spot. I think though why would there actual need to be a law passed on that? Would an employee applying for a bank have to give the password to their bank accounts to make sure they actually can balance an account? But with anything we are having issues with we have to set guidelines. Also think about our freedom of speech like I mentioned before; is there a difference between putting a statement online vs. a protest out front of a building of the business? You don't see the protestor out front getting arrested, do you think because of how many people see Face Book that should give the right for the company to fire, not hire or sue? Also, if businesses are willing to have social media accounts themselves aren't they leaving themselves open for comments that are neccassaly true? Remember when someone would write a news paper and make complaint , but now it can cause damage at a blink of the eye for both sides of employee or employer.

Below is a few of articles of moments that this happen;
 Mashable
This one shows the difference between who is really right?
In the Above the Law

How do we keep the boundaries on both sides from going out of control?