Twitter.

For those who don’t know, Twitter is a social networking site that lets users post short updates about what they’re currently doing or thinking. Naturally, work is a common topic.

But poking around the site shows many users don’t understand that what they say can be read by not only friends and colleagues, but also bosses and HR. Updates range from the simple “goofing off at work” to more serious admissions.

Here are some examples of most ridiculous workplace Twitter gaffes, according to the online resume service ResumeBear:

1. “I used a new Autosend email feature last night on my boss. Completely fooled him! He called me this a.m. to thank me for working so late!”
2. “I’ve been sleeping with my boss for years and haven’t gotten a promotion yet. It’s not worth it.”
3. “I am currently trying to decide which disease to fake so I can leave work early.”
4. “Work was crappy today, my boss is a stupid idiot.”
5. “I lied about being sick on Friday, now I really am sick.”
6. “I hate the fact that they have Twitter blocked at my job … Gotta do it from my phone.”

What would happen if a manager at your company found a quote like those on an employee’s Twitter page? Is it grounds for firing? Or should the boss look the other way? Let us know in the comments section below.

That’s the question a Swiss insurance company recently had to answer.

A woman working for Nationale Suisse went home early because of a migraine. She told her boss she needed to lie down in the dark, away from a computer screen.

That’s why the manager was surprised to see that she was editing her Facebook profile that afternoon. The woman was fired for lying about needing to get away from her computer.

Many managers would do the same thing. But the story isn’t quite that simple. First of all, the employee did admit to logging into Facebook after she went home — but she said she did so on her iPhone, which didn’t exacerbate her symptoms the way a computer screen would.

Also, she attests the company unfairly spied on her by checking on her profile while she was out. The company claims a co-worker stumbled across it and let the boss know.

Either way, the woman says she’s not suing to get her job back — in fact, she wouldn’t take the job back if it was offered to her. “My trust in this employer is gone,” she told the Swiss newspaper 20 Minuten.

Was the company fair when it fired her? Let us know your opinion in the comments section below.

Here’s another story about employees who need a reminder that their bosses can read the stupid things they post online:

A teacher at Thomasboro Elementary school in Charlotte, NC, faces a possible firing over raunchy and offensive posts she made to the social networking site Facebook.

In the section for hobbies and activities, the woman listed “drinking” and “teaching chitlins in the ghetto of Charlotte.” The school is located in a low-income neighborhood and attended largely by minority students.

The teacher also posted pictures of herself and other female faculty members in sexually suggestive poses.

The worst part: On the site, the woman identified her employer and chose to make her page viewable by the general public.

She’s been suspended with pay while the school district makes a final decision about her continued employment, the Charlotte Observer reports.

Several other employees in the district have been disciplined for similar offenses, including a teacher who used a racial slur in his profile and another who announced, “I’m feeling p—ed because I hate my students.”

Legal protections?

Can employers discipline or fire employees because of what they do online? Yes and no.

There are no applicable federal laws, but several states prohibit companies from disciplining employees based on legal activities outside of work.

However, companies still have the right to protect their reputations and prevent harassment. They’ve normally been in the clear when there’s a link between employees’ conduct and their job performance.

For example, a teacher in Connecticut was fired after uploading inappropriate content to a Myspace page he used to communicate with students. He sued to get his job back — but the court upheld the termination, ruling that the Web page raised serious doubts about his ability to do the job (Cite: Spanierman v. Hughes).

Another case involved a police officer who was fired after he sold videotapes of himself stripping out of a police uniform. His lawsuit reached the U.S. Supreme Court, which ruled in favor of the police department, deciding employees could be fired for actions that are “detrimental to the missions and functions of the employer” (Cite: City of San Diego v. Roe).

The key for managers who come across employees’ embarrassing or offensive online exploits: Focus on the effects the conduct may have on job performance and take action based on legitimate business needs.

What embarassing online content have your managers discovered? Has your company ever fired an employee because of it? Let us know in the comments section below.

Crystal Bell, of British Columbia, Canada, worked at a spa for two weeks — until she woke up one morning to find a message from her boss sent via Facebook.

The news: She was fired for missing a staff meeting during her day off.

Bell thought the boss was joking, so she got dressed and went to work anyway. But it turned out the manager was dead serious.

Why fire someone through a social networking site? The manager explained she tried to call Bell, but couldn’t get a hold of her. And she didn’t want to have to fire her in person, “when other people were around.”

Have you ever heard of a manager firing an employee through an electronic pink slip? Is it ever appropriate to do something like that? Let us know what you think in the comments section below.

Take the recent example of a Canadian grocery store chain. Two of its employees were fired recently for talking about how they stole from the company on a social networking site.

Termination seems like a natural reaction when an employee admits to theft. But in this case, the employees had a defense: The posts were jokes. They never actually stole anything, and no one could prove they did.

The company didn’t buy it and stuck with its decision.

Fact vs. fiction

The story raises an interesting point: How can employers separate fact from fiction when they snoop online? If a worker or applicant brags about illegal or just plain stupid activity on Facebook, does it matter if it’s a joke — or is the fact that they were boneheaded enough to post it in the first enough to warrant discipline or rejection?

What about cases of mistaken identity? If someone has a common name, could it be possible you’re looking at someone else’s profile?

We’d like to hear from you: Do you go online to find information about your employees and applicants? If so, do you verify that info? And how do you use what you find? Let us know by dropping us a comment.

The facts: After suspecting that an employee had been submitting falsified expense reports, a supervisor confronted him. He admitted to making mistakes but denied any wrongdoing. However, after searching for his name online, the supervisor and HR manager learned he’d been fired from other jobs for similar infractions. Because of that, and some other discipline issues in the past, the company fired him. He sued, claiming they had no right to fire him based on what they found out on the Internet.

The employer said: All the Web search results did was confirm the decision to fire him. The guy had already racked up several infractions, and the findings let the company know that disciplining him again probably wouldn’t have been worth it.

Who won: The employer.

Why: The judge ruled that the employee was fired fairly, because he broke company rules several times. The key was strong documentation – and the fact that the search wasn’t conducted until after the employee violated the rules.

The not-quite answered question is whether or not a company can fire someone based solely on something uncovered through an Internet search. It’s a murky issue, but as this case shows, a good practice is making sure job performance is always the primary reason for letting somebody go.

Cite: Mullins v. Department of Commerce