| |
| META TOPICPARENT | name="SecondEssay" |
|---|
| |
<
< | The Merits Of Employers Monitoring Our Social Media | >
> | Should Employers Monitor Our Social Media? | | | -- By MattSavoff - 01 Jan 2015 | |
<
< | Be careful what you post. This new mantra which parents must reiterate to their children has become only more important. The rise in social media over the past decade has been accompanied by a rise in employers looking into these social media accounts of prospective employees as well as a rise in firings due to social media posts. Of course, this subject is of great debate and many advocates actually believe that companies should be monitoring even more. Those in support of more privacy argue that social media has nothing to do with work and should not be monitored unless the employer suspects that specific employee of wrongdoing. I subscribe to the belief that that when hiring a candidate employees absolutely should look into the person’s social media. Employers should monitor social media use of employees as well given the risk social media presents to companies.
Is Social Media Helping or Hurting?
In a 2013 survey conducted by CareerBuilder, 39% of companies reported they look into social media accounts of candidates. Of these companies, 43% uncovered information which nullified their interest in the given candidate. The two most common reasons found are the candidate having inappropriate or provocative pictures and information about the candidate drinking or using drugs. That being said, 19% of employers reported that they actually found information which made the candidate more attractive, such as the candidate portraying a professional image and good communication skills. With this knowledge in mind, candidates hold their fate in their hands. By knowing that there is a good chance your prospective employer will look into your social media accounts, you can strategically reformat your social media to appear more attractive to employers. | >
> | Be careful what you post. This new mantra which parents must reiterate to their children has become only more important. The rise in social media over the past decade has been accompanied by a rise in employers looking into these social media accounts of prospective employees as well as a rise in firings due to social media posts. Of course, this subject is of great debate and many advocates actually believe that companies should be monitoring even more. Those in support of more privacy argue that social media has nothing to do with work and should not be monitored unless the employer suspects that specific employee of wrongdoing. I subscribe to the belief that when hiring a candidate, employees absolutely should look into the person’s public social media such as Facebook, twitter, and even blogs if applicable. All three of these social media devices are meant for the public eye to see, or at least written with the knowledge and understanding that the public can see. Therefore, when looking to hire a candidate, it is important for the company to look at the social media platforms to see how the candidate portrays themselves to others, and how they would act as an ambassador of the company. Once an employee is hired, I believe that any monitoring of that person’s social media should cease unless there is a legitimate suspicion of wrongdoing. | | |
The Hiring Process | |
<
< | During the hiring process, companies certainly should look into the candidates’ social medias. Finding out more about the candidate and who they are is crucial for an employer because they are not just hiring the worker bee, they are hiring the person as a whole. This person becomes a reflection of the company outside of the office as well. Those who criticize employers looking into candidates’ social media accounts claim that it leads to discrimination by screening out strong candidates who may have done things the company does not like. When companies look into their candidates’ social media accounts, they are looking for legitimate reasons that the person may be a bad hire. Information such as lying about work or education history, publicly referencing drugs and other illegal activities, and harassment are all subjects of interest for an employer looking into a candidate’s social media. The company wants to find if there is anything about the candidate that presents a legitimate concern; hiring an employee is a large investment on the company’s behalf and they should fully look into the person before making a decision. A police department, for example, may reconsider an applicant if they find the person belongs to racist groups through social media. | >
> | During the hiring process, companies certainly should look into the candidates’ social media accounts. Finding out more about the person and who they are is crucial for an employer because they are not just hiring the worker bee, they are hiring the person as a whole. While I would disagree with a company asking a candidate for their usernames and passwords on grounds of a violation of privacy, I believe that viewing the publicly available information is a wise idea. An employee becomes a reflection of the company outside of the office as well. Those who criticize employers looking into candidates’ social media accounts claim that it leads to discrimination by screening out strong candidates who may have done things the company does not like. This is a fair concern, but when companies look into their candidates’ social media accounts, they are looking for legitimate reasons that the person may be a bad hire. Information such as lying about work or education history, publicly referencing drugs and other illegal activities, and harassment are all subjects of interest for an employer looking into a candidate’s social media. The company wants to find if there is anything about the candidate that presents a genuine concern; hiring an employee is a large investment on the company’s behalf and they should fully look into the person before making a decision. A police department, for example, may reconsider an applicant if they find the person belongs to racist groups through social media. Ultimately, companies should hire a third party to do this research and provide the party with instructions regarding what is relevant and what the third party should report on. This will help mitigate the human element of personal biases a person may experience when perusing an applicant’s social media. | | |
Now That You’re An Employee | |
<
< | Once the potential candidate is hired the company does have a legal right to monitor the employee, but they do not have a legal duty unless they legitimately suspect the employee of illegal conduct. Many states such as California and New York have laws in place to protect employees from being disciplined for off-duty activity on social media unless the activity can be shown to harm the company. This is an important distinction from a theoretical piece of legislation which prohibits employers monitoring what employees post on social media. Joe Hyman, a Labor & Employment lawyer and workforce.com contributing editor, argues that there is nothing private about social media. In large part thanks for social media, the line between the personal sphere and work sphere no longer exists, or at least is very blurred. Even outside of work, employees are still a reflection of their employer and therefore employers have a legitimate interest in making sure their employees are not on social media posting harmful statements such as racist or harassing comments.
Companies must also be vigilant in ensuring that their employees are not divulging confidential or proprietary information through social media. While a certain level of common sense may dictate that an employee will not post private information about the company publicly online, there are many tone-deaf people in the workforce who may do just that absentmindedly, which presents a great risk to any given company. Social media also presents a platform for disgruntled employees to badmouth the company, clients, or coworkers, which the company should be aware of. This can lead anywhere from workplace complaints to lawsuits, and it just be kept in mind that social media records can be subpoenaed and used as evidence in court. In an interview with Nancy Flynn of the ePolicy Institute, she cites examples of serious employee missteps in using social media. She discussed examples of hospital employees who have been fired from discussing patients on Facebook. This violates both hospital policy and the federal Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act. Flynn argues that “strict monitoring allows employers to spot potential problems early, get the information offline as quickly as possible and discipline the employees involved.”
It is a misconception that employers believe their employees are on social media with the intent of harming the company. In many circumstances, including other examples provided by Nancy Flynn, the employee’s activity is unintentional and it may not have been caught had the company not seen it and resolved the matter promptly. I believe that the rise in social media usage presents a burden to companies because social media has created more outlets of risk which companies have to watch. Because of this, companies should monitor social media usage of employees for the sole purpose of protecting themselves. Employees are already protected by legislation so they cannot be disciplined for their social media usage unless it directly harms the company.
Replace the words "social media" with "telephone." Are you now feeling charitable towards employers listening to employees' phone calls, just in case they should unintentionally injure the company? Replace "telephone" with "published writing." Are you in favor of employers monitoring the off-job publications of their employees in the same way?
I think this draft is really an exercise in not thinking. It uses technological pseudo-complexity to conceal from itself the question it is skirting: how much power should employers have to retaliate against or control the off-job speech of their employees? In the US, where the savage system of employment at will is the norm, and the best method for controlling abuse of power by employers at will, collective bargaining, has become almost obsolete, the very idea that it might be absolutely none of the employer's business, in the most literal sense, what the employee does with her constitutionally-protected freedom of speech off the job seems almost quaint, which is why you think you don't have to ask it. Asking the question doesn't mean answering it simply or in one way. Naturally the contractual restriction of off-job speech will be important to employers, oddly enough most important in speech-related businesses. But once we are discussing contractual bargaining the employer will pay for what it wants, often not only with money but with security against dismissal. Restrictions on "social media" activity by unionized teachers, for example, may well be important to school districts, and there's no doubt of the legality of such provisions in their contracts. But they are bargained for, and the people so restricted are also protected by tenure in the unrestricted portions of their public speech. | >
> | Once the company hires the candidate, any and all monitoring of that person’s social media must cease. By hiring the candidate, the company’s Human Resources department has effectively said that it approves of everything that it found on the candidate, including social media posts. Advocating that a company should monitor employees’ social media can be likened to advocating that a company should also listen in on employees’ off duty phone calls. While phone calls are private and social media posts are typically public, the sentiment remains the same. The bottom line is that, for the most part, what employees do on the internet outside of work has nothing to do with work, is done on the employees’ personal computers, and occurs outside of work both in time and place. Lewis Maltby, President of the National Workrights Institute, states that employers fire employees for reasons that have nothing to do with work. He cites examples ranging from people discussing political opinions or religious beliefs to a man fired because he wrote short stories which someone at the company thought were too violent and sexual. | | | | |
<
< | So in the end, I really think you're expressing opinions about unions, and about employer power, that you may not know you have and don't know you're expressing. Such opinions are called "ideology," and they exist so that power can determine your thinking for you. The best way to improve this essay is to de-ideologize it, by figuring out from the ground up (that is, from power up, because power is always the ground) what you think, making sure that you are not smuggling the received wisdom's assumptions into your bag at your own expense. | >
> | Aside from any moral implications of monitoring employees’ social media accounts, it is economically wasteful. A large opportunity cost comes with monitoring employees’ social media costs. Time spent doing this is time lost doing something much more useful to actually help the company. Many states such as California and New York have laws in place to protect employees from being disciplined for off-duty activity on social media unless the activity can be shown to harm the company. Legislation like this is important because legislators would be hard pressed to find a way to stop companies from finding a way to spy on employees’ social media, morally wrong or not. So at least employees have this protection now from getting fired for off duty social media usage, unless of course it can be shown to directly harm the company. | | | | |
<
< | | >
> | It is a misconception that employers believe their employees are on social media with the intent of harming the company. In many circumstances, according to Nancy Flynn, founder and Executive Director of the ePolicy Institute, the employee’s activity is unintentional. Instead of incessantly trying to monitor employees’ social media, HR should implement a course regarding social media usage for new hires. In this course the new hires can learn about the company’s social media policy and better understand what they can and cannot post. This would help alleviate the company’s stress that its employees are posting material nonpublic information inadvertently. Companies need to teach and trust their employees instead of keeping an ever present paranoid eye on them. | | |
|
|