Using
Social Media to Take a ‘Poke’ at Potential and Current Employees
Facebook, MySpace, Twitter – these are just a few of the
social media sites people use around the world to share pictures, reconnect
with old friends, and communicate ideas and thoughts about various topics for
discussion without repercussions, except businesses are now using information
gleaned from social media sites to make employment decisions. The dispute of using
social media sites like Facebook is not entirely new to the past couple of years;
debate over the topic began as far back as 2006, as educators and government recruiters
began to use it in employment decisions (Go). As more employers became
knowledgeable about Facebook, they decided to use it to aid in employment
decisions.
Businesses are using these social media sites as a basis for more thorough
research on potential employees, in addition to drug tests and traditional
background checks. These companies feel that by utilizing all the information
available to them, they can eliminate prospective employees that would be
considered a ‘bad hire’. They can also eliminate current employees that may
pose problems in the work place. With social media, they have access to more
information to make more accurate decisions. Various surveys have found that, “anywhere
from 18 to 63 percent of employers review social media sites to assess job
candidates” but that only, “7 percent of those surveyed in this country realized
employees might peruse the data” (Johnson). However, the use of
social media sites is debatable because it is often a violation of employee’s
rights.
Current
employees run the risk of termination for their behavior on Facebook is caught
breaking their company’s social media policy. Complaining about your job, your
supervisor, or other employees can lead to your termination. Employees have
been fired after posting comments about their jobs in a negative fashion, such
as the five employees at Hispanics United, a nonprofit in Buffalo, New York. One
employee posted a comment about something another employee had said and asked for
feedback from other employees, whose replies involved a negative discussion
about their workloads and working conditions. These employees were then fired.
However, in this case, the employer was in the wrong. After the case was
presented to an administrative law judge, the Facebook discussion was deemed as
a protected discussion under the National Labor Relations Act, and the five
employees were reinstated and rewarded back pay because they were not defaming
their employer, only discussing working conditions(Singletary).
The
National Labor Relations Act, or NLRA, is just one of the considerations that
an employer must take into account before using an employee’s behavior on
social media as a decision towards discipline. The NLRA “allows employees the
right to engage in protected activity without fear of retaliation. Workplace
complaints to other co-workers about terms and conditions of employment can
fall into the category of ‘concerted activity’” (Ackermann). Employers also
need to consider the NLRA when creating a social media policy to make sure that
they are not restricting the NLRA rights of their workers. This does not mean,
however, that employees can defame their employers or supervisors freely –
those actions would not be considered protected and will most likely lead to
termination.
Other employees, both potential and current, run the risk
of being judged by their non-work related activities, such as posting offensive
jokes and opinions concerning race, gender, sexual orientation, or other
derogatory remarks. Potential employees posting offensive comments about these
topics are likely to be rejected as candidates. Current employees, especially
managers, posting these comments may result in not only disciplinary action,
but losing their jobs and even lawsuits against them or their company of
employment. In February of 2012, a tweet
made by CNN analyst Roland Martin caused his indefinite suspension. The tweet
about David Beckham’s commercial was viewed as anti-gay insult and the Gay
& Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation insisted on Martin being removed from
the network and CNN quickly complied (Rhone). A radio personality in Atlanta,
Georgia, Chadd Scott, was fired from his position after tweeting disparaging
remarks about Delta Air Lines delays when the company threatened to pull their
advertising from the station if he did not stop the tweets (Rhone).
Potential and current employees are often viewed by other
content on their social media pages, such as pictures or posts about them
partying, drinking, or smoking. Employers should carefully consider whether
their state has laws that protect against off-duty behaviors that are considered
lawful activities. These laws protect off-work activities such as the use of
tobacco and alcohol, and union organization because these are completely legal
activities and can not be held against employees (Ackermann).
Another
issue that arises from the use of social media as an employment tool is the
access that it allows employers into the personal lives of its employees; much
of the information viewed is protected under anti-discrimination laws. Information made available on these pages
often discloses race, gender, religion, and sexual orientation, which are
protected classes by law and are not to be used in the hiring process (Mason).
Also accessible is an applicant’s genetic information and medical history,
protected by the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act of 2008, or GINA. GINA
provides restrictions on employer’s permission to this information so that it
cannot affect employment decisions (Ackermann). “If you have that information
and if it goes into the decision making process, that would be illegal,” says
Deborah Schmedemann, a William Mitchell law professor (qtd. in Phelps).
This
issue of access to information that is barred from employment decisions became
even bigger as companies are now pressing potential employers for their
Facebook passwords, which many view as an intense violation of privacy akin to
an employer asking to open a person’s mail or inspect their home before hiring.
By viewing all information available on a Facebook page, employers are putting
themselves even more at risk of viewing potentially discriminating information.
If a potential employee declines to provide the password or allow the company
access to their page while being interviewed, they are disqualifying
themselves. Various Illinois sheriff’s departments ask that potential employees
login to the Facebook page so their information is screened carefully. This has
caused so much controversy that two U.S. Senators, Richard Blumenthal and
Charles Schumer, are presenting a bill that would stop employers for asking for
login information. Facebook is also taking a stand against this practice, as it
violates their terms of service to share login information (“Employers go too
far”).
An
employer using social media in the employment process is understandable, especially
in jobs that concern the government, education, and public safety. These
employers only want use it to provide a better work environment because it
allows access to more information, helping them in their decisions to hire
employees that are dependable with good work ethics and avoid those with bad
work ethics or are involved in illegal activities. Not only is it helpful to
employers, it can help potential employees connect with a company. Social
networking allows employees to present a respectable image to employers, promote
their skills and talents, as well as previous work history, better than just a
resume.
In many cases, the use of social media often allows
for an unfair misinterpretation or infringement of the rights of current and
potential employees. Because of this, employees should maintain a social media
page that allows employers to see them the way they want to be seen as
professionals and avoid defaming employers; employers should limit their use of
social media as a tool in employment decisions or even consider discarding it altogether.
After all, employment decisions have been made for years without it and by
using the reliable process of interviews, reference checks, drug tests and
background checks, employers can hire dependable employees and not worry about
infringing on the rights of its employees.
Works
Cited
Ackermann,
Sara. "Labor: Who is GINA, and what does she have to do with your Facebook
page?." Inside Counsel (2011): n.pag. LexisNexis Academic.
Web. 15 Apr 2012.
This article from the Inside Counsel discusses the three laws that can hurt employers using Facebook for employment needs: Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act, the National Labor Relations Act, and Lawful activities laws.
This article from the Inside Counsel discusses the three laws that can hurt employers using Facebook for employment needs: Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act, the National Labor Relations Act, and Lawful activities laws.
Go,
Allison. "Facebook Follies Can Hurt Your Job Prospects." USNEWS.com
(2006): n.pag. LexisNexis Academic. Web. 15 Apr 2012.
This article discusses the need of student’s to go private as early as 2006 to avoid employment hazards due to their Facebook page.
This article discusses the need of student’s to go private as early as 2006 to avoid employment hazards due to their Facebook page.
Johnson,
Steve. "Those Facebook posts could cost you a job." San Jose
Mercury News (2012): n.pag. LexisNexis Academic. Web. 15 Apr 2012.
This article discusses concerns of both employers and employees about Facebook being used in the employment process.
This article discusses concerns of both employers and employees about Facebook being used in the employment process.
Phelps,
David. "HR and Facebook: It’s complicated; Companies that use social
networking sites to screen applicants could be breaking the law." Star
Tribune (2010): n.pag. LexisNexis Academic. Web. 15 Apr 2012.
This article discusses the laws that employers may infringe on when using Facebook to help in employment decisions.
This article discusses the laws that employers may infringe on when using Facebook to help in employment decisions.
Rhone,
Nedra. "SOCIAL MEDIA: With iffy tweets, job can delete." The
Atlanta Journal-Constitution (2012): n.pag. LexisNexis Academic.
Web. 15 Apr 2012.
Nedra Rhone’s article is about various instances and examples of how social media has caused individuals to lose their jobs.
Nedra Rhone’s article is about various instances and examples of how social media has caused individuals to lose their jobs.
Mason,
Joni F. "Myspace, Yourspace: What Every Employer Should Know." Property
and Casualty 360 (2011): n.pag. LexisNexis Academic. Web. 15 Apr
2012.
This article discusses the risks of using social media in the discipline and employment decisions and what laws may be broken, as well as considerations when drafting a social media policy in the workplace.
This article discusses the risks of using social media in the discipline and employment decisions and what laws may be broken, as well as considerations when drafting a social media policy in the workplace.
Singletary,
Michelle. "Can complaining about your job on Facebook get you fired?."
The Washington Post (2011): n.pag. LexisNexis Academic. Web. 15
Apr 2012.
This article discusses the case at Hispanics United as well as what would be protected and unprotected by the National Labor Relations Act.
This article discusses the case at Hispanics United as well as what would be protected and unprotected by the National Labor Relations Act.
“Employers
go too far by demanding passwords.” Chicago
Sun-Times (2012): n.pag. LexisNexis
Academic. Web. 15 Apr 2012.
This article discusses privacy rights, as more employers ask for passwords or want employees to login to their Facebook pages for screening.
This article discusses privacy rights, as more employers ask for passwords or want employees to login to their Facebook pages for screening.
No comments:
Post a Comment