Computers & Technology >
Internet Trends
Get a Widget for this title
RSS FeedShould employers be allowed to use MySpace, YouTube and Facebook accounts as a basis for hiring or firing employees?
Results so far:
| Yes | 31% | 324 votes | Total: 1041 votes | |
| No | 69% | 717 votes |
Yes
Write now
Print
Invite a writer™
Add to FavoritesWhen I first saw the question, "Should employers be allowed to use MySpace, YouTube and Facebook accounts as a bais for hiring or firing employees?", my first instinct was to vote "no". But then I thought about it and realized that in some jobs, things that are posted on social networking sites could be very damaging to an employer's reputation, which could hurt their bottom line. In other jobs, being indiscreet on a public Web site could actually cost someone their life.
Take, for instance, the U.S. military. People who are in the military are expected to be discreet about their actions and whereabouts. They even have a special term for it- OPSEC- which stands for Operations Security. Servicemembers are required to practice OPSEC and not disclose details about anything that could be construed as intelligence to the enemy. OPSEC is vital for a successful mission and for the safety of everyone in the military. Servicemembers and their families are always aware of the fact that whatever they say or do in public, on the telephone, or on the Internet can be observed by the enemy. Posting inappropriate videos, pictures, or information on a social networking site is certainly grounds for dismissal because violating the OPSEC policy could cost the mission or get someone killed.
I can also think of a non-military example of how being indiscreet on the Internet can cost someone a job. Not long ago, I was watching a reality show called "Making The Team". The show was about trying out for the Dallas Cowboys Cheerleaders, a very image conscious organization. The women who become Dallas Cowboys Cheerleaders are expected to be beautiful and sexy, but classy. The Dallas Cowboys Cheerleaders draw a fine line between being sexy and being slutty. On one episode, a trainee was dismissed because she had posted pictures of herself on MySpace performing at a wet t-shirt contest. The directors had already expressed concern to this young woman that she looked like she could have been a stripper. They had made it clear that they didn't want any cheerleaders on the squad who looked like they could be adult entertainers. When the directors found the trainee's pictures on MySpace, their suspicions about her were confirmed. They dismissed the trainee as a means of protecting their organization's image and reputation.
There are other professions where discretion and decorum are very important. For instance, I would be horrified if my lawyer posted pictures of himself doing a keg stand at a party. Even if that was what the lawyer did for fun during his off time, I would probably lose confidence in his judgment if I happened to see pictures of him doing something reckless or childish. Likewise, if my doctor wrote a blog about his obsession with porn, I would probably think about finding a new doctor post haste. Even though I know it's not illegal to look at porn, knowing that someone in such a trusted position was obsessed with porn would probably diminish my faith in his or her competence and professionalism. Besides, if a doctor had enough free time to be obsessed with porn and actually post about that interest, I would wonder why.
If I was considering hiring someone and happened to find something questionable about them on Web, I think it would affect my hiring decision. Someone who posts inappropriate material on the Internet may not be trustworthy. Besides, if I can find it on the Internet, so can my potential customers. A company's reputation is a vital asset.
I will agree that people have the right to privacy. In a perfect world, employment seekers would only be judged by their actual abilities to perform the job. However, that's not the reality of how things are in the world today. Just as we are judged by our physical appearance and actions in public, we can be judged by how we behave on the Internet, which is also a very public place. Just as job applicants can use the Internet to do their homework about working for a company, people who make hiring and firing decisions can also check up on individuals who seek employment. Those who are upset by this trend might do well to remember that using the Internet to "check up" on people is a two way street.
Learn more about this author, Jenny Tolley.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.
No
One of the eroding rights in this Country is the right to personal privacy. While MySpace, Facebook or any other site is basically public in using these you do open yourself to some degree.
My feeling about employers, agencies, property managers, and credit companies using this type of source to determine a persons credibiltiy for a job, place to live or credit line is absolutely unacceptable, unfair and a very unprofessional means of trying to 'see' what a person is like.
I have a MySpace primarily because it was the first and largest network of it's kind where one could connect with others and in my case, showcase thier artwork. Do I believe my employer, landlord or creditors need to see my paintings to determine who I am? Or what to expect of me? Would I be discriminated against if my paintings are nudes or abstracts? Or perhaps because of some artistic stereotype? Does MySpace have anything at all to do with my ability to preform at work? NO.
We have become so accustomed to privacy violations that we don't even consider the reprecussions any more. That employers have access to your social security number, bithdate, place of birth, age, etc. Is more than enough. Applications for employement can be as much as 13 pages long and more if you have an extended work history. Employers ask for personal and professional refereneces, which they check and verify. Considering the personal information required to obtain work, there is not a justifiable or legitimate reason that an employer need to investigate deeper into ones personal life. It is not a matter of having something to hide. It is a matter of having the right to privacy in our private lives.
There was a time in this country that if you wanted to work you went to an employer asked for a job, shared your experience or willingness to learn. Sometimes you would start work the following day. My dad got a job exactly that way and worked at the same organization for 25 years until he retired. He didnt have a resume, or a credit history, or a MySpace of course, in fact at the time he got the job he was homeless, living in a tent with a wife and three kids. Did his employer question his personal circumstances, or focus on his skills and what he brought to the position. The answer is obvious.
In the current job market, there are psychological examinations, background checks,(including criminal,and sex offender), evictions, credit, marriage and divorce records and more. Does this make for better or more competant employees? Does it assure anything with regards to ones ability to sastisfactorily meet or exceed an employers expectations? Does any of this insure, more stable, more efficient, productive, trustworhty hardworking employees?
Employers also have built in policies, no fault clauses, and probationary periods that allow them to dismiss an employee at thier discretion at any time and without having to give a reason. In addition to having the resources already required and an easy 'out' policy, employers are fairly assured and very secure in hiring practices. When we stop to consider the access allowed to employers, perhaps it is employees and job seekers who most need to have access to such criteria when considering an employer.
We have seen cases, such as Enron for example, where thousands of dedicated, competent employees lost jobs due to employers who were secretive, devisive, protected, and highly unethical in thier business practices. Should employees and job seekers have access to a company and its corporate leaders confidential information, tax records, business practices, surety and stock investments, CEO, and president personal records?
It seems to me that the tables need to be turned and that giving any employer another invasive option to determine employability is just that, invasive and unnecesssary. The fact is that employers don't need more information in order to hire a competent employee. What they are looking for are reasons to not hire someone. It is easier for them to get through piles of applications and reduce time and expense in human resources, but conducting less interviews especially when a great number of qualified candidates have submitted applications.
I firmly believe in the right to privacy. I feel employers must have limitations on the access they are allowed. Considering the prevelance of identity theft, among other things, there is no guarantee that who might be looking into your personal life, via your social security number, bank account, or MySpace, has the credibility to be exposed to anyones personal information, let alone be trusted with it. Again it is not necessary to make a determination regarding a persons ability as a potential employee.
Learn more about this author, C Ouellet.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.
Difference of opinion? Debate now.
- Internet Trends
- Is allowing the commercial creation of new top level domains (TLD) a good idea?
- After 40 years, is there still room for innovation on the Internet?
- Has mail order been replaced with the Internet?
- E-Commerce: Should you pay bloggers to review your products?
- Should we participate in missing person emails?
