Computers & Technology >
Internet Trends
RSS FeedShould employers be allowed to use MySpace, YouTube and Facebook accounts as a basis for hiring or firing employees?
Write now
Print
Invite a writer™
Add to Favorites
Contact this writerDO YOU HAVE A MYSPACE, FACEBOOK, YUWIE, or YOUTUBE ACCOUNT?
Myspace, Facebook, Yuwie, YouTube, and similar sites are open to public viewing. Anyone who wishes to set up an account (usually for free) can quickly access millions of individual profile pages.
Individuals post graphics, photos, videos, music and even written material for other users to view and hear. Most members display their friends' thumbnail photos, as active links to their friends' profile pages. Many also allow friends' and visitors' comments to appear on their own profile pages as well.
Here is what this means, just in case any question still exists. Anyone who wishes to do so can easily access an individual's profile page.
ONLINE = OPEN.
Parents, teachers, school administrators, college admissions staffers, prospective employers and even pastors are free to peruse your page. Whether you like it or not, and whether you agree philosophically with the idea, these folks are at liberty to look at anything you post online.
Incidentally, the same freedom exists for material you publish in a blog, on a writing site like Helium, in a website guestbook or in other online communities. If you put it out there on the internet, you simply cannot expect folks not to view it.
Outside the office, employers are individuals as well. They possess the same rights to the internet that you do, and they are quite likely as capable of surfing as you are. It would be naivete to assume such folks could observe your online postings without it affecting their opinions about your personal character and professionalism.
After all, students have been expelled from school, based on photographic or videotaped evidence they posted online. Employees have been removed; academic scholarships have been denied; candidates have been outvoted; and engagements have been broken.
If it's online, do you really believe people will not see it? Can they see it without making a personal judgment?
WHAT CAN YOU DO TO PRESERVE CONFIDENTIALITY OF YOUR ONLINE PRESENCE?
Most social networking communities and other websites offer several simple safeguards. You can certainly opt to preserve your privacy, if you set your account up with these restrictions.
SET YOUR PROFILE TO PRIVATE.
In most cases, you can go into the account settings or security areas to set your profile preferences. Usually, you have the option to make your page available only to your accepted friends. If you are careful about choosing your online friends, you will know exactly who has access to your page and postings.
REVIEW ALL COMMENTS BEFORE ALLOWING THEM TO BE POSTED ON YOUR PAGE.
Who needs to be surprised by racy, raunchy or even mean comments that may be posted by other users? Most communities allow you to preview all comments before they appear on your page. You can accept or reject these, Routinely, user accounts are hacked, so that comments and bulletin begin appearing that did not actually originate with the identified user. Employing the pre-approval setting will protect you from this peril. You can catch such postings before they are made public.
Whether you like it or not, folks may form opinions about you, based on comments your friends post on your page. In addition, they may visit your friends' pages to see what sorts of people you count as worthy of your friendship.
BE CAREFUL ABOUT POSTING ON OTHERS' PAGES.
Although you may find that off-color joke, that party photo, or that cartoon extremely funny, you may not want to post it publicly. Send it in a private message, if you must.
Remember, everything you post is placed next to your avatar (thumbnail photo) and screen name, so it reflects on you. Although your friend may find the comment hilarious, your prospective employer, teacher, youth group leader, or in-laws may not.
WHAT ABOUT CLUB PENGUIN, CLUB POGO, MINICLIP, WEBKINZ, AND SIMILAR GAMING SITES?
Many of these kid-friendly sites have popped up recently. Usually, users set up a pseudonym, which is often attached to a cartoon avatar or an icon standing for an actual toy animal or character. Most of these sites do not permit revelation of users' real names or identifying information. As a general rule, they do not allow profanity, and they usually have no means of uploading graphics or photos. The dangers are greatly minimized, so these sites are white-hot popular with younger children.
Still, users are advised to be careful about the material they post in chats and comments. Memberships can quickly be canceled for inappropriate behavior.
Here's a simple rule of thumb: If you post it, it's public.
Top "Yes" articles on:
Should employers be allowed to use MySpace, YouTube and Facebook accounts as a basis for hiring or firing employees?Add your voice
Know something about Should employers be allowed to use MySpace, YouTube and Facebook accounts as a basis for hiring or firing employees?? We want to hear your view. Write now!
The fundamental issue at work is the concept of "Freedom of Speech" for which the central idea is articulated in the First Amendment to the Constitution. However, beyond this simple excerpt that "Congress shall make no law . abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press ." the issues become more complicated.
In a society, it appears that the underlying issue is not whether Congress should oppress offensive speech, but rather how society reacts to it. While there are certainly few that would argue that individuals must maintain an unbiased perspective regarding speech, there are limits to the actions one can take. The issue also becomes substantially less clear when groups or organizations become involved.
As an individual, if I disagree with a point of view, an opinion, or the speech in question, I can exercise my right to ignore or disassociate myself from it as I see fit. If some speech can be determined to be harmful to the individual then legal remedies are available for which the judicial system can make an assessment and award damages. It should also be clear that harmful is not synonymous with offensive. We may individually be offended by a variety of forms of expression; however there is no fundamental right to a legal remedy for every offense.
When an individual is not legally harmed, but merely offended, the question of whether an individual should have the "right" to escalate an issue to the point of where it does do harm, either physically, economically, or mentally, is raised. It has become a staple of news reports that when an individual says something offensive, there is an immediate attempt to deprive the individual of their livelihood and engage in a form of economic banishment for their transgression. This has given rise to the idea that merely being offended is somehow a protected right and that no effort is out of bounds when it comes to responding to offensive speech or actions. We can individually decide to not do business with someone, or to ignore them, but when we attempt to organize efforts to systematically attack someone then we have moved well beyond the point of mere offense and individual choice.
This idea runs completely counter to the intention of "Freedom of Speech" since it circumvents the legal system and attempts a form of vigilante justice against the offender, by denying "due process".
When we deal with organizations and businesses their existence is also governed by the legal system and it is by this mechanism that they can establish the grounds for employment and the conduct of their employees. This is the basis by which the NFL cheerleaders are prohibited from engaging in activities deemed negative by their respective organizations.
An employer does not have an intrinsic right to knowledge or information about an employee beyond the labor contract that they have agreed to. Regardless of an employee's behavior, attitude, or speech an employer has no right beyond that established at the time of hiring for additional information, nor does the employer have a right to police employees beyond the terms in an employment contract. In the absence of such a legal contract, the employer has no rights and cannot enforce any actions.
Sometimes an argument is made that an employer may simply be acting on information as an individual and that their opinion towards the employee may be affected by what they see. After all, employers are simply human too and what's available in public can be viewed by anyone. While this is certainly true, it would be a fallacy to suggest that individual experience like this translates into a legal right as an employer.
It is also important to recognize that in a significant number of instances the "employer" is not an individual, but rather an organization. In this case, any concept of an individual being offended is impossible and the organization does not obtain a "right" to be offended simply because an individual within it may be.
When an employer tries to use publicly available information, they are attempting to grant themselves a legal right which they do not possess and which is protected for individuals by the Constitution of the United States. Societal vigilantism is not a right and it is certainly not one to be extended to organizations. As a purported nation of laws, it is incumbent on everyone as an individual to "grit their teeth" and tolerate many offensive things, but until legal boundaries are crossed, depriving individuals of their respective right to expression helps no one.
Top "No" articles on:
Should employers be allowed to use MySpace, YouTube and Facebook accounts as a basis for hiring or firing employees?-
1 of 30
by Gerhard Adam
The fundamental issue at work is the concept of "Freedom of Speech" for which the central idea is articulated in the ...read more
-
2 of 30
by Rob Purifoy
Employers and Government are way too involved in peoples personal lives. There should be a set of methods and standar...read more
Add your voice
Know something about Should employers be allowed to use MySpace, YouTube and Facebook accounts as a basis for hiring or firing employees?? We want to hear your view. Write now!
Difference of opinion? Debate now.
