Mixing business with pleasure Free Essay Example

The curse of modern society and technological advancement; to think you could be a click away from losing that dream job or being turned away from your top choice college. As the world edges closer to a big brother mentality it seems we have to be even more careful who our friends are and to watch what we say. Private lives are just that, private, and just because we are in a public space whether physically or online does not mean that employers and college recruiters have any right to violate that.

It is for this reason that employers and colleges should not be allowed to search social networks for employees and students.

It is easy to understand the temptation to scope out candidate X on a social networking site particularly when you have a tight knit office environment. It would be nice when struggling between choosing candidate X, Y or Z to get a little bit more information about their personality or private life, but that is where discrimination starts.

The argument by employers and colleges can be a strong one, after all these individuals will be representatives of their business or school. However, these are the same individuals that have always been representatives of their business or school, so what has changed and where do they draw the line?

Do you not hire the better person for the job because you find out they are a single mom with two kids, so now you feel they won’t be as reliable as the next candidate? Do you punish a current employee or program graduate because they start a networking site for their classroom or decide to unwind on the weekend and post pictures with friends at a bar? Absolutely not, but that is exactly what is happening.

In 2008 a federal District Court in Connecticut upheld a school board decision to decline a teacher’s contract renewal because of his posted MySpace site (Stafford, 2008).

Jeffery Spanierman was a high school teacher who had created a page to communicate with his students. An administrator discovered the site, deemed it inappropriate and it was immediately removed. However Spanierman then created another site and upon its discovery was put on administrative leave (Stafford, 2008). In another related incident, student Stacy Snyder in an Education program at Millersville State University was denied her teaching credential for posting a photo of herself in a pirate hat, drinking.

Even though it was on her personal MySpace page, they felt it promoted underage drinking (Stafford, 2008). Now in certain professions it is important to be aware of perceptions by clients or students if you want to be respected and have an impact on their lives, but in the instance of a personal social networking site that access should in principle really be off limits. Though employers and colleges should not be allowed to search social networks for employees and students, the fact of the matter is that it is perfectly legal.

Just viewing a page does not discriminate a client in any way, what an employer does with that information may, but it would be difficult to prove (Lenard, 2008). At the same token, it does not constitute an invasion of privacy either, unless an employer somehow hacked into a site to be able to view information that was specifically set to private and intended only for select friends. The only case one could really make are in the violation of Terms of Service which for Facebook specifically states that the site be used for ‘personal, non-commercial use only’ (Lenard, 2008).

Another gray area when it comes to social networking sites and the workplace is where to draw the line with professionalism. In an interview of George Lenard by Denise Howell, Lenard states, “The Wall Street Journal recently had a column on what to do if your boss wants to be your ‘friend’” (Howell, 2007). Legitimately, what do you do? You do not want to alienate your boss, but at the same time you do not want him to have access to all the personal information you may have available to your friends and family. It can be a difficult situation to deal with.

Lenard also mentioned how personal friends of his daughter had been fired at her place of business because of photos posted on Facebook. It was a ‘friends-only’ profile, but they were traceable via the computers URL history (Howell, 2007). Though privacy controls were in place and the actions were illegal, often individuals are fired or not hired without even knowing there was any correlation. The best defense to avoid social workplace conflict is to keep your social networking private and not add fellow employees or your boss to your network, but that can create an awkward situation when requested by them to be ‘friends’.

It stands to reason that just because access to social networking sites is readily available does not mean you need to or should even use them to pre-screen or check in on your employees or students. At the same time, those who use social networking sites need to be aware of the potential repercussions of their actions and postings because they can’t always control access. Jeanne Skoug of the University of Wisconsin-Eau Claire says it has become an important part of the hiring process and is utilized because, “part of that process is making sure students know they should concentrate on coming off as positively as possible.

Their presentation during the interview — as well as their presentation online and off — is something students should think about” (Lewandowski, 2006). This awareness is becoming increasingly important because of the numbers of employers utilizing this technology. The National Association of Colleges and Employers recently conducted a study in which it determined that more than one in 10 employers who responded to a Job Outlook 2007 Fall Preview survey plans to review applicants’ social networking profiles.

Of those who already do, more than 60 percent of employers say, “the information gleaned there has at least some influence on their hiring decisions” (Lewandowski, 2006). Although, social networking sites shouldn’t be utilized for or against employee or student recruitment, the best defense is to be aware that they do and act accordingly. Students and employees should enact their privacy controls on MySpace and Facebook and just not use the sites at all or at the very least just be aware of what is being posted.

As Skoug puts it, “the rule of thumb is that if students wouldn’t want their mother to see posted items, those items don’t belong online” (Lewandowski, 2006). To the counter point Lenard states, “I would advise employers to cut applicants and employees some slack. You were once young too and maybe did similar things — if not publicly on the Internet” (2008). It is important for employers and colleges to recognize that a private life even when easily accessible thanks to technology is still a private life and where and when they are going to access it they need to do so in an appropriate manner.

It is equally important for social networking users to understand that those sites are public and that because the information is so accessible and the potential for use for or against them is a reality, they need to take more caution with how they want to be viewed. Works Cited Howell, Denise. “Facebook and employment: an equal opportunity information trap”. 16 July 2007. Lawgarithms. ZDNet. 30 May 2009 <http://blogs. zdnet. com/Howell/? p=149> Lenard, George. “Employers Using Facebook for Background Checking: Is It Legal? ”. 2008.

CollegeRecruiter. com Blog. 30 May 2009 <http://www. collegerecruiter. com/weblog/2006/09/employers_using. php>. Lewandowski, Lindsey. “High-tech hiring: Employers check Facebook, experts say”. 2006. Working: Working it in the Chippewa Valley. University of Wisconsin-Eau Claire. 30 May 2009. <http://www. uwec. edu/CJ/projects/Working/facebook1. html> Stafford, Michael. “MySpace and Employment: Another Tale of Woe”. 3 Oct 2008. The Delaware Employment Law Blog. 30 May 2009 <http://www. delawareemploymentlawblog. com/2008/10/myspace_and_employment>