Social Media and Employment Issues

well-disposed Media and Employment IssuesSOCIAL MEDIA TRANSPARENCY AND EMPLOYMENTIntroductionOne corporation apply the old saying, never judge a book by its cover to many applications in life, but todays environment of inst loving media updates provides personal transparency never experienced before. affable medias arrival on the scene has completely changed the way we interact as a hostelry and technologies such as portable devices and wireless connectivity plainlyows us to communicate faster and to a more massive crowd than we ever thought possible. amicable media is the to the highest degree signifi dejectiont difference in personal or business transparency and has merged into an indistinguishable haze of likes, links, and posts, making transparency an eachday issue. Complete strangers roll in the hay now peck someones daily activities without the context of knowing them personally. These strangers sack up easily be authorization employers seeking employees to fill vacant positions. That is but what is occurring today employers are examining beyond applicants resumes to make the best hiring decision by reviewing prospective employees tender media sites to learn more about their applicants and employees.Alternatively, employers are experiencing reasoned issues with their fresh accessible media tool, and the courts are just beginning to unravel them.Correctly dropd, social media can be a powerful means of candidate identification, selection, and retention. However, employers must throw comprehensive and compliant social media policies that are not overly loose, and which address privateness, lawful ingress, accuracy, equal protection, and conduct of business practices. An analysis of the social media transparency regarding calling reveals an employers review of applicants and employees social media sites can be a valuable tool but must do such in a manner reconciled with lawful hiring and separation practices. This article is designe d to review essential aspects employers should consider when using social media to make hiring or termination decisions for their company. ArgumentThere has been an detonative growth in the use of social media over the past decade and has allowed a vast part of the worlds population instant, quick, and convenient communication to a broad network of people. According to Statista.com, known as the portal for statistics, Facebook had 100 million monthly active users in 2008, and that number has skyrocketed to 2.07 billion monthly active users as of the third quarter of 2017. LinkedIn has over 467 million members worldwide, and it is one of the most popular social networks regarding active users (Statista.com, 2017). These top growing websites allow their users to share lots of study about themselves and can give potential employers data in just a few clicks that would be impossible to know about someone decades ago.Social media has forged a path into our culture that has brought us a ll closer, but it has in addition opened many questions about the issues of modern ex shortenion and privacy. Getting at the center of this network involves untangling multiple layers of complex statutes, case law, and agency guidance in a way that balances the pillars of freedom of speech and the at-will employment tenet. For edification, the employment-at-will philosophical system states employees without a written employment contract and an indefinite term of employment, the employer can terminate the employee for good cause, bad cause, or no cause at all (Ballam, 2000). Although a perfect application of the law on societys new technologies like social media is complicated, there are many considerations employers must make based on privacy, accuracy, and lawful access during the hiring, employment, and termination periods. Moreover, employers need to attend there is a potential negative impact with the use of social media when enroling employees, and conversely, the terminat ion of employees based on decisions issued by the National Labor transaction Board (NLRB). Last, employers must relate legal guidelines to their companys use of social media policies.The First Amendmentto the Bill of Rights exempts our rights as Americans very clearlyCongress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. The Bill of Rights, 2017 Strict libertarians or constitutionalists may notice, the words right to privacy are absent from the First Amendment of the Bill of Rights. Under the First Amendment, there is no right to privacy, but there are certain privacy protections afforded to every citizen. Pawel Laidler, author of Basic Cases in U.S. Constitutional Law Rights and Liberties, references Griswold v. Connecticut and suggests, Specific guarantees of the Bil l of Rights drop penumbras of privacy extending to specific areas and situations (Laidler, 2009, p. 102). The courts have started to make their decision on what is the reasonable expectation of privacy for applicants or employees, but employers and the public at large are shut away making their own conclusions.Most social media websites acknowledge privacy settings and controls to allow users to reduce exposure to those whom they wish to exclude from seeing their social media schooling. However, specific information such as their name, profile picture, and networks is typically forever and a day publicly available, and social media sites often provide notice to users that they do not guarantee the privacy of the information (Facebook, 2016). LinkedIns privacy insurance includes wording for users about their unfitness to ultimately secure any information submitted to their website, nor can they guarantee users information will not be accessed or disclosed by physical or electron ic methods (LinkedIn, 2017). Despite these numerous warnings about privacy disclosure, users should expect a certain level of privacy when they correctly use the privacy controls.When social media was still in its infancy, employers would ask applicants or employees for their social media login information to allow the employer direct access. This practice quickly died as social media websites, legislators, and privacy rights activists alike actively disheartened the practice (Dame, 2014). Today, most states have passed laws preventing employers from requesting social media login credentials. For example, Vermont State Law (H.B. 462) prohibits an employer from requiring or requesting that an employee or applicant disclose personal social media account information (NCLS.org, 2018, para. 26). Overall, the only reasonable access employers should have to an applicant or employees social media is what they allow them to access via privacy controls. A social media user who selects open public access to their accounts or invites or accepts potential employers to friend or connect allow an additional level of access and substantially reduces the expectation of privacy with an employer or organization. Naturally, employers can take criminal actions such as hacking or using anothers authorized login credentials to gain access to personal social media pages fraudulently, but the courts would not view these tactics favorably if it were a part of a more significant case.Beyond the concern of personal privacy, employers must also ensure the information put in on a private social networking site is accurate, and it is the correct person who applied for the position or the employee who works for the company. Employers must ensure the James metalworker Facebook profile they find is the same James Smith who applied for the job and not one of the other 38,312 James Smiths in the United States (Chen, 2015). Employers must also consider whether the person portrayed on the socia l media site established the account himself or herself or if someone else created the page without their knowledge or permission.Employers can outsource an applicant or employees social media information review to a third party Consumer Reporting Agency (CRA) to help overcome some of the challenges listed above. The Consumer decent Trade Commission (FTC) outlines particular information regarding the search of a persons character or reputation on a social media site. The FTCs stance is that when companies use a CRA to conduct a background check on an applicant or employees social media sites, that it complies with applicable provisions of the Division of Privacy and Identity Protection (FTC.gov, 2016). Additionally, Tony Rodriguez and Jessica Lyon from the FTC explain companies must be vigilant because a CRA may comply with all expressed provisions of the bureau and still violate other laws, such as equal employment opportunity violations (Rodriguez & Lyon, 2013).With the understan ding of privacy and accuracy, employers have two significant concerns when deciding to use social media for recruitment. The first concern is the influence social media has on candidate sourcing and statistics and the second is the limitations of viewing candidate or employee information on a social media site.It is essential to understand that for the first time in the Pew Research Centers surveys history, the results in 2017 showed 55% of Americans ages 50 or older use social media sites for everyday tasks such as getting news updates. This addition in usage is a 10% spike over 2016 allows employers to see and contact a more substantial part of the population, but there is still a disconnect surrounded by race and between gender demographics use of social media (Shearer & Gottfried, 2017). The Pew Research Center shows employment social media websites such as LinkedIn have equal shares of whites (29%) and blacks (28%), but only 18% of Hispanics use the network. Gender has improv ed over the years, but there is still a gap of close to 10%. A staggering 72% of women in the United States use some sort social media contrasted with 66% of men. The most dramatic difference between demographics is in education. Only 59% of people with a high school education or less use social media, but 78% of college graduates use at least one social media website (Pew, 2017). Recognizing the disparities with using social media to decide employment is critical because the gaps could potentially fuel cases of discrimination even when the employers had no inwrought intent to discriminate.In addition to traditional avenues of attracting and finding diverse applicant pools, employers should use a variety of sourcing strategies across multiple social media outlets to stave off the potential statistical traps and pitfalls.The limitations of viewing candidate information on social media sites is also essential to consider when deciding hiring or during employment.A social recruiting survey by Jobvite, a recruiting platform for the social web, reports from their survey of recruiters that 92% of U.S. companies are using social networking sites for hiring purposes (Jobvite 2012).Employers should be forewarned and take reasonable steps to ascertain accurate information and to be aware a picture can be worth a thousand words, but it can paint an inaccurate picture. An employer using social media as a primary tool may be left with skewed data and a false narrative.Knowing this and the above information, employers must understand that making decisions from viewing social media posts can unintentionally make those decisions appear demographic based rather than merit-based.Unfortunately, these perceptions, true or false, may be decent to flag a particular hiring practice that could end in a costly course of litigation.Knowing the two primary concerns of using social media for employment decisions is essential, but so are the possible legal implications of using these methods.Communication at work and home has transformed dramatically over the years, but the legal theories behind established employment policies have not changed.Todays challenge is to apply traditional laws to todays instant, casual, broadcast style of social media communication and activities.For many years, courts were not concerned with how many likes an employees Facebook work-related comment received.Moreover, the courts did not have to consider the average employee might have the ability to convey their opinions to an average of 634 people with one click of a button on Twitter (Leonardi, 2017).Social media transparency can easily create situations where employers terminate employees because of posts or comments employers find on their social media pages.Employers must reckon carefully to both an employees conduct as well as their company policies in determining whether circumstances legally warrant termination.The National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) is a long-standing go vernment agency that is inexplicably involved ensuring the correct implementation of the law to social media caused terminations (NLRB.gov, n.d.). Employers need to be aware of protected activity on social media before taking any adverse action against employees who post on a social media website.For example, the federal whistleblower protection law provides legal remedies for employees or job applicants who face retaliation for making protected disclosures of fraud, waste, abuse, mismanagement, or substantial and specific danger to public safety or health (OPM.gov, n.d. para. 2). international of protected reporting, using social media for collective dialog and shared concerns about essential terms and conditions of employment are also protected activities (NLRB.gov, n.d.).An employee, however, otherwise enmeshed in a protected activity, can lose that protection by abusive conduct (Stewart, 2017).Michael Greens journal article titled, Protecting Unhappy worker Outbursts from Disc riminatory Treatment, does a great job of explaining the method used for determining if the employees conduct is enough to cause them to lose protection.Green (2017) explains, the NLRBs Atlantic Steel doctrine to assess the in holdness of an employees angry outburst by first analyzing four factors before deciding the employees actions warrant discipline (para. 5).The four factors include where the discussion occurred, the undefended matter of the discussion, the nature of the employees outburst, and whether the outburst was, in any way, provoked by the employers unfair labor practice.Green does caveat the Atlantic Steel doctrine does have its limits.Employees who engage in threatening behavior or conduct acts exceeding what a reasonable employer should tolerate can lose their protections under the law (Green, 2017).Social media compounds these issues because its reach has far more impact than the typical breakroom outbursts and is immediately heard by everyone on ones feed.Recommen dationsA business decision to use social media as a tool among many when choosing employees is a good idea.The best way to properly use social media for hiring, employment, and termination is to set clear company policy and guidance.A companys social media policies will not protect employers if they are overly broad or restricts employees constitutional rights.When limiting an employees right to communicate on social media (or otherwise), the terms and conditions regulating their comments to being professional or appropriate need to be clearly defined in the policy.Employers should specify in their policies about what constitutes appropriate manners in which employees are allowed to discuss subjects to include criticism of labor policies, treatment of employees, and terms and conditions of employment.(SHRM.org, 2016).Employers should specifically articulate their definition of actions that constitute insubordinate actions, foreign conversation, or other disrespectful conduct.Additi onally, the policy should include their plan of disciplinary action when employees engage in such actions.Companies should carefully draft their social media policies to avoid broad or ambiguous terms.A court can easily deem policies unlawful if employees reasonably believe the policy prohibits constitution freedoms.Conclusion all told employers should take their time when deciding to terminate current employees employment due to their conduct or comments in general, but especially when considering social media websites.This article reviewed applicable aspects employers should consider when using social media as part of the hiring or termination process.Protected activity and overly broad social media policies can create liabilities for employers and employers who recruit and select employees through social media sites should carefully monitor their processes and outcomes for disparate impacts. Employers should take care when using information gained from social media and establish a process by which applicants, candidates, and employee have an opportunity to dispute potentially inaccurate information published online.Adhering to statutory, regulatory, and agency guidance allows employers to use social media anywhere along the employment timeline to maximise information about applicants and current employees while protecting them from the potential social media use pitfalls.ReferencesBallam, D. A. (2000). Employment-At-Will The Impending Death of a Doctrine. American Business Law Journal, 37(4), 653-687. inside10.1111/j.1744-1714.2000.tb00281.xBackground Checks. (2016, November). Retrieved January 28, 2018, from https//www.consumer.ftc.gov/articles/0157-background-checksBoyd, D. M., & Ellison, N. B. (2007, December 17). Social Network Sites Definition, History, and Scholarship. Retrieved January 21, 2018, from http//onlinelibrary.wiley.com/inside/10.1111/j.1083-6101.2007.00393.x/fullChen, S. A. (2015, February 07). Calling James Smith 10 Most Common First an d Surname Combinations. Retrieved January 16, 2018, from https//blogs.ancestry.com/cm/calling-james-smith-10-most-common-first-and-surname-combinations/Dame, J. (2014, January 10). Will employers still ask for Facebook passwords in 2014? Retrieved January 15, 2018, from https//www.usatoday.com/story/money/business/2014/01/10/facebook-passwords-employers/4327739/Facebook Data Policy. (2016, September 29). Retrieved January 15, 2018, from https//www.facebook.com/full_data_use_policyGreen, M. Z. (2017, February 13). Protecting Unhappy Worker Outbursts from Discriminatory Treatment. Retrieved January 25, 2018, from https//worklaw.jotwell.com/protecting-unhappy-worker-outbursts-from-discriminatory-treatment/Jobvite. (2014). Social Recruiting Survey.Retrieved January 20, 2018, from http//www.jobvite.com/wp-content/ uploads/ 2014/10/Jobvite_SocialRecruiting_Survey2014.pdfLaidler, P. (2009). Basic Cases in U.S. Constitutional Law Rights and Liberties. Krakw Jagiellonian University Press.Leo nardi, P. M. (2017). The Social Media Revolution Sharing and Learning in the Age of Leaky Knowledge. Information and Organization, 27(1), 47-59. doi10.1016/j.infoandorg.2017.01.004 LinkedIn Privacy Policy. (2017, June 7). Retrieved January 15, 2018, from https//www.linkedin.com/legal/privacy-policyManaging and Leveraging Workplace Use of Social Media. (2016, January 19). Retrieved January 26, 2018, from https//www.shrm.org/resourcesandtools/tools-and-samples/toolkits/pages/managingsocialmedia.aspxNational Conference of State Legislatures. (2018, January 2). Access to Social Media Usernames and Passwords. Retrieved January 16, 2018, from http//www.ncsl.org/research/telecommunications-and-information-technology/employer-access-to-social-media-passwords-2013.aspxNLRB.gov. (n.d.). Retrieved January 21, 2018, from https//www.nlrb.gov/ Our Inspector General whistle blower Protection Information. (n.d.). Retrieved January 28, 2018, from https//www.opm.gov/our-inspector-general/whistleblow er-protection-information/ Pew Research Center. Social Media Fact Sheet. (2017, January 12). Retrieved January 20, 2018, from http//www.pewinternet.org/fact-sheet/social-media/Rodriguez, T., & Lyon, J. (2013, January 10). Background Screening Reports and the FCRA Just Saying Youre Not a Consumer Reporting Agency Isnt Enough. Retrieved January 16, 2018, from https//www.ftc.gov/news-events/blogs/business-blog/2013/01/background-screening-reports-fcra-just-saying-youre-notShearer, E., & Gottfried, J. (2017, September 07). intelligence activity Use Across Social Media Platforms 2017. Retrieved January 20, 2018, from http//www.journalism.org/2017/09/07/news-use-across-social-media-platforms-2017/Statista.com. Number of Facebook Users Worldwide 2008-2017. (n.d.). Retrieved January 15, 2018, from https//www.statista.com/statistics/264810/number-of-monthly-active-facebook-users-worldwide/Stewart, D. R. (2017). Social Media and the Law A Guidebook for Communication Students and Professional s. New York, NY Routledge.The Bill of Rights A Transcription. (2017, June 26). Retrieved January 15, 2018, from https//www.archives.gov/founding-docs/bill-of-rights-transcripttoc-amendment-i