An increasing trend in the corporate world today is to use internet search engines and social networking sites (SNS) in order to screen job applicants. Employers want to know as much information as possible about their employees before investing the time and money required to incorporate them into their companies. One common site used in these searches is Facebook.com. Facebook is a social networking site originally limited to the use by college community, but in more recent years, it has been open to the general public (Clark & Roberts, 2010). Founded in 2004, the site now has over 1 billion users (Vance, 2012). As one of the most trafficked site in the United States, Facebook is one of the primary networking sites used for pre-employment screening. The site allows the uploading of personal pictures and videos that can be shared with a select group of people or with the public as a whole. Registered users also have the ability to join groups, which range in topic from support of a particular sports team, political issue, or hobbies the person may be interested in (Clark & Roberts, 2010). An employer searching a profile may gain access to all of this information and can use it to decide which candidates to interview and/or hire. While Facebook has many different control settings allowing users to limit and/or block the viewing of their individual profiles, there are numerous ways around these leaving users vulnerable to searches performed by curious employers (Clark & Roberts, 2010). In order to better understand the ethics of employee Facebook checks, one can thoroughly examine the considerations discussed in Clark & Roberts’, “Employer’s Use of Social Networking Sites: A socially Irresponsible Practice.”
The aim of Clark & Robert’s peer reviewed journal was to explore and discuss how the inexpensive, informal online character checks on social networking sites such as Facebook, can be unethical and harmful to society (Clark & Roberts, 2010). This article thoroughly addresses issues such as privacy, corporate social responsibility, as well as all of the ways that these checks can be unethical and harmful to society (Clark & Robertson, 2010). The major audience targeted for this work seems to be employers whom actually conduct these social networking background checks. A secondary audience could also be identified as potential job applicants who may or may not be aware of these potential checks and the harm they may bring to their hiring/interviewing process. Third, this article may be appropriate for the general public who engage in social networking sites so that they may gain awareness regarding the general privacy concerns and, become more insightful into the continuous employee checks of already established employers.
In my opinion, I do believe that this article has some incredibly valid points. I agree with the authors in whole on their negative opinions of employee background checks encompassing SNS. Through these background searches, unverified information can sway a future employer’s decision without any input from the employee in question. The ethical dilemma that arises as a result of these searches is one of fairness (Clark & Roberts, 2010). First of all, the authors point out that it is an invasion of privacy in some aspects. While the actual definition of “privacy” is often skewed because there is no universal acceptance of the definition, the Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary defines it as ‘freedom from unauthorized intrusion” (Clark & Roberts, 2010). In my opinion, if the Facebook profile is set as “private” and open to only those that the user has approved, the SNS background checks that companies perform is in direct violation of this definition. Secondly, employers are using these “unauthorized online checks” to make decisions as to interview/hire a potential applicant. Postings, pictures, and wall information can sway the decision of a potential employer, yet it may have nothing to do with the job or the job requirements. Biased opinions may form and employers may choose not to hire someone based on the groups they belong too, someone they are friends with on Facebook, or even perhaps, their political views stated on their pages. It is possible that this information used to determine the suitability of a prospective employee had little or no bearing on their ability to perform the required work. In conclusion, the personal lives of employees should be separate from their work lives.
The article also addresses issues where employers intermittently check SNS of their already existing employees. Again, I tend to side with the authors when they point out that this is also a possibly unethical practice in many situations. Some employees have been fired because of postings on their Facebook pages. For example, a US flight attendant lost her job simply for posting pictures of herself online in her uniform (Clark & Roberts, 2010). A producer for CNN was also fired for blogging offwork, even though he did not identify himself as a CNN employee (Clark & Roberts, 2010). In my opinion, this was unethical because, not only was it an invasion of the employee’s rights outside of the workplace, but it had no negative impact on the companies or in a way that affected their job performance.
On the other hand, Clark & Robertson do point out a specific time when SNS checks may be considered ethical. For example, it may be an ethical practice to perform SNS checks if the company can establish a link between what is contained on applicant’s SNSs and on-the-job behavior. If this link does exist then the employer may have a legitimate business interest in the online profiles. Charlesworth (2003) provides guidance to employers who are considering a possible invasion of an employee’s privacy. Specific examples include the following: have a legitimate purpose; ensure that the intrusion is offset by a greater utility to the employer; and to ensure that the measure is fair and lawful (Charlesworth, 2003).
In conclusion, I agree with Clarke and Roberts on all of these points discussed in this paper. I believe that it is considered unethical for a company to conduct searches on potential applicants’ or even existing employee’s social networking pages, especially if they are set to be “private.” There should be a line drawn between ones’ personal life and one’s business life. There is no reason for the company to intervene or inquire into an employee’s personal life unless the business is being impacted in some form. I believe that it is unprofessional to hire or not hire someone based on biased opinions that may be formed from taking a look into the personal lives of their potential or existing employees.
References:
Charlesworth, A.J. (2005). Opinion, privacy, personal information and employment. Surveillance & Society, 1(2), 217-222.
Clark, L., & Roberts, S. (2010). Employer’s use of social networking sites: a socially irresponsible practice. Journal of Business ethics, 95, 507-525.
Vance, Ashlie. (2012). Facebook: The making of one billion users. Bloomberg Business week. Retrieved from http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2012-10-04/facebook-the-making-of-1-billion-users