Kelley's Dilemmas

A growing hot topic, and cause for concern is the increasing use of social media in the workplace. The landscape for communication has changed, and the line between personal and professional communications has been blurred. How will your employer manage the risks associated with the use of social media and at the same time, gain the benefits that this media form provides? While many employers were initially concerned that employees would use company time and equipment for socializing with friends, they are quickly learning that many social networks can also be used directly for work purposes.

When looking for prospective employees, employers do not enjoy rifling through Facebook pictures of obscene pictures and statuses with crude language. Bad behavior of employees, even off the clock, made public by social media

People from almost all age groups, especially the teenagers and adults prefer to socialize through various social media websites for networking and this trend has been increased since the last decade with a wider internet utility. Though the social media websites are not less than any golden opportunity for online marketing in business, however, many cases have been reported for the job dismissals due to the controversial personal posts to the social media by the employees. The posts that have been done to the social media websites can be in the form of personal messages, photos, video clips, audio recordings, and comments on other’s posts. Hollifield, the Winter Part Employment Attorney

Employers on our social media, this is a fact that everyone in this age accepts but do not necessarily like or want. Some people say it is okay to check social media when looking for who to hire, but this infringes on privacy rights. If an employer finds something discriminating on a profile and decides not to hire the person this is not okay, even though some may say it is because you want to know what you are getting into. An employer could find information that was not even true on social media, this would not work in favor of employment. It is not okay to check social media when employers are hiring because it invades privacy, discriminates and the information provided on the site could be false.

The regulations on social media policies limit the employer’s ability to place restrictions on the staff

In the article that I have read it states over the years they have been advising their company that the punishment of the employees will be on social media it has developed an uncertain professional business. The National Labor Relations Boards has made the position that the worker’s comment on the social media is very often protected concerted activity under the National Labor Relations Act even after the verbal used is unsuitable or

The NLRB has made findings regarding the use of employee posts on Social Media sites to discipline or terminate those employees. Typically these cases occur when an employee posts “negative” information about their current employer or boss. Sometimes these are “public” and other times the employer uses “spies” or “fake friending” to see the Facebook page of the employee.

Ellen started a blog to protest the CEO’s bonus. The employer would need to make sure that Ellen’s post had not been commented on by other employees who were in agreement with her. The company should also look to its’ social media policy if it has one. The employer could be covered if the policy states that employees cannot speak derogatorily about their boss or coworkers online. The “National Labor Relations Act states that workers have the right to discuss their wages and conditions of employment”; however, “griping or ranting by a single employee is not protected” (Rogers, 2013). Ellen stepped across the line by criticizing the CEO of the company and calling him names. This could cause a rift in the company and lower morale. The company would be justified in firing Ellen. I would do this based on Deontology which focuses on rights and duties, telling the truth and fairness (Halbert & Ingulli, 2012, p17).

First, what is an obligation? As indicated by David Kelley, "an obligation" is a guideline which an individual ought to be allowed to have or do; a qualification, something one has liberated; something you can practice without asking any other person's authorization. At the same time, such a privilege — according to Kelley and the individuals who offer a similar solution, tramples upon freedom and independence. Healthcare is not a buyer decent, but instead a universal right, and therefore every man, woman, and child should be able to access the health services that they need. The very foundation of life is health, and if millions have not the means to afford it or access it as others do, is the life of such a person unable to obtain health

Although the Privacy Act and PIPEDA exist to regulate what personal information is collected in order to protect the employee, these legal means are not enough. The common thread between the two is that the information collected should be collected and used for the stated purposes. The Privacy Act applies to federal institutions, whereas PIPEDA applies to the private-sector, yet neither specifically state social media. As mentioned in this article, the person’s privacy rights should not end simply because the technological advancements are not incorporated into our legislation. However, privacy laws should be able to incorporate social media as it is one of society’s most common method of communication. As society changes, our laws should accommodate. I believe the current criteria are not specific enough, if just cause can be proven and if there is no discrimination, that is seen to be enough for termination. I think that the better option would be the proposal set in this article.

The other day I was reading an article on Google news concerning a young lady that was working in the retail sector in a large city. This young lady had posted pictures on Facebook of her customers with captions that were less that flattering in several cases. The giant retail outlet store can complaints from those customers. Due to the complaints the young lady was fired. I thought for a while about her being fired and came to a conclusion. Yes, she should have been fired. Bad mouthing your customers is not a very productive thing to do in the first place. Business made their money by getting customers in the door and giving them good customer service. The money that those customers who saw themselves on Facebook paid the young ladies salary and/or bonuses. Criticize or making

A group of employees felt that they were overworked and underpaid, and took their rant to Facebook to engage in a discussion. The employees posted the following comments about their working conditions: “What the f… Try doing my job. I have 5 programs,” “Tell her to come do [my] f***ing job n c if I don’t do enough, this is just dum,” and “I think we should give our paychecks to our clients so they can ‘pay’ the rent…(insert sarcasm here now).” (Hill, 2011) As with the Ehling vs. Monmouth-Ocean Hospital case, a fellow employee was a friend to the individuals having the Facebook conversation, and shared the information with a supervisor. The supervisor fired all of the employees involved in the conversation, indicating that they were all in violation of the organization’s social media policy. “The judge decided that the heated Facebook conversation did not constitute harassment and that the non-profit erred in de-friending the workers. “Employees have a protected right to discuss matters affecting their employment amongst themselves,” wrote Judge Amchan in his decision, which orders the non-profit to rehire all five workers and make them “whole for any loss of earnings” suffered.” (Hill, 2011) Due to the fact that employees were discussing items that affect their work or working conditions, and that there were multiple people involved, this was a concerted activity, and qualified

Even though these consequences have severe actions it seems that it is still a prevalent concern. “McKinney, a tenth-grade math teacher, had a very controversial Twitter account that the school she worked for discovered. Her employers were not happy and placed her on administrative leave. Her students thought her racy photos and tweets about marijuana and club music were pretty cool, though, and protested online to get her back. She was fired in the end” (CNN, 2013). An employee's social media presence can involve the employee's conduct both on and off the job. It would be an easier task for an employer to fire an employee based on job performance and ethics in a work place environment. These are more easily justifiable than an employee’s off duty

Social media in the workplace has become a very controversial topic. Employers are having to fire employees because of social media issues. Some employees do not know the boundaries of what they can and can not post because there was not a social media policy in place when they got the job. An employer’s rights should end to dictate what their employees post when they ask the employee for their log in to their social media account because it is disrespect of an employee’s privacy, it decreases trust, and it causes arguments at the workplace.

Social networking sites such as Twitter or Facebook have created a new ethical dilemma for many businesses. Corporations, small businesses, and even universities are struggling create policies to manage their employees social networking behaviors. Social networking access, particularly for recruiters, can provide personal information about potential employees, which would otherwise not be available. A business must follow statutes and guidelines when disclosing information to the public. Individuals on social networking sites have no such constraints. Employees can and do make comments about their employers online. Employers can and do watch what employees post online. Any individual can send or post potentially damaging information