Should
social media and internet tools essential in the acceptance of an applicant?
Can companies and/or institutions use Internet search tools and access to
social media accounts in determining the most suitable candidate?
.
Some of these well-known social media and internet tools are the Facebook,
Twitter and LinkedIn.
·
LinkedIn targets professionals and allows members to
create a profile that describes their professional background and facilitates
connection and communication with other professionals.
·
Facebook targets students and adults allowing members
to create a profile that primarily focuses on more personal matters such as
family and hobbies. Members use Facebook to talk with friends and share
personal information about their lives.
·
Twitter is a more recent addition to the social
networking phenomenon. Twitter asks users “What are you doing?”, and users
answer with a brief message. Twitter members can post links to articles,
pictures, videos or other information about themselves or topics of interest.
These Social media and
internet tools are not essential in the acceptance of an applicant and
companies and/or institutions in determining the most suitable candidate
because of the disadvantages in the so-called “social-media background checks” because the use of social media background checks for job applicants has become controversial and can present legal
risks. Employers face numerous landmines and pitfalls that can include privacy,
discrimination, and accuracy issues.
When an applicant creates a profile he/she
may enter very little information or a lot of information about himself/herself
and their professional qualifications on the profile. In the information page
from Facebook, the questions look like a direct list of questions that during
the hiring process should be avoided. Some of these are the following: gender,
birthday, family members, relationship status, sexual orientation and religious
views are all available profile fields.
Also on
Facebook, comments posted to one’s wall can easily contain comments that would
disclose information about marital status, disabilities, religious views,
etc. Another possible trouble spot relates
to using information associated with friends and contacts. These sites allow
the job seeker to set tight privacy settings on his/her profile, limiting
information that visitors can see. However, it is difficult to control what
friends are posting. Friends may post pictures of the job seeker or messages
and comments containing content that could be less than favorable in a
potential employer’s eyes. If a friend tag a picture to the applicant wherein
they were drinking hard liquor and friends of the applicant would comment
negatively about the applicant whether it is true or not then the employer
would probably not hire the applicant because of the pictures and the comments in the Facebook wall
of the applicant. The applicant at that moment cannot defend himself or herself
to the employer because you do not know when the employer or his/her staff would
look into the profile of the applicant. There could also be a possibility that discrimination
could happen regarding the marital status of an applicant. If the employer
finds out that the applicant is a single parent because of looking the pictures
of the applicant in the Facebook there could also be a possibility that the
employer or his/her staff would not hire someone who is a single parent because
of avoiding RA.
8972 “An act providing for benefits and privileges to solo parents and
their children, appropriating funds therefor and for other purposes” also
known as the "Solo Parents' Welfare Act of 2000” which would only give
additional benefits to the applicant so employer would rather chose someone who
is not a solo parent even though an applicant is highly qualified for the
position. How about an employer who would see in the profile picture of the
applicant in these social media who is handicapped will the employer continue
to see the profile of the applicant? This is the problem with the social media
and internet tools in the acceptance of the applicant there could be a
discrimination in the employment process violating the Equal Protection Clause
that all persons or things similarly situated must be treated alike both to the
rights conferred and the liabilities imposed. It does not demand absolute
equality among residents; it merely requires that all persons shall be treated
alike, under like circumstances and conditions both as to privileges conferred
and liabilities enforced.
In
a blog titled ‘Protecting Your Passwords and Your
Privacy’ posted
on the Facebook and Privacy page on Friday, March 23, 2012, Erin Egan, the
Menlo Park, California-based company’s Chief Privacy Officer, responded to
recent news reports of employers “seeking to gain inappropriate access” to the
Facebook profiles of job applicants and employees. She also said that Facebook
would “take action to protect the privacy and security” of users and consider
“initiating legal action” where appropriate Protecting Your
Passwords and Your Privacy’ . Erin Egan
stated that-
“As a user, you shouldn’t be forced to share your private
information and communications just to get a job. And as the friend of a user,
you shouldn’t have to worry that your private information or communications
will be revealed to someone you don’t know and didn’t intend to share with just
because that user is looking for a job. That’s why we’ve made it a violation of
Facebook’s Statement of Rights and Responsibilities to share or solicit a Facebook
password. “
In
the above statement it would show that even in social media and internet tools
a person has still right to privacy and if an employer would violate it the
Writ of Habeas Data would apply wherein-
Section 1. Habeas Data. - The writ of habeas data is a remedy available to any person whose right to privacy in life, liberty or security is violated or threatened by an unlawful act or omission of a public official or employee, or of a private individual or entity engaged in the gathering, collecting or storing of data or information regarding the person, family, home and correspondence of the aggrieved party.
SOURCES:
http://www.examiner.com/article/facebook-warns-employers-not-to-ask-job-applicants-for-social-media-passwords
Association
of Small Landowners in the Philippines Inc. vs. Secretary of Agrarian Reform,
GR 78741, 14 July 1989; Ichong vs. Hernandez, 11 Phil.1155
2 Cooley, Constitutional Limitations,
824-825
Social Networks and Employment Law: Are you putting
your Organization at Risk? @ PeopleClick.com
DISCLAIMER: The
views and opinions expressed in this blog are those of the author and not intended to provide legal advice.
No comments:
Post a Comment