Is It Ethical That Employers Scrutinize Social Media?

The utilise of social media equally a tool for screening potential job candidates is becoming standard procedure for many organizations. At first glance, this practice seems relatively harmless. We all know the warning "what you post online stays online forever"; so any competent chore seeker would brand sure to remove any offending content, correct? I believe there are much more complex ethical issues at play here. In addition, this sort of investigation of a candidate'south life can atomic number 82 to a glace gradient of legal implications regarding hiring bias. This report volition examine the moral philosophy of using social media as a screening tool, every bit well as the practical pros and cons. It is my hope that this work will shed light on the potential unjust consequences of this procedure.

Social media checks are usually split from background checks. Most background checks focus on data such as employment history, credit information and legal problems. Independent paid services such as GoodEgg.com can run social media-based background checks. Additionally, recruiters can perform social media checks themselves past investigating public social media accounts. In 2016, "39 percent of employers researched candidates on social sites – and 43 per cent said they found something that made them question a candidate's suitability for a position" writes Gary Martin, Social Affairs & Workplace Columnist and LinkedIn Top Voice of 2018. Further, nineteen percent of employers reported finding information that actually 'sold them' on a candidate, such as their advice skills or a professional image. The most usually reviewed sites were LinkedIn, Twitter, and Facebook (Martin).

Photo from Critical Enquiry

Current laws regarding social media screening are sparse. It is the adherence to existing laws that recruiters must be cognizant of, such equally the Fair Credit Reporting Human activity and the Civil Rights Act. Social media can reveal race, sexual orientation, national origin, faith, a disability, and other protected characteristics that may not be revealed in a resume (Martin). As you can imagine, this increases the potential for discrimination based on a protected class. If one can evidence that their job candidacy was adversely afflicted past a prospective employer's social media search, so employer may be liable in an anti-discrimination instance (Martin).

In add-on to these laws, the United states of america Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development (CIPD) released a guide on pre-employment checks in 2016. This includes how businesses should approach social media screening, which basically states that decisions based on age, race, sexual activity, faith, or sexual orientation must be avoided (Martin). Another regulated process in some Usa states is the act of acquiring access to and reviewing a candidate's personal social media accounts and content. In some states, such equally Maine, Maryland, Michigan and New Jersey: "employers may not ask or require employees or applicants to disclose user names or passwords, or provide the employer with access in any other manner, to personal online accounts" (Barreiro).

Organizations that use social media screening must exist sure to avert discriminatory design making as outlined in the Civil Rights Act. Photograph from ClockworkTalent

The primary attractiveness of using social media equally a screening tool is that it tin can prove more about a candidate pre-interview than a resume or portfolio. Consequently, it is justified as a fashion to forbid negligent hiring. According to Forbes, negligent hiring is defined equally occurring when "an employer fails to verify that a prospective employee may present a danger to the organisation" (Martinez). The logic of this justification could follow and instance such as this ane from Haller and Brawl's "The Legal and Upstanding Considerations of Using Social Media in the Recruiting and Hiring Stages of Employment":

 "Prospective employees who routinely mail service pictures or comments about being under the influence of drugs or booze may come to work impaired. This inappropriate behavior makes them less effective and efficient in their task. There may also be increased monetary costs related to their poor choices including: medical and insurance costs, work-sponsored treatment programs, and time off."

While statistically this might be true, is this an ethical style of deciding a candidate's eligibility for a job? I believe this is a perfect instance of the slippery slope logical fallacy, and is inappreciably justification for eliminating someone with qualifications or experience from a candidate puddle. However, I understand that employers are defenseless between a rock and a hard place: the fear of negligent hiring vs. the unfair judgement of an private based on generalizations. Ultimately, most organizations will opt for what will save them legal trouble down the road. This is exactly the commonsensical mindset. The utilitarian seeks the greatest corporeality of skillful for the greatest number of people. They would argue that an individual 'south right and freedom to be who they are, while important, are not every bit important every bit the potential consequences are to the entire business organization. This tin also be said about employers who require that their personal social media credentials and content be given up. In that case, the privacy rights of the employee do not outweigh the need for the employer to monitor said accounts for things such as inappropriate beliefs or slander of their own company.

Negligent Hiring - SHRM

Fact checking resume claims is some other supposed perk of social media investigation. Withal, misrepresentation of candidate information either through out of date accounts or identity theft could result in making decisions based on false information non at the fault of the candidate.

Mentioned earlier, social media screening can be a catchy legal situation in regards to the Civil Rights Act's protected groups: race, color, age, religion, sex, national origin, sexual orientation and physical or mental disability. Is it ethically sound then, to discriminate based on non-protected classes such as gender identity, marital condition, parental status, political beliefs and affiliation, or fifty-fifty appearance? These are all factors that the resume conceals, and are never considered ethical to ask virtually in interviews. Based on this, it should be considered unethical to screen candidates before interviewing based on social media investigation. The truth is, this do completely undermines the blind recruiting procedure. There is a far greater opportunity for subconscious and conscious bias; affecting both unprotected and protected classes. Ane might argue that candidates willingly give up this information on their public accounts, therefore are rightfully discipline to any judgement that they receive. Fifty-fifty further, some may insist that hiring staff simply "ignore" their own biases - that it's their job to do then. While to an extent both statements are true, at that place are undeniable ethical concerns hither. People willingly give up information almost themselves by walking outside; by existing. It doesn't mean that it should be used confronting them in their right to work. For example: A recruiter bumps into ane of their candidates at the grocery shop only to observe out they have three children under the historic period of six. Information technology would be considered very unethical for that recruiter to deny said candidate an interview based on this fact solitary. As social media becomes more and more ingrained in our everyday lives, it must exist understood that people can make serious judgements based on the information others post online.

Blind Recruiting - Kinetix

Equally equally concerning is the fact that screening services, such as the aforementioned GoodEgg.com, flag content that doesn't necessarily pose a threat to the employer in terms of negligent hiring. For case, their "comprehensive groundwork check solution" includes the flagging of content including "self-harm" and "explicit/racy images" (GoodEgg.com). Firstly, self-damage content could include extremely positive and appropriate communications, such equally encouraging others to get help or sharing a vulnerable time in their life for others to chronicle to and learn from. To claim that self-harm can lead to "danger" in the workplace is a groundless claim, and denying someone the correct to interview or the position itself based on it is simply insensitive, and borderline ignorant. Secondly, it has become apparent through censorship of sites like facebook and Instagram that images of women are more than ofttimes flagged as "besides sexy" or inappropriate than men. Women have found that their posts were removed or their accounts shadow-banned based on the amount of skin showing and cleavage, which opens upward a bigger conversation near the censorship of plus-size women (Bailey). A famous instance of this is the "free the nipple" conversation, in which supporters exposed a articulate tendency that the male trunk is accounted acceptable, where the female body is not despite showing the aforementioned amount of skin (Bailey). In curt, this clearly demonstrates merely i example of how an automatic screening tool such as GoodEgg'due south can be harmful to groups such equally women and plus-sized individuals. In this instance, a robot can be even more biased than a homo.

Photograph from GoodEgg.com

Overall, I believe that using social media as a pre-interview screening tool has very little justification. Sure, we tin get a heads upwards on who nosotros're virtually to speak to: their hobbies, where they went to high school, if they are married, back up Donald Trump etc. None of these things are an accurate predictor of someone'due south work ethic, loyalty, team skills or behavior on the clock. I am a believer in more often than not bullheaded recruiting, and social media screening direct violates any intentions of this. I think humans are inherently biased, and when information technology comes to offering employment, everyone should be assessed on their skills, qualifications, experience, or motivation; not something they said on facebook when they were xiv. This coupled with the possible inaccuracy of social media profiles, legal pitfalls, and false-flagging of automated screening software makes the whole state of affairs unfavorable in my opinion. If an employer wishes to do so, I would say to expect until later in the recruitment procedure, specifically after they have met face-to-face. Additionally, it is extremely important that they bear the aforementioned searches at the same point in the procedure for every applicant to avert discrimination. I'm sure this trend of using social media to screen candidates is not going abroad anytime soon, but I urge recruiters to consider the implications of doing then in their own organisation, as well as the underlying ethical concerns highlighted in this written report.

Sources

Bailey, Paige. "Instagram: Censorship of the Female Class." Medium, The Public Ear, 5 July 2020, medium.com/the-public-ear/instagram-censorship-of-the-female-class-4a40ec3b3dfe.

Deutsch, Danielle. "Is Social Media Screening Upstanding?" GE-Foley, www.goodegg.io/blog/is-social-media-screening-ethical

Haller, Bruce and Ball, Daniel R., "The Legal and Ethical Considerations of Using Social Media in the Recruiting and Hiring Stages of Employment" (2020). Faculty Works: Business organisation. 82. https://digitalcommons.molloy.edu/bus_fac/82

Martin, Gary. "The Peachy Debate: The Ethics of Using Social Media To Search for Information Nearly Task Candidates." LinkedIn, world wide web.linkedin.com/pulse/great-debate-ethics-using-social-media-search-job-martin-faim-ace/.

Martinez, Alonzo. "From Open Hiring To Negligent Hiring: How To Reduce Risk And Promote Inclusivity." Forbes, Forbes Magazine, 24 February. 2020.www.forbes.com/sites/alonzomartinez/2020/02/24/from-open-hiring-to-negligent-hiring--how-to-reduce-take chances-and-promote-inclusivity/?sh=7beed8929f61.

Sachi Barreiro, Chaser. "Land Laws on Social Media Password Requests By Employers."Www.nolo.com, Nolo, 2 Mar. 2021,www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/state-laws-on-social-media-password-requests-by-employers.html.

"Utilise of Social Media in Hiring." Justia, 20 Mar. 2019,www.justia.com/employment/hiring-employment-contracts/utilize-of-social-media-in-hirin/#:~:textWhen an employer posts a,of state or local laws.