Friday, May 25, 2012


(DISCLAIMER: Not to be taken as legal advice, created for academic purposes only.)
It is the prerogative of an employer on how it will determine who can be a part of its institution. The government provides for the laws and implementing rules on which the employers as well as the employees are bound to adhere. In a government where the policies are interpreted only by law and legal substance, morality, though not apparently included is inherent upon those who are implementing the rules. The law may be harsh but that is the law, it is made so that it will be implemented and followed. The law stops where it is already infringing into the rights of another. Laws must not be oppressive, laws are supposedly protecting the rights of those who are afforded with.
In allowing employers to access its prospective or current employee’s social networking sites and accounts renders it as a violation of one’s right of privacy. Imagine during the job interview the employer scans through your Facebook account looking for something which they may find for or against their company which you are applying for a job, it is like you are being molested or humiliated in front of other people, it’s like letting them play inside your own backyard without you giving them the permission.
 There are other avenues on how to conduct a background check on one’s identity. Social networking behavior does not represent one’s personality and character. It is a mere outlet of one’s self. The employer is so afraid that employees might inadvertedly leak classified information by making a post in a social networking site. The presumption must be  that the employee is capable of separating his social life with his professional life, by letting employers access the employee’s social networking site is like preventing a violation which no one knows whether it would be committed or not. Suppose the employer finds something which will prejudice the employees chances of being hired. The act of entering into a social networking site is demeaning and undignified, again, the social networking site behavior of a person does not reflect his way of life, and it is a mere outlet, an expression of one ’s self.
In the State of Maryland in the USA, its lawmakers passed a legislation protecting employees from employer’s who require social networking access. The focal point of which is the protection for privacy. In the United States privacy is a big thing and people are always aware of their rights, they should be because they are in the land of the free. Living in the United States is simple, because people know their role in the society, they trust their government, though people are free to voice their thoughts, they can do what they want as long as it is in accordance with the law, bottom line is they know their role and they let their government do its job, not like here in the Philippines where everyone wants to be president. By implementing this law, the citizens are guaranteed of the protection without having to worry whether the employer requires their usernames and passwords, it is not a question of whether it is moral or not, rather  if it is lawful or unlawful.
In another article, Facebook, the social networking giant has also raised its fight against employers asking for the access of social networking sites. It says that it is not only injurious upon ones’ self it will also be harmful to the employees friends and friends of friends.
If what the employers are trying to protect are their rights, they should not be infringing some other person’s rights either, by going into their social networking sites.


(DISCLAIMER: Not to be taken as legal advice, created for academic purposes only.)

No comments:

Post a Comment