The Social Media Unemployment Line

Feb 2011
16,799
5,960
Boise, ID
#12
Prying into private social media accounts of employees,
Social media isn't any more private than hollering on a street corner.

random drug testing, some business won't even consider hiring smokers, even if they only smoke while not at work, etc.

So, I take it you aren't informed on this.
Employers want to be able to keep the best people in their employ, whatever they think that means for them. That is reasonable. People that reflect badly on the employer aren't wanted. Employers shouldn't have to keep someone on staff who might have made a great impression in the recruitment and hiring process but now has shown to be a complete ass. They should simply be able to part ways with employees that they don't want. Employees leave their employers all the time and seek out better deals elsewhere. Employers should be able to do this too.
 

One

Former Staff
Dec 2006
11,951
10,748
----> X <----
#13
Social media isn't any more private than hollering on a street corner.



Employers want to be able to keep the best people in their employ, whatever they think that means for them. That is reasonable. People that reflect badly on the employer aren't wanted. Employers shouldn't have to keep someone on staff who might have made a great impression in the recruitment and hiring process but now has shown to be a complete ass. They should simply be able to part ways with employees that they don't want. Employees leave their employers all the time and seek out better deals elsewhere. Employers should be able to do this too.
Kind of makes your previous post...
No one believes that.
...ring hollow.
 
Likes: 2 people
Feb 2011
16,799
5,960
Boise, ID
#14
Kind of makes your previous post...

...ring hollow.
Being able to decide for yourself who you want to work for or who you want working for you doesn't have anything to do with controlling them. It's just employment. A trade of labor for money. People everywhere change jobs constantly. Neither can control the other, but both should be able to decide for themselves who they want to work with and who they don't.
 

One

Former Staff
Dec 2006
11,951
10,748
----> X <----
#15
Being able to decide for yourself who you want to work for or who you want working for you doesn't have anything to do with controlling them. It's just employment. A trade of labor for money. People everywhere change jobs constantly. Neither can control the other, but both should be able to decide for themselves who they want to work with and who they don't.
Sorry, you are just trying to justify employers being able to pry in to employees private lives. And yes it is tying to control your behavior while not at work. I realize you are very strongly pro business, but an employer has no business being in an employee's business outside of the office. period.
 
Likes: 3 people
Feb 2011
16,799
5,960
Boise, ID
#16
Sorry, you are just trying to justify employers being able to pry in to employees private lives.
What you offer up in social media is not your private life. You went through the effort to publicize it. What you make a concerted effort to publicize isn't "your private life."

And yes it is tying to control your behavior while not at work. I realize you are very strongly pro business,
Just anti-double-standards.

but an employer has no business being in an employee's business outside of the office. period.
If a business were to get on its social media page after Joe Schmoe was off the clock and say "wow, Joe is such a shitty worker, look at what a bad job he did here?" and Joe Schmoe was like "pfft fuck that bullshit, I quit," is that an act of Joe Schmoe trying to "control" his employer? An employer acts like a total ass, employer will lose quality employees. Employee acts like a total ass, employee will lose quality employers.

Time to put on our big boy pants and acknowledge the sale of labor is a trade and both have to be satisfied with what the other offers. Sometimes that includes character and reputation factors. Don't like it? Look in the mirror and tell yourself to stop acting like a teenager in public forums.
 
Last edited:
Sep 2014
4,837
1,504
South FL
#17
Sorry, you are just trying to justify employers being able to pry in to employees private lives. And yes it is tying to control your behavior while not at work. I realize you are very strongly pro business, but an employer has no business being in an employee's business outside of the office. period.
On the flip side I can be held liable for negligent hiring and/or negligent retention.
 
Jun 2014
47,300
47,286
United States
#18
On the flip side I can be held liable for negligent hiring and/or negligent retention.

Responsibility is a bitch, isn't it? Of course, that in no way implies that a private business should be allowed to invade the privacy of it's employees in manners that are not even allowed for our government under our Constitution.
 
Likes: 1 person

One

Former Staff
Dec 2006
11,951
10,748
----> X <----
#19
On the flip side I can be held liable for negligent hiring and/or negligent retention.
Changes nothing. You are still supporting a business being able to insert themselves into employees private lives. I see how you were trying to justify their being able to do so. But you can not justify it. period.
And yes, if I put something on social media, I have the ability to limit who sees it.
 
Sep 2014
4,837
1,504
South FL
#20
Changes nothing. You are still supporting a business being able to insert themselves into employees private lives. I see how you were trying to justify their being able to do so. But you can not justify it. period.
And yes, if I put something on social media, I have the ability to limit who sees it.
You don't get it. I don't WANT to know, I actually want to know LESS about my employees. LESS, not more. I have to exercise due diligence here, OR the law will find that I have breached a duty and I could be subjected to liability for negligent hiring/negligent retention and I could lose my home.

And yes, if I put something on social media, I have the ability to limit who sees it.
We're not discussing employers hacking into accounts. These people didn't limit it, it was out there and other people were able to see it.

If you were in a position where you placed funds into my trust account and my associate, John, stole that money because I didn't realize he was a coked up, deadbeat loser who had been charged with running a Ponzi scheme, you'd be the first to say I should've been alert to those circumstances, and if he were my delivery driver, and he struck your daughter with a vehicle I entrusted to him, you'd be the first to say I should've known he was a no good drunk who should've been entrusted with the truck.

I'm vicariously liable. Yeah, I got my eyes open, and my employees taking a drug test as a result of that.
 
Last edited:
Likes: 1 person

Similar Discussions