Ideologies in the workplace

Watching what unfolded in Charlottesville in mid August I noticed one of the protestors wearing clothing marked with the Verizon logo, their uniform. Later Verizon issued a statement stating that the company in no way supports the white supremacist groups or the hate and bigotry associated with the groups. It may be sometime, if at all, when we hear if this person was an actual employee and was disciplined or terminated. Obviously, this person, whether an employee or not, put Verizon in an awkward position.

Publicly representing the company for which one works does limit what an employee can do in their off duty hours. Some businesses have policies specifically stating that employees cannot express political views while representing the company. What the employee does off duty when not representing the company and whether the company can control these activities has come under court scrutiny. Most notably in the use of medical marijuana. (Smoke ‘em if you got ‘em {Marijuana in the workplace})

If an employee is wearing the company uniform and participating in activities that go against the company values the company may have legal precedent to terminate or discipline the employee. The question that came to mind is what if the employee keeps the off duty activity anonymous? They do not espouse their ideologies at work and is a solid employee/coworker. Somehow their off duty activities are exposed and now the workplace becomes a hostile environment. Are there grounds to terminate that otherwise productive employee?

What are employer’s rights?

Allen Smith, J.D., wrote an excellent article for the Society For Human Resource Management website, Can or Should Employers Fire Employees Who Participate in Hate Groups? Smith reinforces what I have found, that the answer is not clear. When what employees do off duty creeps into the workplace several legal precedents have to be considered before an employee can be fired. Allen Smith makes the following points.

No federal law is violated if a worker is fired for being a member of a hate group or verbally expresses beliefs. Courts have rejected KKK members claim of religious protection under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Freedom of speech protections under the First Amendment does not apply to private employers.

Most states are work at will states meaning that employees can be terminated for any lawful reason. California, Colorado, New York, and North Dakota have laws protecting workers against being discriminated against while participating in lawful activity outside of work. However, if it becomes known at work that an employee was participating off duty in a hate-based protest, an employer may choose to terminate. Basing their action on violations of non harassment policies.

When dealing with customers who are offended by an employee’s ideologies, businesses have to consider the impact on the business. If the person continues to be employed will that affect business? Or is firing the employee at the risk of being sued better for the company?

Human resource issues are not cut and dried. Even though similar issues may have arose in the past, each case must be examined on their own. Always contact an employment law attorney before making termination decisions.

How well do you know someone?

Watching the vetting process for the new presidential cabinet you heard politicians and others vouching for the nominees.  They would qualify their knowledge of the person’s background by stating how long they’ve known the person, “I’ve known this person for five years.” Really? Five whole years?

There is the possibility that you can really get to know someone in a short span of time. But it is highly unlikely, especially if you’re not with the person 24/7. There have been incidents of husbands and wives, who have been married for more than a decade, not knowing of the others “secret” life. So how can you vouch for a person, you have known for five years, and periodically interact with? If your “friend” is forty and you’ve known them for five, or even ten years, that seems like an eternity. However, they’ve had twenty-two years of adulthood before you ever met them.

Then you have the now cliché neighbor of a crime suspect, “[He’s] always been a good neighbor. Quiet. Never bothered anyone.” Chances are the neighbor is basing their assessment on fact. They never really knew the suspect so, of course, they were quiet and never bothered anyone.

If a background investigator has ever contacted you regarding an investigation for a security clearance how well you know someone can become shockingly evident. People obtaining security clearances fill out a questionnaire, part of which includes references. These references have to be non-work, friends and neighbors. Sometimes you have no idea why your name was used. You hardly know the person. But sometimes the investigation is for someone you’ve “known” for ten or more years (Most backgrounds require the reference to be a person you’ve known for five or more). But you don’t hang out with them, you don’t interact socially, you lose touch. But here is your name as a reference. The investigator starts asking the standard questions and you realize that although you’ve known this person since college, you cannot provide one piece of information that can verify anything about the person’s proclivity for cheese or espionage.

So to stand before a congressional committee and state that, “I’ve known this person for five years and they have absolutely the best character”, is little bit of a stretch.

See our blog archive for other posts relating to character association: 

Don’t want to know July 24, 2013

Have you ever been convicted of a crime February 3, 2014

Social media checks

Background checks use to be associated with financial institutions during applications for loans. Now they are performed during job applications, college admissions, even dating sites. One of the most important parts of the background check is the character reference. References were historically performed by field investigators interviewing the person’s friends, neighbors, associates, coworkers, etc. This is still an integral part of checking someone’s references, but in today’s online all the time society, social media is fast becoming the standard.

Who’s looking?

Private employers are. Social media checks are now on the checklist during candidate research. HR hiring surveys estimate that more than half of employers search an applicant’s social media during the hiring process. The New York Post reported on January 29, 2016, that at least 40% of college admissions officers report they check applicants’ Facebook pages and other social media when weighing who should get accepted. A third say they Google applicants. Even professional sport franchises do their due diligence when deciding on draft picks. As part of the vetting process, social media of potential draftees are reviewed. With the media attention on football players gone wild in recent years, franchises are doing every thing they can to determine the character of the player they are drafting.

Now the federal government is getting into the game. Investigators will now be probing social media as part of background checks for security clearances. Seems far-fetched that federal investigators didn’t perform these checks in the past, but now it’s official. On May 13, 2016, Director of National Intelligence James Clapper signed a policy directive that allows investigators to collect publicly available social media information pertaining to the person whose background is being investigated. In a press release, Bill Evanina, Director of ODNI’s National Counterintelligence and Security Center stated, “We cannot afford to ignore this important open source in our effort to safeguard our secrets—and our nation’s security.” While federal investigators are prohibited from requiring or requesting applicants’ password information, they will be searching for publically accessible accounts.

Privacy concerns

States and the Federal government have responded in a challenging effort to protect citizens’ privacy and rights. Twenty-three states have enacted laws that prevent employers from requesting passwords to personal accounts to either apply for or keep a job. Maryland was the first state to enact such a law, which took effect on October 1, 2012. Maryland’s law states that employers may not require employees or applicants to disclose a user name, password or other means of accessing a private Internet site or electronic account.

The Equal Opportunity Employment Commission (EEOC) and National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) regulate, monitor, and enforce employer misuse of social media during the hiring process. Since 2010, the NLRB has heard dozens of cases regarding employers infringing on employee rights through social media. Both the EEOC and the NLRB have issued guidance to employers regarding social media rights of employees.

Does your mother see your posts?

Whether you’re currently looking for job or suddenly need a clearance, you never know when a situation will surface that requires a background check, which will now more than likely include social media checks. As we are seeing, the trend is spreading beyond dating sites to employers, college admissions, pretty much anyone who wants to know more about who you are. A picture truly is worth a thousand words.

Getting a lot of ambiguous rejections? Check your social media posts.

Even social media posts from years ago can haunt you. During the 2016 NFL draft, a potential first round pick had his Twitter account hacked.  A years old video showing him allegedly smoking marijuana with a bong hit the web. As this sorted out, draft round after round passed. He eventually was chosen in the thirteenth round, costing him millions.

Because of the anonymity of the Internet, the narcissist in us all, and the instantaneous culture we have, social media seems to be a window into our daily lives. Not only what cat videos we find hilarious or what we’re eating and where, but social media goes a long way in determining who we are, the character of the person doing the posts. Now one could argue that it’s not how they really are, that they use social media as an alter ego. But over time, patterns do develop and the onus appears to be on the account holder to justify the veracity of their posts and not the reviewer.

A good rule of thumb is-If you wouldn’t want your mother to see it, then don’t post it.

See our blog archive for other posts relating to social media:

What’s your social media policy? March 22, 2016

Enforcing company policy May 8, 2015

Convicted? Never convicted. October 17, 2014