It's Called "Employment", not "Slavery" for a Reason!

Published on December 5, 2005 By Gideon MacLeish In Current Events

The following appeared as a letter to Dear Abby yesterday. I'll reprint the letter before I comment:

DEAR ABBY: Please warn your readers that their Web pages and blogs could stand in the way of securing a job! Just as employers have learned to read e-mail and blogs, they have learned to screen candidates through their sites.
Many people in their 20s and 30s wrongly believe their creations are entertaining and informative. Employers are not seeking political activists, evangelizers, whiners or tattletales. They do not want to find themselves facing a lawsuit or on the front page of a newspaper because a client, patient or parent of a student discovered a comment written by an employee.
The job market is tight, and job seekers must remember their computer skills can either help them land a position or destroy a job prospect.

Before I say anything in response to this letter, let me be VERY clear that I consider it an employer's RIGHT to determine who they wish to employ. That's a right no legislation should take from them.

That being said, I have a problem with the implication that I should "shut up" or speak in anonymity out of consideration for my employer. My political and religious views are mine and I have a right to express them as I see fit. The proposal that I should somehow "self edit" because a future employer might hold opposing views is ridiculous and condescending.

If I, as a Christian, had a job opening and refused it to a Muslim because I had seen his blog posted on his Islamic beliefs, most individuals would be calling for my head. And if it was an otherwise qualified candidate I had dismissed solely because of his faith, there would be some merit to your complaint. And if I, as a Libertarian, refused a Socialist candidate who was otherwise qualified for the job solely because of their political beliefs, in my opinion, it would be equally narrowminded. Put simply, the best qualified for the job should be the one who gets the job.

I would have no problem with a potential employer questioning some of my beliefs. In fact, I would consider it flattering, because it would mean they esteemed me highly enough as a candidate to take a closer look. But an outright dismissal based solely on my personal opinions is questionable at best (the question in my mind arises, though: would I WANT to work for such an employer...but I digress).

Employers should realize that employment for them does not constitute slavery (a message the local owner of our McDonald's failed to realize when he issued that "I own ALL that you see and do"...one of many reasons I liberated myself from that hellhole...but again with the digressing). As employers we are still autonomous individuals who will say and do what we choose on our own time. The internet just gives these employers greater access to our thought process.

I cannot and will not self edit for the whims of a hypothetical employer. And I would encourage others to do the same. At some point, employers may realize that their employers don't belong to them once they punch OUT on the time clock.

Comments

Zoomba

on Dec 05, 2005

I think a lot of the kerfluffle over blogs and employment lately has been because many (wrongly) believe that they can say whatever they like without consequence. That's the warning of caution I see in the Dear Abby letter. Freedom of Speech is a wonderful thing and an employer can't tell you what you are and aren't allowed to say, but that doesn't mean they have to continue employing you if they take offense or see potential risk in what you publish online.

Blogging is blurring the line between private opinions and speech, and the public space. Much like celebrities have lowered privacy expectations, so do private citizens who decide to place themselves "out there" by blogging. Think of it as comparable to writing a fiery weekly column in your local paper and how that may impact your job prospects.

Freedom of Speech comes with the steep price of the consequences of those words. Like in all things, we should use caution in what we say, how we say it, and where we say it. You never know who's reading/listening, and you never know how your views will be taken by them.

Dr Guy

on Dec 05, 2005

You never know who's reading/listening, and you never know how your views will be taken by them.

While that may be true, I agree with Gideon. If they so object to my views as to try to tell me what I can and cannot say, then I dont want to work for them.

Zoomba

on Dec 05, 2005

Which is fine. I'm not saying compromise your ethics for employment, I'm just saying people in general need to be more aware of the consequences. The issue is largely the individual's misunderstanding of what freedom of speech is.

Also, the letter doesn't mention employeers dictating off-work behavior, it's just commenting that what you say can come back to haunt you when looking for employment. They may not want to hire, for example, a zealous Linux engineer when they run a largely Windows shop. No company would be overly happy with the idea of hiring someone who was openly critical of their previous employer, making all sorts of nasty remarks on a blog or whatnot.

Dr Guy

on Dec 05, 2005

No company would be overly happy with the idea of hiring someone who was openly critical of their previous employer, making all sorts of nasty remarks on a blog or whatnot.

Aint that the truth! Just had an interview today where I praised my boss to the hilt. Yea, I lied through my teeth!

Gideon MacLeish

on Dec 05, 2005

Also, the letter doesn't mention employeers dictating off-work behavior, it's just commenting that what you say can come back to haunt you when looking for employment.

Actually, the letter is a warning against any free speech on OR off the clock. "Employers are not seeking political activists, evangelizers, whiners or tattletales. They do not want to find themselves facing a lawsuit or on the front page of a newspaper because a client, patient or parent of a student discovered a comment written by an employee."

It's pretty clear from that statement that employers are afraid of being associated with ANY free thought.

Best thing to do, though, is write under a pen name. While it might still be traced back to you, it's not going to jump off the computer screen at an employer doing a google search.

Zoomba

on Dec 05, 2005

That's a statement saying how employers want to take preemptive action to avoid those problems down the line. Doesn't say anything about blogging while working for the company, just that they're using it now as a screening tool in the hiring process. Avoid the problem by not hiring the potential problem.

Like I said, it's the same thing as writing a fiery article in the local paper. If you're openly a rabble-rouser on a subject, depending on what that subject is, that makes you immediately less attractive to some companies.

The problem employers are really trying to avoid are employees who might divulge confidential information, or publish as a representative of the company without corporate awareness or approval. It would be like you making a statement on behalf of McDonalds, or publishing information not available to the public. Or otherwise defaming your employer. Generally, when you work for a company, part of the employment agreement is to not misrepresent the company... Posting a blog about a company AS an employee of said company without authorization does that.

Despite the grumbling and wailing, I don't think I've ever heard of someone getting in trouble over a personal blog that merely espouses political or religious views. There was the Delta stewardess who got canned for indecent photos in uniform and on Delta planes. There were people who got in trouble for posting unflattering reports of their employer and workspace without making any effort to hide who they worked for. There have been people canned because they tried to act as a voice of authority on a subject because they worked for a company that did something related. There have been people canned for divulging corporate secrets or information covered by an NDA. That's the behavior that's being looked for. That's the behavior that they want to avoid.

Yes, I'm sure someone will come back with "But, they COULD decide they don't like your political blog and fire you for it!" But it hasn't happened (at least not to my knowledge, and I do try to keep up to date on this).

When you publish online, the rules change a bit. To expect the same degree of privacy or examination as you did when you merely got together with people and DISCUSSED controversial topics is kinda silly.

It's a brave new world, and your words travel further and are more permenant. To expect no consequences is naive.

Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:

Richer content, access to many features that are disabled for guests like commenting on the forums.
Access to a great community, with a massive database of many, many areas of interest.
Access to contests & subscription offers like exclusive emails.
It's simple, and FREE!