公司該監控員工私密的社交媒體嗎大綱

Social networks offer a window into how people live their lives.

社交網絡爲了解人們的生活提供了一扇窗。

But should employers be looking into that window?

但僱主是否應該窺探這扇窗呢？

It's becoming an increasingly important question. The number of people fired over social-media posts is rising, and many employers look closely at a job candidate's online presence before making a decision.

這正在成爲一個日益重要的問題。因爲社交媒體帖子被解僱的人越來越多，很多僱主在做出決定之前都會仔細考察職位候選人在網上的行爲。

For an idea of how prevalent those practices have become, consider a 2013 survey from CareerBuilder, which helps corporations target and attract workers. According to the survey, 39% of employers dig into candidates on social sites, while 43% said they had found something that made them deep-six a candidate -- such as posting inappropriate photos or information, or bad-mouthing a former boss.

想了解這種做法有多麼普遍，看看2013年CareerBuilder的一項問卷調查就知道了。CareerBuilder是幫助企業尋找並吸引人才的一個招聘網站。調查結果顯示，39%的僱主都會在社交網站上考察候選人，43％的僱主表示他們在網上找到了放棄某位候選人的信息――比如上傳不適當的照片或信息，或者說前老闆的壞話等。

On the flip side, 19% said they found information that sold them on a candidate, such as communication skills or a professional image.

另一方面，19%的僱主說他們找到了支持僱傭某位候選人的信息，比如溝通技巧或職業形象。

Some advocates say employers should be doing even more than they are now to monitor social media -- they should keep an eye on workers' tweets and updates around the clock. Privacy proponents and worker advocates say it's unnecessary. Most of what people post has nothing to do with work, they say, and shouldn't be monitored unless there's a clear reason to suspect wrongdoing.

有倡議者說，僱主應該在現在的基礎上進一步監控員工的社交媒體――應該時刻密切關注員工的網上發言和狀態更新。擁護隱私和支持員工的一方則表示沒有必要這麼做。他們說，員工在網上發的東西大都和工作無關，除非有明確的理由懷疑員工有不當行爲，否則不應該被監控。

Yes: Keeping an Eye on Employees Helps Companies Protect Themselves

應該監控：監控員工社交媒體行爲有助於保護公司

--Nancy Flynn

--Nancy Flynn

Management has a right and responsibility to monitor how employees are using social media at all times. If companies don't pay attention, they may end up facing any number of serious problems.

管理層有權利和責任時刻監督員工在社交媒體上的行爲。如果公司不關注，就有可能面臨嚴重的問題。

It's all too easy for disgruntled or tone-deaf employees to go onto social media and criticize customers, harass subordinates and otherwise misbehave. Sometimes that can bring workplace tensions and complaints, sometimes it can damage a company's reputation in the marketplace, and sometimes it can lead all the way to lawsuits or regulatory action. (And, like email, social-networking records can be subpoenaed and used as evidence.)

滿腹牢騷或不懂得察言觀色的員工太容易在社交媒體上批評客戶、騷擾下屬或者行爲失當了。這樣做有時會給辦公室帶來壓力和抱怨，有時會損壞公司在業界的名聲，有時會導致訴訟或管制行動。（和電子郵件一樣，社交網絡上的記錄也可用於法庭傳訊並當作證據使用。）

Not Harmless

並非無害

Some critics say that this is an exaggeration -- that most of what people post on social networks is private and perfectly harmless, and has no bearing on their work. These critics also argue that companies often do these searches out of prudery or as ideological witch hunts.

有批評人士說這是誇大其詞――人們在社交網絡上發的東西大都是私密和完全無害的，而且和工作沒有關係。他們還認爲，公司進行這種搜索常常是出於太過謹慎或者意識形態上的迫害。

In fact, a significant chunk of employees acknowledge posting information that they shouldn't. Consider the results of the '2009 Electronic Business Communication Policies and Procedures Survey' from American Management Association and my organization, the ePolicy Institute. In the survey, 14% of employees admitted to emailing confidential company information to third parties; 6% sent customers' credit-card data and Social Security numbers; and another 6% transmitted patients' electronic protected health information.

事實上，相當多的員工都承認在網上發過不應該發的東西。美國管理協會(American Management Association) 和我所在的組織ePolicy Institute所進行的《2009年電子商務溝通政策及流程調查》(2009 Electronic Business Communication Policies and Procedures Survey)結果顯示，14%的員工承認曾將公司保密信息通過電郵發給第三方；6％的員工曾發送客戶的信用卡數據和社保數據；還有6％曾傳輸病人的電子保密健康信息。

Some of the examples I've come across show just how serious those types of employee missteps can be. Hospital employees have come under criticism or have been fired for discussing patients on Facebook -- which violated not only hospital policy but also the federal Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act. A city official accidentally put some city employees' private information on a public website, then linked to the site from Twitter, which exposed the workers to potential identity theft and left the city vulnerable to regulatory action, negative publicity and lawsuits.

我所發現的有些案例表明了這種員工過失的嚴重程度。醫院員工因爲在Facebook上討論病人而受到批評或被解僱――公開討論病人的做法不僅違反醫院的政策，同時也違反聯邦《醫療保險轉移變更與責任法》(Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act)。一名市政官員不小心將部分市政員工的私人信息放到了一個公共網站上，然後從Twitter鏈接到了這個網站，這種行爲有可能導致員工身份被盜，市政府也可能會因此受到監管、公衆形象受損甚至遭到起訴。

In many other cases, employees have griped about their company online, or posted joke videos that put it in a bad light and took a considerable amount of damage control to undo.

在其他很多案例中，員工在網上抱怨自己的公司，或者上傳有損公司形象的搞笑視頻，然後又要花很大精力彌補自己的過失帶來的影響。

Strict monitoring allows employers to spot potential problems early, get the information offline as quickly as possible and discipline the employees involved. Along with keeping an eye on what happens on internal computer networks and public social media, companies should ask for access to employees' Facebook accounts and other private social media.

嚴格監控能讓僱主儘早發現潛在的問題，可以儘快將不當信息從網上刪除並對當事員工予以懲戒。除了監控內部電腦網絡和公共社交媒體上的情況，公司還應該要求員工提供Facebook賬號及其他私人社交媒體賬號信息。

Looking at Candidates

招聘篩選工具

Beyond that, some critics say it's unfair for companies to use social media as a factor in screening potential hires. It could lead to discrimination, they say, and it may screen out otherwise strong candidates who have done some things the company doesn't like but aren't related to work.

除此之外，還有批評人士說，公司把社交媒體作爲篩選求職者的一個因素是不公平的。他們說，這樣做可能會導致歧視，而且優秀的候選人可能會由於做了公司不喜歡但和工作無關的事情而被篩除掉。

Of course, it is important that companies don't use social media to discriminate based on things like age, ethnic background or religious beliefs. Employers should make sure that they have legitimate business reasons for rejecting applicants.

當然，公司不應該使用社交媒體並基於年齡、族裔背景或宗教信仰等因素而歧視候選人，這是很重要的。僱主應該確保有合理的商業原因拒絕候選人。

But, contrary to what critics argue, when companies conduct social-media checks on prospective hires, they typically are searching for legitimate evidence to withdraw or rethink a job offer, such as references to drugs or other illegal activities, comments that are discriminatory or harassing, or signs that an applicant has been dishonest about work history or abilities.

不過，和批評人士的看法相反，在對潛在僱員進行社交媒體調查時，公司一般都會尋找撤銷或重新考慮某個工作邀約的合理證據，比如涉及到毒品或其他非法活動，歧視性或騷擾性的話語，或者申請人對工作經歷或自身能力撒謊的跡象等。

They aren't just snooping around for, say, embarrassing photos that offend HR's sensibilities. To suggest that HR professionals monitor social media to root out private activity that they personally disapprove of is to make light of real dangers and potentially costly and protracted legal and regulatory risks.

他們到處調查並不是爲了挖出冒犯招聘人員神經的 照。認爲招聘人員考察社交媒體是爲了杜絕他們個人不喜歡的隱私活動，就是輕視了真正的危險，以及有可能代價很高、並且曠日持久的法律和監管風險。

Ms. Flynn is the founder and executive director of The ePolicy Institute, a training and consulting firm that helps employers limit email and Internet risks.

該部分作者南希・弗萊恩(Nancy Flynn)爲The ePolicy Institute創始人及執行董事，這是一家幫助僱主限制電子郵件及互聯網風險的培訓諮詢公司。可通過聯繫作者。

No: It Too Often Becomes a Fishing Expedition Unrelated to Work Issues

不該監控：太容易成爲與工作問題無關的摸底調查

--Lewis Maltby

--Lewis Maltby

Employers don't need to practice wall-to-wall monitoring of employees' social media to protect their legitimate interests.

僱主不需要對僱員的社交媒體進行全方位監控來保護自己的正當利益。

Yes, employers have a legal right to monitor employees' conduct on their work computers. But the only time employers have a legal duty to monitor employee communications is when the employer has reason to believe that the employee is engaged in illegal conduct.

沒錯，僱主有監控僱員在公司電腦上行爲的合法權利，但僱主唯一有法律義務監控僱員溝通情況的時候是僱主有理由認爲僱員參與了非法行爲。

Many successful companies do exactly that -- monitor only when there is a solid reason to suspect employee wrongdoing. These policies have been in place for years and work well.

許多成功的公司都是這樣做的――只有有充分理由懷疑員工行爲不當時纔會監控。這些政策已經存在多年，而且非常有效。

The fact is, the vast majority of what employees do on the Internet has nothing to do with work, takes place during their private lives and is done on their personal computers. Once again, employers should get involved with employees' private lives only when there is reason to be concerned.

事實情況是，僱員在網上的絕大多數行爲都與工作無關，基本都發生在私人生活中，而且都是在僱員的私人電腦上進行的。再次強調一下，僱主只有有充分理由懷疑的時候才應該干涉僱員的私人生活。

Human Elements

人的因素

It's simply too easy to turn social-media searches into fishing expeditions. Employers are human and cannot avoid being offended by employees' private behavior that goes against their values. Experience shows that employers fire employees for reasons having nothing to do with work. People have lost jobs because of their political opinions and religious beliefs. A photo in a bikini has cost many women their job. One man was fired because his employer didn't like his short stories (too much sex and violence).

社交媒體搜索太容易變成摸底調查了。進行搜索工作的是人，因此難免會被僱員違背自己價值觀的私人行爲所冒犯。經驗表明，僱主常常會出於與工作無關的理由解僱員工。有人因爲自己的政治觀點和宗教信仰丟了工作。一張比基尼照片讓許多女性失去了飯碗。還有一個人因爲老闆不喜歡他的小故事（太多性和暴力）而被解僱。

What's more, companies frequently reject qualified applicants because they don't like what they find out about them online. The majority of employers in a recent survey (77%) said they now conduct Internet searches of prospective employees, and over a third (35%) have rejected job applicants because of information they found. I have spoken to otherwise fair employers who refuse to hire anyone who has party pictures on their Facebook page.

此外，經常有公司因爲不喜歡在網上發現的東西而拒絕合格的求職者。在最近的一項問卷調查中，大多數僱主（77%）說他們會在網上對潛在僱員進行搜索，超過三分之一的僱主（35%）由於在網上找到的信息而拒絕了求職者。向來很公平的僱主跟我說不會僱傭Facebook主頁上有派對照片的人。

Refusing to hire people because of private behavior unrelated to work is not only unfair, but hurts the employer. In a competitive economy, companies need to hire the most qualified applicants. When HR professionals reject the top candidate because they disapprove of the person's private life, the employer loses, too.

由於和工作無關的私人行爲而拒絕僱人的行爲不僅不公平，而且對僱主也沒有好處。在一個競爭激烈的經濟環境中，公司需要僱傭最有資質的申請人。招聘人員因爲不喜歡其私人生活而拒絕優秀申請人的時候，僱主也有損失。

There's more subtle damage as well. HR professionals are already hard pressed to investigate applicants thoroughly. Often there isn't enough time to speak with every prior employer, or to verify the applicant's academic record. Taking time away from these crucial activities to go on Internet fishing expeditions diminishes the quality of the hiring process.

此外還有更難以察覺的損害。招聘人員已經承受着要徹底調查申請人的壓力，通常他們並沒有足夠的時間和每個前僱主溝通或者驗證申請人的學習成績。從這些關鍵的調查中抽出時間去網上做摸底調查會有損於招聘流程的質量。

Internet searches also put employers at risk of liability. An employer who learns that an applicant is gay, Moslem, disabled, or over 40 years old, and then hires someone else may face discrimination charges. Once the employer has such information, it may be difficult to prove that it wasn't used in making the hiring decision. Even if the employer ultimately prevails, valuable time and money are lost. It's much safer not to acquire the information.

互聯網搜索還會讓僱主面臨承擔法律責任的風險。如果得知某個申請人是同性戀、穆斯林、殘疾或者超過40歲而僱傭其他人，僱主可能會面臨歧視的起訴。一旦僱主掌握了這種信息，要證明在做招聘決定時沒有參考這種信息就很難了。即使僱主最終勝訴了，也損失了寶貴的時間和金錢。不去獲取這種信息要安全得多。

Use With Care

謹慎使用

Of course, there are situations in which an applicant's Internet activity is of legitimate concern to an employer. A police department should think twice about hiring an officer that belongs to racist groups. Someone who visits child-pornography sites shouldn't be hired to work with children. A applicant with a drinking problem could be the wrong choice to drive a truck.

當然，也有申請人的網上活動應該引起僱主合理關注的情況。警察局在僱傭一個屬於種族歧視組織的警員時就應該三思。訪問兒童色情網站的人不應該受僱和兒童一起工作。有酗酒問題的申請人做卡車司機就不合適。

In cases like these, employers should hire a third party to conduct the search. Employers should determine what type of information is relevant to the job and instruct search firms to report only this type of information.

在這種情況下，僱主應該請第三方進行搜索。僱主應判斷哪類信息與工作相關，並告知調查公司只彙報這類信息。

You can't blame employers for wanting to know more about applicants before making a commitment. There are circumstances where the Internet may contain relevant information. But sending HR professionals indiscriminately trawling through social media is unfair and causes more problems than it solves.

我們不能怪僱主在做出承諾前希望瞭解申請人的更多情況。有時候網上可能有相關的信息。但讓招聘人員不加選擇地在社交媒體上搜羅信息是不公平的，而且帶來的問題會比解決的問題多。