Biyernes, Mayo 25, 2012

Intrusion to Employees’ Protected Zone of Privacy

With the increasing rate of unemployed Filipinos, can a social media network be a tool for an employer to determine the most suitable candidate? With the advent of the technology, can these social networking sites work for the employees’ advantage in presenting themselves as better qualified choice in performing the task at hand?

Few questions, hypothetically asked following the current happening and even lawsuits confronted by employers in the United States, who dared to include applicants’ Facebook password or access, as part of their recruitment requirement. Bringing the same scenario in Philippine setting would call for another long legal battle between the sides of the employer and employee.

Filipinos, like the rest of the world, use social media to announce every happy event in their lives and vent about day-to-day frustrations regarding their families, love life and even about their jobs. They post photos, publish what’s on their minds and share career and all other personal information. It has been their Personal Journal, their Diaries. Their Facebook profile can be overflowing with information that could be used to piece together a detailed composite of a job applicant. This could be a source of anything and everything about one’s person, his inner being, his thoughts and his feelings. And to provide access to another person, is the same as if you are surrendering your right to your private life.

The weighty provisions of the Bill of Rights, Article III of the 1987 Constitution mentioned PRIVACY in two important sections. Section 2 salutes not only the power of the State over a person’s home and possessions, but more importantly, it protects the privacy and sanctity of the person himself,[1] to wit:
“The right of the people to be sure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures of whatever nature and for any purpose shall be inviolable, xxx.”
Related to the right mentioned in the above stated Section is the right to privacy of communication and correspondence which provides:
“The privacy of communication and correspondence shall be inviolable except upon lawful order of the court, or when public safety or order requires otherwise as prescribed by law.”
The guarantee, which the law ensures, extends to all forms of communication and correspondence. The protection should include both the tangible and intangible objects. To restrict and limit the safeguard there should be a lawful court order and valid statutes to justify the State in interfering with ones privacy. Privacy should extend to what you have, on what you are, in the Cyber world. Personal and confidential matters in this social networking site should be kept as individual matters which gained entitlement of privacy. What was intended to be hidden from the general public should remain unseen, so that’s the beauty of privacy.

Employers, who would ask to submit the applicants’ access to their account just to qualify to their list of prospective applicants, violate these individuals’ right to privacy. It is not fair for the company to look into, only for their interest and discriminately dig through applicants’ private lives. This would further lead to consequences for discrimination, the company’s ability to select the best applicant has been irreparably compromised by looking into what’s there to find in their private accounts. There might be biases as to their illnesses, religion, political affiliations, sexual orientation and other factors that have been exposed by intruding into their private lives.

It will be arbitrary and oppressive for employers to ask for the password since there lies no relevance to the work being applied for. It does have nothing to do with the skills and abilities required for a job. It will be absolutely against the business ethics especially in recruitment. It was even a far cry from background check because traditionally, companies would look into previous employment that have a direct bearing on the applicants’ abilities to do the job. They would investigate for criminal records and colleges where they are from. Check of financial records would even be questionable at best.

Employers who are expected to be in favor of the access requests say that doing so will prompt and alert them to red flags such violent or other troubling behaviour of these applicants. But then again, this is not sufficient to justify the intrusion. There are many ways to kill a cat, and obliging a job applicant to submit to the employer’s access request is not one. There are better ways to determine the skills, abilities and attitude towards work of one applicant and compel him for an access is the same as asking him to surrender his house keys and that’s going beyond against his privacy.

If the issue will be pushed into legislation, to fill the gaps of present social and economic realities, again, the employees will definitely win the hearts and approval of the legislators. Majority will go in favor of continuously protecting the interest of the employees and strengthening them as the weaker force compared to capita. Even if we tend to adapt to the present technology and has successfully brought forth more complexities in life, no one should be forced to submit to ones invasion of right to privacy. For in this land, still, social justice rules.



[1] Bernas, Joaquin G. The Constitution of the Republic of the Philippines; A Commentary, 1987.





Disclaimer: This work is a compilation of information gathered and some part of which is the author’s humble opinion or expression and observation in relation to the fulfillment of a requirement set forth in the study of Technology and the Law. It should not be taken as legal advice or any manner other than for the stated academic purpose only.

1 komento: