Reference no: EM133203468 , Length: Word count: 1 Page

Assignment Task: Read the case: Welcome to the World of 21st Century HRM

Make an initial post in which you consider the following:

Is it appropriate that Angie was fired for her Facebook post? Why or why not? Explain the legal and ethical issues that led to your thinking.

Provide an example that you are aware of where employees are monitored in some way. How that monitoring is implemented and handled?

Post:

Here are two discussions which you need to reply

Discussion 1:

Is it appropriate that Angie was fired for her Facebook post? Why or why not? Explain the legal and ethical issues that led to your thinking. In this case study, Angie's employers had been reviewing her Facebook page and blog when they found things that they did not like. Angie had posted on her blog that she did not want to go to work due to her hangover as well as talking down on her boss. She had called in sick instead of showing up and working through it. Her employers found out that she was not actually sick and that she did not like working beneath her boss. This led to the company terminating her employment with the company (Lussier & Hendon, 2016). Some people might argue that the company was right for firing her and others may disagree. Every company can have the employment at will (EAW) doctrine. The legal doctrine states that employers are free to fire an employee at any time, for any reason. EAW workers also have the ability to leave a job at any time without offering a notice (Hartman, 2020). The company had a right to terminate her employment if there was an EAW. Angie did not show up to work and had lied about a sickness to get out of it. She was not being productive with her time and essentially could be wasting money if she gets a paid-sick leave. Companies succeed more when their productivity rates are higher and Angie was not being productive. The company could have wanted to hire someone who would be more productive and potentially want to work under the boss that Angie despised. Angie had become a liability for the company as she had publicly criticized the company by talking down on her boss. In the short term, it may be more expensive to train someone from scratch. In the long run, it may be better as employers can train the new employee to become an asset. They would be training someone who wanted to work and help the company succeed. Although the company had the legal rights to fire Angie, some may believe that they should have not fired her due to privacy rights. Privacy rights are the legal and ethical sources of protection in personal data (Hartman, 2020). As far as the readers know, the company was not listed as well as there were no names included. This means that Angie's readers would not have known who she was talking about. Everything that Angie had posted was on her personal social media account and blog. She had the freedom to write what she wanted as freedom of speech. It was her right to state her personal opinions. However, the employer can take action against the employee as the first amendment protects people from actions by the government. Employees at public employers would be protected, but this does not apply to private companies (Shoenberger, 2020). Since Angie was punished, it is safe to assume that the company she worked for was private. The company has their right to uphold the EAW doctrine if they please. People argue that it does not seem right for the company to snoop around someone's personal pages and that it seems illegal for them to do it. Some companies disclose that they would be monitoring their employees. If the company discloses this information, it gives the company more right to review. However, the companies that do not have the policies put notices on them (Privacy Rights vs. Employee Tracking, 2020). Angie was aware that her potential hires' social media accounts were being monitored. She may not have thought that they were going to go through hers and the current employees, but it is not like they completely did the checkout of the blue. Overall, the company had the right to fire Angie. She had called out sick for a day when she could have worked and called her boss names. They thought that Angie was not a good person to represent their company any more. I do believe that if this was Angie's first offense, she should have gotten a warning about the situation and gave her another chance. It is possible that she could have had one bad encounter with her boss and called him names based on her initial reaction, not after thought. It is still not the right thing to do, but she has a right to her own opinion. If this was her third strike, the company should have fired her as it would be more obvious that she was not the right fit. There are a few pieces of information that are necessary to give a definitive answer, but based on the information that I have accumulated, I think that the company should not have fired Angie. There is information missing of the context of the situation in the blog. From personal experiences, I have known lots of people who have called out sick, even when they were not. However, they were usually able to find cover for their shift. If they could not find a cover, then they would receive a strike and three strikes means that they would be fired. However, every situation is different, and everyone deserves a chance to fix their wrongs and I believe that Angie did not have this opportunity. Provide an example that you are aware of where employees are monitored in some way. How is that monitoring implemented and handled? At one of my previous employers, there was a program that was called "secret shoppers." People were hired to come into the restaurant and test us our knowledge on the food. They also observed how we would interact with the guests and maintained cleanliness throughout the store. Their identity would be kept a secret and would report back to our management team and rate us on our work. If the results were positive, our boss would inform us that we had a secret shopper and we performed great. However, if the results were negative, the employee would be confronted about the situation. If it had to do with the knowledge of food, they would be given a paper quiz to test the menu and ingredients. If they had failed, the employee would be taken off of the schedule and not be allowed to work until they passed the menu quiz. This would also result in a strike. Three strikes and the employee would be terminated. It may seem like a harsh tactic, but this was a way for the company to monitor our knowledge and make sure that we were doing our jobs to the best ability. Making sure that every employee knew the ins and outs of the company, resulted in better customer service. The restaurant that I had worked at was acknowledged by food magazines, newspapers, and more. However, what made the company more successful was that the employees were trained well and would give the customers a wonderful experience. Customer service can make or break a restaurant. I, personally, go back to certain restaurants because their customer service was excellent. The food may not be the best, but I go for the great experience.

Discussion 2:

Employees often have to give up some privacy in the workplace, but the extent to which they must do so can be a matter of debate. There is a fierce debate about the ethics, ethics, and laws for employers to monitor their employees. Employers believe that supervision is necessary to prevent illegal activities and limit liability. Nevertheless, in the process of monitoring employees, many people's emotional and physical stress was negatively affected, including fatigue, low employee morale, and lack of motivation in the workplace [citation needed]. Employers may choose to use surveillance cameras to monitor employees' activities, or they may wish to record employees' activities while using company computers or phones. The court found that as technology advances, the dispute between privacy and freedom in the workplace is becoming more complex, as traditional rules governing areas of privacy law are controversial and less important (Kevin B., 2020) (USA Today, 2001).  As more and more employees use the Internet and other electronic media to communicate inside and outside of work, the issue of employee privacy is getting more and more attention. While many of these accounts appear private, employees have little privacy. Employers can often search for anything that happens on their computers. You can find information about employee privacy below, both during and during the job application process. Topics include background checks, electronic surveillance, searches, wiretaps, and more. Please keep abreast of the latest developments in this rapidly changing legal field (Find Law, 2020).  From the case, companies have a habit of analyzing employee social media sites to view what way they carry out themselves on and off duty.  Angie was fired for Posting inappropriate company content on her personal social media platform (Lussier, R. N., & Hendon, J. R., 2012). In my opinion, I think Angie has the right to say what she wants on her Facebook page. Everyone should have freedom of speech. I also believe that one should consider the consequences and effects it may have on you and/or others, depending on what is said. Opinion and action are two different things to consider when making the information public. The text did not say exactly why Angie was fired. Is it because she called her boss an idiot, or because she called in sick with a hangover? Angie thinks her boss is an idiot. Was it ethical for her to say that? No, but I don't think that's a reason to fire her (Hartman L.P., 2018).  From a legal and ethical perspective, Facebook was justified in laying off the employee to protect its organization's reputation. Employers face the moral dilemma of deciding whether to conduct online research on potential workers as part of their due diligence in the hiring process.  Companies that monitor employee social media accounts are Facebook, Instagram, Twitter, and LinkedIn. These social media platforms have provided excellent communication channels amongst people in the outer world. Most people use them to share and transfer files, entertainment, network, and job seeking, increasing the risk of sharing confidential information. Research done by American Management Association highlights that about 14% of employees have shared confidential information about their respective companies (Lee, 2018) . Of this threat, many companies like Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, and LinkedIn have implemented employee monitoring mechanisms. These companies have developed specific dos and don'ts that limit employees on their posts to make them relevant to organizational values. Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram have developed education programs that inform employees about risks that could occur if confidential information gets out. Facebook ensures that all its employees fully understand the need for policies and the consequences for violating them.