公司该监控员工私密的社交媒体吗

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

社交网络为了解人们的生活提供了一扇窗。

But should employers be looking into that window?

但雇主是否应该窥探这扇窗呢？

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.

这正在成为一个日益重要的问题。因为社交媒体帖子被解雇的人越来越多，很多雇主在做出决定之前都会仔细考察职位候选人在网上的行为。

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.

想了解这种做法有多么普遍，看看2013年CareerBuilder的一项问卷调查就知道了。CareerBuilder是帮助企业寻找并吸引人才的一个招聘网站。调查结果显示，39%的雇主都会在社交网站上考察候选人，43％的雇主表示他们在网上找到了放弃某位候选人的信息――比如上传不适当的照片或信息，或者说前老板的坏话等。

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%的雇主说他们找到了支持雇佣某位候选人的信息，比如沟通技巧或职业形象。

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.

有倡议者说，雇主应该在现在的基础上进一步监控员工的社交媒体――应该时刻密切关注员工的网上发言和状态更新。拥护隐私和支持员工的一方则表示没有必要这么做。他们说，员工在网上发的东西大都和工作无关，除非有明确的理由怀疑员工有不当行为，否则不应该被监控。

Yes: Keeping an Eye on Employees Helps Companies Protect Themselves

应该监控：监控员工社交媒体行为有助于保护公司

--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.

管理层有权利和责任时刻监督员工在社交媒体上的行为。如果公司不关注，就有可能面临严重的问题。

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.)

满腹牢骚或不懂得察言观色的员工太容易在社交媒体上批评客户、骚扰下属或者行为失当了。这样做有时会给办公室带来压力和抱怨，有时会损坏公司在业界的名声，有时会导致诉讼或管制行动。（和电子邮件一样，社交网络上的记录也可用于法庭传讯并当作证据使用。）

Not Harmless

并非无害

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.

有批评人士说这是夸大其词――人们在社交网络上发的东西大都是私密和完全无害的，而且和工作没有关系。他们还认为，公司进行这种搜索常常是出于太过谨慎或者意识形态上的迫害。

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.

事实上，相当多的员工都承认在网上发过不应该发的东西。美国管理协会(American Management Association) 和我所在的组织ePolicy Institute所进行的《2009年电子商务沟通政策及流程调查》(2009 Electronic Business Communication Policies and Procedures Survey)结果显示，14%的员工承认曾将公司保密信息通过电邮发给第三方；6％的员工曾发送客户的信用卡数据和社保数据；还有6％曾传输病人的电子保密健康信息。

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.

我所发现的有些案例表明了这种员工过失的严重程度。医院员工因为在Facebook上讨论病人而受到批评或被解雇――公开讨论病人的做法不仅违反医院的政策，同时也违反联邦《医疗保险转移变更与责任法》(Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act)。一名市政官员不小心将部分市政员工的私人信息放到了一个公共网站上，然后从Twitter链接到了这个网站，这种行为有可能导致员工身份被盗，市政府也可能会因此受到监管、公众形象受损甚至遭到起诉。

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，员工在网上抱怨自己的公司，或者上传有损公司形象的搞笑视频，然后又要花很大精力弥补自己的过失带来的影响。

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.

严格监控能让雇主尽早发现潜在的问题，可以尽快将不当信息从网上删除并对当事员工予以惩戒。除了监控内部电脑网络和公共社交媒体上的情况，公司还应该要求员工提供Facebook账号及其他私人社交媒体账号信息。

Looking at Candidates

招聘筛选工具

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，还有批评人士说，公司把社交媒体作为筛选求职者的一个因素是不公平的。他们说，这样做可能会导致歧视，而且优秀的候选人可能会由于做了公司不喜欢但和工作无关的事情而被筛除掉。

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.

当然，公司不应该使用社交媒体并基于年龄、族裔背景或宗教信仰等因素而歧视候选人，这是很重要的。雇主应该确保有合理的商业原因拒绝候选人。

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.

不过，和批评人士的看法相反，在对潜在雇员进行社交媒体调查时，公司一般都会寻找撤销或重新考虑某个工作邀约的合理证据，比如涉及到毒品或其他非法活动，歧视性或骚扰性的话语，或者申请人对工作经历或自身能力撒谎的迹象等。

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.

他们到处调查并不是为了挖出冒犯招聘人员神经的 照。认为招聘人员考察社交媒体是为了杜绝他们个人不喜欢的隐私活动，就是轻视了真正的危险，以及有可能代价很高、并且旷日持久的法律和监管风险。

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.

该部分作者南希・弗莱恩(Nancy Flynn)为The ePolicy Institute创始人及执行董事，这是一家帮助雇主限制电子邮件及互联网风险的培训咨询公司。可通过reports@wsj.com联系作者。

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

不该监控：太容易成为与工作问题无关的摸底调查

--Lewis Maltby

--Lewis Maltby

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

雇主不需要对雇员的社交媒体进行全方位监控来保护自己的正当利益。

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.

没错，雇主有监控雇员在公司电脑上行为的合法权利，但雇主唯一有法律义务监控雇员沟通情况的时候是雇主有理由认为雇员参与了非法行为。

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.

许多成功的公司都是这样做的――只有有充分理由怀疑员工行为不当时才会监控。这些政策已经存在多年，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.

事实情况是，雇员在网上的绝大多数行为都与工作无关，基本都发生在私人生活中，而且都是在雇员的私人电脑上进行的。再次强调一下，雇主只有有充分理由怀疑的时候才应该干涉雇员的私人生活。

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).

社交媒体搜索太容易变成摸底调查了。进行搜索工作的是人，因此难免会被雇员违背自己价值观的私人行为所冒犯。经验表明，雇主常常会出于与工作无关的理由解雇员工。有人因为自己的政治观点和宗教信仰丢了工作。一张比基尼照片让许多女性失去了饭碗。还有一个人因为老板不喜欢他的小故事（太多性和暴力）而被解雇。

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，经常有公司因为不喜欢在网上发现的东西而拒绝合格的求职者。在最近的一项问卷调查中，大多数雇主（77%）说他们会在网上对潜在雇员进行搜索，超过三分之一的雇主（35%）由于在网上找到的信息而拒绝了求职者。向来很公平的雇主跟我说不会雇佣Facebook主页上有派对照片的人。

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.

由于和工作无关的私人行为而拒绝雇人的行为不仅不公平，而且对雇主也没有好处。在一个竞争激烈的经济环境中，公司需要雇佣最有资质的申请人。招聘人员因为不喜欢其私人生活而拒绝优秀申请人的时候，雇主也有损失。

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.

此外还有更难以察觉的损害。招聘人员已经承受着要彻底调查申请人的压力，通常他们并没有足够的时间和每个前雇主沟通或者验证申请人的学习成绩。从这些关键的调查中抽出时间去网上做摸底调查会有损于招聘流程的质量。

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.

互联网搜索还会让雇主面临承担法律责任的风险。如果得知某个申请人是同性恋、穆斯林、残疾或者超过40岁而雇佣其他人，雇主可能会面临歧视的起诉。一旦雇主掌握了这种信息，要证明在做招聘决定时没有参考这种信息就很难了。即使雇主最终胜诉了，也损失了宝贵的时间和金钱。不去获取这种信息要安全得多。

Use With Care

谨慎使用

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.

当然，也有申请人的网上活动应该引起雇主合理关注的情况。警察局在雇佣一个属于种族歧视组织的警员时就应该三思。访问儿童色情网站的人不应该受雇和儿童一起工作。有酗酒问题的申请人做卡车司机就不合适。

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.

在这种情况下，雇主应该请第三方进行搜索。雇主应判断哪类信息与工作相关，并告知调查公司只汇报这类信息。

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.

我们不能怪雇主在做出承诺前希望了解申请人的更多情况。有时候网上可能有相关的信息。但让招聘人员不加选择地在社交媒体上搜罗信息是不公平的，而且带来的问题会比解决的问题多。