THE SOCIAL DILEMMA

VJ
by Valrie J27 views·Updated Oct 19, 2020
Create your own

Audio TranscriptAuto-generated

  1. I cannot.
  2. The social dilemma from due diligence to discrimination.
  3. Employer use of Social media vetting by Valerie Jewels.
  4. In this presentation, I will be presenting a scenario where
  5. the ethical actor the Hiring Committee must decide whether or
  6. not to use social media to vet a new hire.
  7. Jasmine. The action being tested is social media vetting.
  8. Jasmine has recently applied for a new position at a
  9. large technology firm, graduating top of her class at Stanford
  10. University. In years of workplace experience, she is confident that
  11. she will get the job.
  12. Catherine goes to the interview and actually speaks passionately about
  13. her projects.
  14. The hiring committee feels confident that she is the right
  15. fit for the position.
  16. The interview ends.
  17. What's the hiring committee offering Jasmine a contingency offer upon
  18. passing a background track and completing other employment requirements, including
  19. disclosing anything that could be relevant to the company.
  20. Jasmine goes on with her life and gets a call
  21. from the company in regards to her start date.
  22. Because she had passed the background check a week before
  23. she starts her start date, she received a call from
  24. the company representative to inform her she no longer was
  25. selected for the position due to violation of the company's
  26. Morales clause.
  27. Jasmine asked what violation and the representative says it was
  28. due to a controversial post found on your social media
  29. from 2012 that you did not disclose.
  30. So following the scenario, the ethical actor the hiring committee
  31. went ahead and used jasmine social media to vet her
  32. for the new position.
  33. Whether or not that was ethical will be discussed in
  34. the following slides.
  35. For this presentation, I will be using a C M
  36. code of ethics toe.
  37. Argue whether or not it was ethical for the employer
  38. to vet jasmine and social media.
  39. Specifically, I will be using the following provisions of that
  40. code of ethics 1.3.
  41. Be honest and truthful.
  42. 1.4. Be fair and take action not to discriminate.
  43. 1.6 Respect privacy 2.2.
  44. Maintain high standards of professional competency.
  45. Conduct unethical practice.
  46. Ethical. The company has an image to protect, and Jasmine's
  47. post puts it in danger.
  48. The company must keep up with their professional appearance under
  49. 2.2, which states maintaining high standards of professional competency conduct
  50. and ethical practice.
  51. The company's actions to vet Jasmine was ethical in order
  52. to protect the company.
  53. Also, the hiring committee gave Jasmine the opportunity to disclose
  54. anything that could concern the company, expecting her to comply.
  55. Toe 1.3, which states be honest and true, true, trustworthy.
  56. And she did not, making the company's actions ethical unethical.
  57. Jasmine's private past life does not discredit her qualification for
  58. the job.
  59. Therefore, she should not have been rejected due to her
  60. social media.
  61. So if we go back, referring toa 1.4, which states
  62. be fair and take action not to discriminate, the company
  63. failed to be fair, considering that Jasmine's post was from
  64. years before she even thought about applying to the company,
  65. Let him know, let alone know it would be endangering.
  66. Their image is also does not comply with 1.6, which
  67. states respect privacy by going out of their way to
  68. dig up sensitive information about Jasmine without their consent.
  69. So hiring committee did not respect Jasmine's privacy by going
  70. out of their way.
  71. So look on her social media that was not disclosed
  72. to Jasmine.
  73. What was this closure Jasmine Waas that she needed to
  74. disclose sensitive information that would be in related relevant to
  75. the company, and she did not.
  76. She assumed that her post from 2012 which she probably
  77. did not even remember, was irrelevant when it came to
  78. her qualifications and the requirements of the job.
  79. So now both sides have been argue whether it was
  80. ethical or not, and it's time to draw our conclusion.
  81. So the conclusion that I have drawn is that it
  82. was unethical.
  83. So the company's invasion of Jasmine's privacy was unethical under
  84. the principles principles of a C M code of ethics
  85. and professional conduct.
  86. The company's image is indeed important, but the cold was
  87. based on the understanding that the public good is always
  88. the prime consideration, and in the scenario, Jasmine would be
  89. considered the public good and her safety as well.
  90. I was like everything about her should be like the
  91. main priority.
  92. Her privacy should be the main priority, and the company
  93. or the hiring committee did not respect that.
  94. They did not consider Jasmine when they made the decision
  95. whether or not to let her using her social media,
  96. they did not consider the consequences or the repercussions that
  97. come with it.
  98. They were only thinking about the company's image and the
  99. code of conduct was not based off whether or not
  100. the company image was important.
  101. What? That the public good is always a prime consideration.
  102. And that is my presentation.
  103. Thank you.