Tuesday, June 3, 2014

Misguided, At-Will Hunger Strikes

America, you can rest assured that there are people (or someone) out there fighting for your right to permanently show just how much of an idiot you are on the internet and not have it affect your employment opportunities. And that he is using badly constructed arguments to do so. He's guaranteed to win.



Mr. Brian Zulberti, a lawyer from Delaware, has begun a hunger strike outside of the Supreme Court to fight to protect, what he says, is your right to have separate personal and professional lives. Which, I suppose, is a right that you should have.

However, based on a few pieces of information, the kind of separation he's looking for and what should be there is completely different.

This Washington Post article describes the beginnings of Mr. Zulberti's hunger strike. Read the first few paragraphs, and you might have a small twinge of sympathy for him, especially if you are in the job market and have any kind of presence on the internet. But read the fifth paragraph in the article, and you begin to see why he might be a little bit misguided. According to the Washington Post,

"He was fired as a high school tennis coach for comments he posted on a website about an opposing player. He became a minor viral sensation in 2013 when he applied for jobs in the state...by sending a picture of himself in a rolled-up t-shirt. He then posted a picture of himself in his underwear to Facebook with a handwritten sign begging someone to hire him 'as a lawyer. Damn, NOT A (sic) ESCORT.'"

I, personally, would see all of this as very good reason not to hire him. Not because he has a social life, but because he showed poor judgement while employed and during a job search. Depending on the nature of the comments made on the website, the school was most definitely justified for firing him for his comments. As a coach, he really should not have made any kind of comments about players other than those he was coaching at all, unless there is immediate context. Something like, "The opposing player did a very good job today." Or, "The opposing player will definitely be a challenge for my player." Those can be true statements, in good sportsmanship, and relevant and beneficial to his position. Anything else, no matter how true it may be, should not have left his thoughts as characters on the screen, permanently there for all to see.

And as for the circulating pictures of him, that is plenty of reason not to hire him or to cut him early in the selection process. I'm going to assume, that if he has a law degree, then he was applying for a professional, salaried job. The kind of job where you wear a suit to work. The kind of job where you need to be taken seriously. Not the kind of job where whipping off your shirt whenever you feel like it is acceptable. Sending a picture of yourself is never a good idea in the job search, unless you are a model or an actor looking for one of those respective jobs. Or as an escort.

I think he wants someone to make the Great Wall of the Internet, so everyone can keep how much of an idiot they are to themselves. 
And totally destroy the intent of the Internet forever.

The point is, he was not fired or denied a job because of his social life. In the instances described by the Washington Post, he actively made a poor decision related to either his job or the job search process.

On the flip side of this, and possibly on a different coin entirely, is the actual issue: the line between your personal life (especially online) and your professional life, and how blurry or sharp you want that line to be. The ACLU even acknowledges that this is a tricky issue. One way you can look at it is that your presence online is like your house - no one can come in and look at it unless you let them. But then there's the fact that the Internet is intended for interpersonal communication, and about everything you do online with a social presence is just that - social. It is really intended for society to see. So you can also look at it as a speech issue.

That then raises the question: is what you say online protected by the First Amendment? Well, it is speech, and so yes. But how is your boss finding your rant about him online different than him overhearing your rant about him at work? Haven't people been fired in the past for things that they actually say with their mouth? To be sure, you shouldn't be fired just because you have a political view opposed to that of your employer. But when you start to do stupid things and share your stupidity with the world, that's where disciplinary action may be appropriate.

Maybe not the smartest idea to share these pictures with the world. Especially if there's a lot of them.

In addition to this issue, which is a legitimate issue that needs to be addressed, Mr. Zulberti claims that advances in technology will leave us in a self-imposed version of 1984 because everyone will have technology that we will use to spy on all our neighbors. He claims that we need to have a futuristic approach to laws concerning social media. Well, I suppose there is some truth to that, but the extent that he takes it is far and beyond anything that we know for sure. And again, I think he's just a bit misguided about it, considering that what he's concerned about is really already an issue.

One example he gives in his blog is lying in bed at night with your significant other and complaining about your boss, except that your neighbor is listening in on your conversation, recording it, and sending it to your boss, who he knows for some reason. This kind of thing actually does happen. There are people called voyeurs, and they hide cameras and recording equipment to take pictures and video of people without their knowledge, usually of people while they're undressed. And it's illegal. Really not that much different when you think about it, except in Mr. Zulberti's example, no one is going to be, um, satisfied.

And finally, there's the underlying issue that I don't think he quite understands: at will employment. We usually only think about this when we quit jobs, and have to give two weeks notice. But both parties, the employer and the employee, can terminate employment for whatever reason. I could, technically, get fired because I like wearing blue shirts, and my employer doesn't like blue shirts. Under the at will employment agreement, that is a completely valid reason to terminate my employment, even if it is ridiculous. The only restrictions on this are legal protections against discrimination. Beyond that, anything goes.

So I suppose that what you post online could directly lead to you getting fired, but if they are willing to fire you for something you posted on Facebook that they don't like, then maybe you aren't giving them good enough reason to keep you around...