More than half (53%) of employees say their managers shouldn’t be able to view what they put on Facebook, Twitter and other social networking sites, according to a recent survey by Deloitte. For workers 18-34 years old, that number jumps to 63%.

But most managers disagree — 60% say they deserve to know what their reports do online. The main reason: Monitoring and protecting the company’s reputation. Social networking gives users a chance to make details of their lives public — and work is a heavily discussed topic. Browse any Facebook profile or Twitter account, and odds are you’ll find something about the person’s job.

Managers might have a real cause for concern: One-third of employees admit that they never consider how their employer will be affected when they post material online. Almost 75% admit that social networking sites make employers more vulnerable to damaged reputations.

What do you think — do supervisors have the right to check out employees’ online personalities? Do managers at your company search for folks on the Web? Let us know in the comments section below.

While working toward an education degree, a college student began working as a student teacher in a local high school. From the beginning, there were problems with her behavior toward students.

The teacher she was assisting repeatedly told her to adopt a more “down to business” approach and be less familiar with the class.

The last straw came when the student teacher invited the class to communicate with her via Myspace — even though the school had told her it was inappropriate to do so.

Breaking that policy was bad enough, but what was contained inside her Myspace profile was even worse. There was a picture of her in a pirate hat and a plastic cup, featuring the caption “drunken pirate.” She also posted a note discussing a conflict with the class’s teacher, referring to herself as the “official teacher.”

Once parents learned about the profile, they complained. The high school and university removed the woman from the student teaching program. She sued, claiming the college (a public university) violated her right to free speech.

But her case was tossed. Why? The court ruled the student had no right to speech that damaged her employer’s reputation.

Cite: Snyder v. Millersville University

A manager finds a Web site where angry employees post vulgar insults directed at supervisors and co-workers — can the employees be fired? That’s the question raised by this recent lawsuit.

Two employees at a restaurant chain in New Jersey set up a forum on MySpace.com. It was a private group, meaning the creators had to e-mail co-workers before they were able to access it. The purpose of the forum: to let employees “vent about any BS” they had to deal with at work.

One employee who’d been invited mentioned the forum to her manager. He asked her for her password so he could read what was on the site. Afraid she’d get in trouble for refusing, she told the supervisor her log-in information.

As you can probably guess, the manager didn’t like what he found. In addition to derogatory comments about himself and other managers, employees had left sexually explicit comments, as well as references to violence and illegal drugs.

The two employees responsible for creating the group were fired. But they sued, claiming the manager’s access of the forum was illegal under the federal Stored Communications Act and a violation of their privacy under New Jersey law.

Were the comments really private

The company failed to get the suit thrown out. Now the case will go to a jury, which will decide:

• Is insulting the company online grounds for termination? Can employers create policies to limit what employees say online? (This will vary by state — some protect employees’ legal, outside-of-work activities, others don’t.)
• Did the employees have an expectation of privacy because the forum was password-protected?
• Was it illegal for the manager to get a password from his employee?

In today’s environment, with employees fearing for their jobs and working harder than ever, more situations like this are likely to crop up.

Right now, the law isn’t clear on what can be done. While it’s well-established that employees can be punished for publicly damaging the company’s reputation, this is the first case involving a private online forum that was only meant to be seen by other employees.

What do you think? Did the company do the right thing? Was the manager wrong in accessing the group in the first place? Tell us your opinion in the comments section below.

We’ll keep you posted on how the case is decided.

Cite: Pietrylo v. Hillstone Restaurant Group

Only 9% of HR pros frequently use those sites to recruit, according to a recent survey by the Society for Human Resources Management (SHRM). But that’s a big jump from the 2% that did so in 2006.

Also, 56% said they never go to the sites. In 2006, more than three quarters of the respondents gave the same answer.

With so few employers using the sites regularly, it could give your HR department a chance to get a leg up on the competition.

The pros

What are the benefits of recruiting through Facebook, MySpace and other social networking sites? The most common reasons HR pros gave for using them were the abilities to:

• reach candidates who aren’t actively looking for a job (69%)
• target a specific level of experience (40%)
• find someone with specific skills (38%), and
• increase employer brand recognition (35%).

The cons

The biggest reason employers have for avoiding those sites: concerns about legality.

By looking at a candidate’s online profile, hiring managers may inadvertently learn about someone’s membership in a protected class. Therefore, making a decision based on online information could leave the company open to bias claims.

Other reasons employers have for not using social networking sites to recruit:

• don’t have enough HR staff to try new recruiting methods (49%)
• not sure everything users post about themselves is true (42%), and
• most information on the sites is not work-related or useful (36%).

What about your company? Have you tried recruiting candidates on Facebook, MySpace or related sites? Has it been successful?

Let us know by leaving a comment below.

Here’s another story about employees who need a reminder that their bosses can read the stupid things they post online:

A teacher at Thomasboro Elementary school in Charlotte, NC, faces a possible firing over raunchy and offensive posts she made to the social networking site Facebook.

In the section for hobbies and activities, the woman listed “drinking” and “teaching chitlins in the ghetto of Charlotte.” The school is located in a low-income neighborhood and attended largely by minority students.

The teacher also posted pictures of herself and other female faculty members in sexually suggestive poses.

The worst part: On the site, the woman identified her employer and chose to make her page viewable by the general public.

She’s been suspended with pay while the school district makes a final decision about her continued employment, the Charlotte Observer reports.

Several other employees in the district have been disciplined for similar offenses, including a teacher who used a racial slur in his profile and another who announced, “I’m feeling p—ed because I hate my students.”

Legal protections?

Can employers discipline or fire employees because of what they do online? Yes and no.

There are no applicable federal laws, but several states prohibit companies from disciplining employees based on legal activities outside of work.

However, companies still have the right to protect their reputations and prevent harassment. They’ve normally been in the clear when there’s a link between employees’ conduct and their job performance.

For example, a teacher in Connecticut was fired after uploading inappropriate content to a Myspace page he used to communicate with students. He sued to get his job back — but the court upheld the termination, ruling that the Web page raised serious doubts about his ability to do the job (Cite: Spanierman v. Hughes).

Another case involved a police officer who was fired after he sold videotapes of himself stripping out of a police uniform. His lawsuit reached the U.S. Supreme Court, which ruled in favor of the police department, deciding employees could be fired for actions that are “detrimental to the missions and functions of the employer” (Cite: City of San Diego v. Roe).

The key for managers who come across employees’ embarrassing or offensive online exploits: Focus on the effects the conduct may have on job performance and take action based on legitimate business needs.

What embarassing online content have your managers discovered? Has your company ever fired an employee because of it? Let us know in the comments section below.

Only 9% of HR pros frequently use those sites to recruit, according to a recent survey by the Society for Human Resources Management (SHRM). That’s up from 2% in 2006.

Also, 56% said they never go to the sites. In 2006, more than three quarters of the respondents gave the same answer.

What are the benefits of Faceboo, MySpace and Linkedin? The most common reasons people gave for using them were the abilities to:

• reach passive candidates (69%)
• target a specific level of experience (40%)
• find someone with specific skills (38%), and
• increase employer brand recognition (35%).

Motivations for staying away from social networking pages included lack of HR staff to try new recruiting methods (49%) and doubts about the truth of what users post about themselves (42%).

For some reason, many employees are surprised when inappropriate content they put on the Web is read by their boss or someone in HR. A few even go as far as suing the company once they’re disciplined or fired because of it.

Jeffrey Spanierman was non-tenured high school teacher in Ansonia, Connecticut — until he was fired because of his MySpace page.

He said he created the page to communicate with students outside of school and build a better relationship with them. But parents and school officials weren’t too pleased when they saw what was on the site.

The profile, in which Spanierman called himself “Mr. Spiderman,” contained nude photos of men, foul language and inappropriate conversations with students (including one about whether a student was “getting any,” presumably referring to sex).

The school ordered him to take the profile down. He did, but then put an identical page up shortly after and was promptly fired.

Spanierman sued, claiming his right to free speech was violated. But the court ruled in the employer’s favor. The MySpace page was clearly inappropriate and raised doubts about his ability to do his job. Therefore, the school made the right choice when it fired him.

Can MySpace get someone fired?

Can employers terminate workers based on their online activities? It’s a complicated question and one that has yet to be fully tested in court.

Things get tricky with public employers, who are subject to First Amendment restrictions. Also, some states have laws against terminating workers for off-duty conduct.

But as this case shows, what makes it onto the Web can end up being job related. Other employees have been fired after bragging online about stealing or lying about skipping work. Some employers have let people go out of fear that a worker’s stupidity could damage the company’s reputation.

In those situations, employers shouldn’t expect any legal trouble.

What has your experience been? Have you or any of your managers come across an employee’s online profile? Ever fired anyone because of it? Let us know by leaving a comment below.

Cite: Spanierman v. Hughes

About 22% of hiring managers say they look for job candidates’ profiles on social networking sites, according to a recent survey by CareerBuilder. That’s up from 11% who said they did so in 2006.

Also, 9% said they’re probably going to start using the Web to help in hiring decisions.

How are they using the information candidates post? Of the managers who check the sites, 34% said they’d found cause to remove an applicant from consideration. Most of the time, it was because the candidate talked about drinking or using drugs, posted inappropriate pictures or had noticeably poor communication skills.

On the other hand, roughly one quarter of those managers found info that solidified their decision to hire someone, such as background supporting their qualification for the job, creativity, diverse interests and a general professional appearance.

Any problems?

Of course, the big question on HR’s mind: Are there any legal dangers or other problems to worry about?

There is the possibility of a manager learning about a candidate being in protected class, which could result in a bias claim if the person isn’t hired.

Beyond legal concerns, there’s also the danger of mistaken identity, especially if the candidate has a common name. Also, some argue that what someone posts online won’t necessarily have anything to do with their job performance (even if they were dumb enough to put questionable items online in the first place).

What do you think? Have your managers ever checked out applicants on the Web? Do you think it’s a good idea, or a terrible one? Let us know by leaving a comment below.