Privacy

Biohacking De-brief

by
andriano.cz / Shutterstock

A year ago, this blogger posted an item exploring the ‘new’ practice of implanting microchips into employees for purposes of tracking and monitoring.

Click here to read Chipping In?

Since that time, I have shown the clip to a number of under-graduate and post-graduate students in both Human Resources Planning and Human Resources Analytics classes.

The response from these student has been unanimous. There was solid agreement that implanting microchips into employees is a really bad idea and not a single person would volunteer to have it done to themselves. When we looked at this possible practice from the perspective of a Human Resources professional, the responses were not as vehement. Some students could see the possible benefits of microchip technology implanted into employees for certain sectors, but the safety risks and possible human rights issues far outweighed the possible employer-related benefits. The consensus was still in place that this practice might be suitable for someone else but definitely ‘not for me’.

With this in mind, it is interesting to see how the movement to implement microchips, known as Radio-Frequency Identification (RFID) technology, has expanded. It is a technology that is being accepted and practiced by both employers and employees as noted in a recent article published by CIOToday.com.

Click here to read an update on microchip implants.

Far from it being perceived as an invasive and risky procedure, the article explores how microchip technology provides for positive engagement with ourselves and with others. First, it speaks to our narcissistic needs as the technology provides massive amounts of data about ourselves. It also may provide comfort to those who see the collection of personal data by someone else as a sign of belonging and caring. If someone else is watching us all the time, it must mean that we are connected to and participating with each other in a way that goes beyond regular social interactions. What could be more fun socially than being invited to participate in an employment related ‘chip’ party where the chips are not for eating but for implanting? If everybody is doing it, why not join the party?

No matter what we may think about the use of implanted microchips for employees, this is definitely a technology that will continue to evolve and will continue to provoke our individual responses well into the future.

Discussion Questions:

  1. Do you agree that having a microchip implanted into your body would provide you with data that could help you in some way? Explain your rationale.
  2. What do you think about the use of individual technology that brings a feeling of connection and participation with others?
  3. As an employer, how could you use data from employee microchips to improve organizational performance?

Is the Salary Question Awkward or Inappropriate?

by
Sergey Fatin/Shutterstock

Should candidates be asked about their salary history as part of the screening and hiring process?

A recent article posted in Human Resources Director Canada cites an American push, in certain states, to ban asking candidates questions about their recent salaries as part of the recruitment process.

Click here to read the article.

It seems a curious thing to be asking about, in the first place.

From a best practice perspective, asking candidates about their salary history comes loaded with difficulties, especially in a Canadian HR context. As we have learned from our Recruitment and Selection studies, our focus as Human Resources practitioners is to ensure that the end-to-end hiring process is as neutral and objective as possible.

While the article speaks to the benefits of assessing a candidate’s monetary expectations, asking the question about how much money the candidate makes now is, in the opinion of this HR blogger, completely irrelevant.

Candidates are better served by having a clear and transparent understanding of the position requirements, the duties, the responsibilities, the expectations and the compensation range that will apply to the successful applicant in the position. It is the value of the position that pays the wage, not the value that is placed on the person applying for the job. This is why we have compensation related legislation in place including the Pay Equity Act of Ontario, the Employment Standards Act and, of course, the fundamental principles of equality and fairness outlined in the Ontario Human Rights Code.

If a candidate chooses to apply for a position that is at a lower compensation level than their current situation, that is their choice. The employer is not obligated to over-compensate the applicant, if they are hired, for making that choice. Similarly, if a candidate applies for a position at a higher rate than their current wages, the ethical employer will not (should not) pay lower than the pre-determined compensation level if that person is hired into that position as a result.

When there is a salary range linked to a position, that range should be the only determinant that sets the wage in order to ensure a fair and equitable assessment of mutual values.

Bottom line, some questions are just not worth the asking.

Discussion Questions:

  1. As a candidate, how would you respond to a question that probes your salary history during the interview process?
  2. What are the benefits to the HR practitioner in asking about candidate salary history?
  3. What are the perils to the HR practitioner in asking about candidate salary history?

 

Social Media Savvy

by

Trying to pretend that employers do not use social media sites to ‘check out’ potential candidates is a bit like trying to push the squeezed out toothpaste back into the tube – It is pretty much impossible at this point in time!

Tube of Toothpaste
Source: Leah-Anne Thompson/Shutterstock

We live in a social media construct that is continuing to develop.  It is definitely time that we become more diligent in shaping how HR Professionals should be using social media effectively for purposes of employment and applicant screening.

Lyndsay Wasser, co-chair of the privacy group at McMillan LLP, provides a well-balanced approach to the benefits and risks of using social media in this context.

Click Here to View the Clip

Ms. Wasser certainly identifies the risks related to using social media searches, if they are not done properly.  If we are snooping around on social media sites, without explicit candidate knowledge or consent, this could be extremely problematic from a privacy and/or possible discrimination perspective.  More practically, if we do not have consent to access information gained through social media, we cannot use it anyway.  So, why bother snooping?

If we are going to be using social media for employment screening, let’s use honesty, professional judgement, and be transparent about it.  As Ms. Wasser points out, there are definite benefits to be gained through employer driven social media searches, such as assessing potential candidates for insight into their good judgement, professionalism, and whether or not there is any misrepresentation on the part of the candidate that might be revealed through their social media profiles.

It seems only fair that this type of assessment should apply to conscientious employers as well.

Discussion Questions:

  1. As an HR professional, how will you inform potential candidates that their social media profiles may be used for purposes of assessment during the applicant screening process?
  2. What types of social media sites do you think are inappropriate for an employer to access?
  3. Do you think there is a benefit for including social media scans for purposes of employment screening for all candidates? Why or why not?
  4. What types of social media sites do you use to assess potential employers in your own career or job search?

What’s in a Name?

by

Disputes often arise from good intentions gone wrong.

Source: Paul Lemon/Shutterstock
Source: Paul Lemon/Shutterstock

In a recent case, the Prairie North Health Region (PNHR) tried to amend its practice for employees wearing name tags.   The change was to have the full name (first and last), job title, and picture of the employee on an identity badge, rather than just the employee’s first name.  As noted in the article, the purpose of implementing this change came as a result of the employer wanting to promote a patient first philosophy and to equalize the balance of power between patient and health care provider.

Click Here to Read the Article.

The union representing the workers, CUPE Local 5111, disagreed and filed a grievance in order to stop this change in practice.  The grievance, as noted in the article was based on several grounds, with the allegation of violation of employee privacy as the primary concern. The matter was not resolved internally.  As a result, the dispute went to arbitration for a final resolution imposed by a three-party panel of arbitrators.

The arbitrators’ decision fell on the side of the union.  The employer had to rescind the new policy and had to implement new cards showing only employee first names, job titles along with a photo.

Click Here to Read the Case.

As you will note, this case is extensive.  It shows the amount of critical detail, witnesses, testimony, legislative impact, evidence of past practice and presentation of other precedent setting cases required in order for this matter to be resolved through a board of arbitration.  It was definitely a costly exercise for everyone involved.

Clearly, our names and our right to protect our own personal privacy has value.

One wonders, however, how much the value of good intentions truly cost all of the parties in this case.

Discussion Questions:

  1. Who would benefit from employees wearing name tags with first and last name?
  2. Why do employees, in this case, have a ‘greater’ right to privacy than patients?
  3. What elements of this case would prevent it from being resolved within the applicable grievance resolution process?
  4. Why, do you think, a case like this would proceed to arbitration?
  5. What lessons would you take from your reading of this case?