Why Asking for a job applicant’s Facebook password is fair game”
Summary
The article “Why asking for a job applicant’s Facebook password is fair game” discusses the argument of whether employers should have the right to ask their potential employee for their Facebook password. The discussion includes both sides of the argument. The writes describes the events in which asking for the password is valid, as well as when it’s not. Overall the article focuses on equal sides of the arguments, with great description of both views.
Thesis
The author states that an employee has the right to ask for the Facebook password of a potential employee. Support
The author’s experience in the field of business allows him to make valid points in the discussion. Both sides of the argument are fully discussed in the article. The author believes that an employee should have the right to ask for the Facebook password for various reasons. One of the reasons that makes this event possible is the fragility of the situation. The author views this from the eyes of an employer. He states that the employer has the right to be cautious about the people he/she is planning on hiring. Although the author believes that the employer should always be able to ask for the password, he also believes that the employee can negotiate with the employer. The employer should always have the right to ask the question, however the employee has the right to decline. The author discusses the different type of agreements that an employee and an employer can have in case the employee declines to give the password. One of this agreement is for the employee to give the employer a selected amount of time in order for the employer to see their Facebook. This agreement is valid in which the employee is able to determine what amount of time they are comfortable with giving the employer.
Warrants
The author states that the prime reason for his support of the employers being able to ask for the password, is the reason that he is viewing the event in the eyes of an employer. He discusses the different view he would have if he were to be facing the event as an employee. The author expects the audience to understand where he is coming from by viewing the argument in the eyes of an employer. He realizes that most people would agree with his take on the argument, by having an understanding of what the hiring process would be as an employer. This argument in the article is the focus point of the author for the reason that it allows the readers to connect with the argument being made in the article.
Conclusion
Overall the article thoroughly discusses the argument that is being laid on the platform. The author is able to support both sides of the argument with valid reasons. The strength of the article was the credibility of the author. With this credibility the readers are able to take a more serious approach in understanding the author’s point. There are no weaknesses in the article. The facts discussed by the author are successful in giving a broader sense of understanding to the reader. The discussion fully unwraps the argument with credibility.
Summary
The article “Why asking for a job applicant’s Facebook password is fair game” discusses the argument of whether employers should have the right to ask their potential employee for their Facebook password. The discussion includes both sides of the argument. The writes describes the events in which asking for the password is valid, as well as when it’s not. Overall the article focuses on equal sides of the arguments, with great description of both views.
Thesis
The author states that an employee has the right to ask for the Facebook password of a potential employee. Support
The author’s experience in the field of business allows him to make valid points in the discussion. Both sides of the argument are fully discussed in the article. The author believes that an employee should have the right to ask for the Facebook password for various reasons. One of the reasons that makes this event possible is the fragility of the situation. The author views this from the eyes of an employer. He states that the employer has the right to be cautious about the people he/she is planning on hiring. Although the author believes that the employer should always be able to ask for the password, he also believes that the employee can negotiate with the employer. The employer should always have the right to ask the question, however the employee has the right to decline. The author discusses the different type of agreements that an employee and an employer can have in case the employee declines to give the password. One of this agreement is for the employee to give the employer a selected amount of time in order for the employer to see their Facebook. This agreement is valid in which the employee is able to determine what amount of time they are comfortable with giving the employer.
Warrants
The author states that the prime reason for his support of the employers being able to ask for the password, is the reason that he is viewing the event in the eyes of an employer. He discusses the different view he would have if he were to be facing the event as an employee. The author expects the audience to understand where he is coming from by viewing the argument in the eyes of an employer. He realizes that most people would agree with his take on the argument, by having an understanding of what the hiring process would be as an employer. This argument in the article is the focus point of the author for the reason that it allows the readers to connect with the argument being made in the article.
Conclusion
Overall the article thoroughly discusses the argument that is being laid on the platform. The author is able to support both sides of the argument with valid reasons. The strength of the article was the credibility of the author. With this credibility the readers are able to take a more serious approach in understanding the author’s point. There are no weaknesses in the article. The facts discussed by the author are successful in giving a broader sense of understanding to the reader. The discussion fully unwraps the argument with credibility.