Should Job Seekers Tell Employers To Quit Snooping? 681
onehitwonder writes in with a CIO opinion piece arguing that potential employees need to stand up to employers who snoop the Web for insights into their after-work activities, often disqualifying them as a result. "Employers are increasingly trolling the web for information about prospective employees that they can use in their hiring decisions. Consequently, career experts advise job seekers to not post any photos, opinions or information on blogs and social networking websites (like Slashdot) that a potential employer might find remotely off-putting. Instead of cautioning job seekers to censor their activity online, we job seekers and defenders of our civil liberties should tell employers to stop snooping and to stop judging our behavior outside of work, writes CIO.com Senior Online Editor Meridith Levinson. By basing professional hiring decisions on candidates' personal lives and beliefs, employers are effectively legislating people's behavior, and they're creating an online environment where people can't express their true beliefs, state their unvarnished opinions, be themselves, and that runs contrary to the free, communal ethos of the Web. Employers that exploit the Web to snoop into and judge people's personal lives infringe on everyone's privacy, and their actions verge on discrimination."
use common sense (Score:2, Interesting)
There are different levels of social networking. My direct supervisor knows that I have a facebook and that I post on slashdot. He knows how to find me on facebook, but not on slashdot (he doesn't know my handle).
An employee that can't realize when it is appropriate to share, how much information to share, and when to post anon, is not an employee that I would hire.
Re:Yeah, good luck with that. (Score:2, Interesting)
As an employer myself I use the web searches as an extension of the background/reference checks. I do however prefer potential employees to give me reference sites - especially things like open source projects they are busy with. Checking their code on public projects is almost better then a test :-)
Why should they stop snooping (Score:5, Interesting)
If an employer doesn't like what they find, I don't want to work for them.
I even have a "best way to google my name" section on my resume:
"Greg Barton" java -indonesia -kayak -mozart -football
i.e. I'm the Greg Barton who's a java programmer, but not the Indonesia expert, olympic kayaker, football coach, or Mozart scholar.
That actually helped me get in the door on my current job. :)
Employers should be required (Score:5, Interesting)
The explanation can be as simple as "others were more qualified". There is nothing wrong with this explanation. But if the real reason is different ("I liked the look of Potential Secretary X's legs better", then they should not lie about it... although they will anyway. The point is that they should not, and there should be a rule saying that they should not. It distorts the employment market, which is detrimental to commerce and to society in general.
This would solve a lot of problems. It would help prospective employees actually find out what their weak spots are as far as the job market is concerned (rather than just being told "we picked somebody else"), and thus it would help match up companies with the employees they are actually looking for. Note that someone who is job hunting cannot improve their skills to get a good job if they are misled about what skills are in demand.
Also, if there were actually a law about it, if someone felt that they were rejected for unfair reasons ("the other candidate gave me oral sex"), they would actually have some recourse. Hard to prove? Sure. But if they CAN prove it, then at least they could get some compensation... as they should be able to, because by being rejected under false pretenses, they not only lose a potential job but they are not given the information they need to improve themselves so that they can get another.
I am not talking about discrimination here. I am talking about honesty in hiring. Two very different things. Discrimination laws might (in some cases) make it illegal to hire the person who gave you oral sex, if others were more qualified. My proposed law is not about discrimination at all. As long as you told the rejects honestly why they were rejected, then you would have nothing to worry about... except those discrimination laws of course, which you would have to worry about anyway.
Re:No, they don't (Score:5, Interesting)
Googling someone to see if they're a Nazi child molester on the no-fly list is perfectly legal, and as a hiring manager, you can bet I'm going to keep doing it.
Just out of curiosity, is it just as legal if your google search finds the person posts on an online forum for, say, cancer patients, to use that as a pre-screen for who might be unacceptable insurance risks? I wouldn't be surprised if it was.
Unfortunately, I think it is ultimately wise to divorce your real identity from anything you do online however innocent it might be. (An exception could be made for strictly employment-related or technical stuff, but one should think really hard anytime they put real identity info online.) You never know what information could be used against you in some future situation.
Re:Yeah, good luck with that. (Score:3, Interesting)
My experience is somewhat different...
One company I hired for sorted applications based on resume writing style, then gave all the final candidates a logic test.
One company requested an essay rather than a resume. The follow up interview was another essay written in the office.
One company presented several different programming puzzles in the application.
And, my god, one company hired based on the appearance of the female candidates.
My (tortuously arrived at) point is this... if you're applying to a company that screens based on google or facebook searches... FUCK THEM. I know this is akin to telling a battered spouse that she should leave her husband, but seriously, do you need to be a tool all your life? You do have a choice.
Re:No, they don't (Score:5, Interesting)
But what about the information other people have put out about me?
Re:Go look for another job. (Score:3, Interesting)
Unless off-work behavior is directly affecting work, IMHO an employee's behavior outside the office or work hours is their own business. Different political views? Well, if I were actually running against an employee of mine there might be some conflict of interest; otherwise, none of my business. Does my employee smoke pot at home after hours? Unless I suspect that it is significantly affecting their performance on the job, I don't give a damn.
While it is well enough to tell people to be careful what they say online, online has become in many ways a replacement for "the corner tavern", where people would gather and exchange pleasantries and stories after work. If an employer discriminated against someone I know over something they said in the pub on a Friday evening, then that company would be on my shitlist immediately, as well as those of the friends I could convince.
Perhaps the answer is increased use of restricted groups online, where one can spout off to a known audience only, as opposed to the whole world.
Where does hypocrisy begin? (Score:5, Interesting)
How so?
Well, the people posting silly stuff about themselves tend to do so while thinking of a certain context and/or being in a particular state of mind (at home, relaxed, with friends, feeling in the mood for some snarkiness). So ... more often than not, context is half the message (if not more). But all and any context is lost in transmission via the Internet, thus loosing about half the message.
Suppose on the other hand that someone *really* has something to hide. They would take exceptionally good care not to leave tracks that are easily available for a hiring manager with some time on his hands and itchy keyboard fingers. They would even change their name if necessary.
Therefore Internet presence is likely to give false positives while false negatives are all but guaranteed. Whilst there might be some justification for Googling to see if people are "a Nazi child molester on the no-fly list", it's really unlikely that you'll find any such clear-cut evidence and for anything less what you find is hearsay evidence at best. It's not illegal, but neither is Tarot reading to screen applicants. But who cares, right?
Hypocrisy, double standards, and CYA ("Cover Your Backside") tactics are as American as apple pie. And the impact on people trying to land a job is simply not the issue for the ones responsible for hiring someone.
Why not?
Well, how would you like to be the manager responsible for hiring someone who subsequently has an industrial accident (while cold sober), and whose web presence shows him/her writing something snarky about getting soused on the job? Or who is subsequently investigated for having one single marijuana plant at home and who has blogged about the virtues of said weed for relaxation? Or someone who creates racial tensions after being hired while his (somewhat racist) blog is there for the world to see? Or (if you work in catering or manufacture baby food) someone who turns out to be sloppy with hygiene when his Facebook page shows him in a messy kitchen?
Would you feel comfortable when the word "due dilligence" is used around you afterwards? Would you like to hear your ambitious rival mouthing hypocritical guff about "putting the company first", "exercising commonsense when hiring people", or "being net-savvy" afterwards?
No?
Then you'd better use *all* online information you can Google your hands on in 5 minutes, right?
I don't think that managers hiring people really believe that an unfortunate scrap of Facebook material makes someone unsuitable. It's just that they've got a choice to make (if they're hiring at all) and they can't waste all morning on it. Any reason to weed someone out that doesn't reflect poorly on them (better yet, which makes them look "savvy") in the eyes the only audience that counts (other executives) is a help.
Fear of being unreasonably second-guessed is a major justification for a whole host of useless security boondoggles, and I firmly believe that it's also why we see employers Googling for people that send in their resume.
Re:Well (Score:4, Interesting)
All that needs to happen at this point is someone who's got some sort of acumen in public relations needs to head up (or just throw it up themselves) a site that contains a "blacklist" of companies who engage in such practices.
I imagine a cross between the consumerist and fucked company.
If it becomes "cool" to check such a place before even dreaming of applying for a job at a specific company, and if thereby enough people take part, it will scare the bejeezus out of the few big fish needed to get the ball rolling.
I agree with you, hiring mangerman (Score:5, Interesting)
I have worked as a software contractor for a few years, and I have seen some disfunctional companies. I have to agree with your practices, captain HR sqeakyclean, because I do the same to you.
The boss I work for, the CIO, even you, get the same treatment you give me. So, if you are having problems with talent passing on your critical positions, well...you gave us the idea. Cat's out of the bag, good luck.
To Slashdot: Yeah, I am sort of being ironic and cute turning the parent poster's idea around. But, really, do this. I have been called in for contracts where half the company is suing the other half, I have worked with religious right wing bigots, and I almost went to an interview with Infinnium labs before I found out about their craziness. As embarrassing as some photos of a drunken kegger might be for you, your employers probably have a whole lot more to hide than you do.
Re:Yeah, good luck with that. (Score:3, Interesting)
Not necessarily; if you're on Jobseekers Allowance for example you could lose your unemployment benefits [jobcentreplus.gov.uk] (PDF) by turning down a job. Admittedly that's still a choice, but one that's not necessarily viable.
They do say "without good reason". I'm unsure about whether "they looked at information I made publicly available" would be a good enough reason, definitely worth asking Job Centre staff about first.
Re:Absoutely correct (Score:1, Interesting)
In my country the majority race are Malays, most of whom are muslims (or nominal muslims). So this guy only hired malays who admitted to smoking and drinking (of alcohol - which is prohibited in Islam).
The result was the company didn't have any of those ultrareligious muslims, had less bullshit compared to places where you'd have these "religious leader wannabe sorts" in your organization, and then they'll start pressuring the "not so holy" malays to be holier. If they get into power, they might pass people over for promotion if they aren't holy enough. For example, if you were a malay guy and your _wife_ doesn't wear that muslim head cover, no promotion for you - believe me this happens. Doesn't matter if you are doing a great job.
Re:No, they don't (Score:3, Interesting)
Actually....I would promote that if people want to express opinions on the internet (especially if they might be controversial and hinder a job hire) they should take advantage of just that fact that the internet can be anonymous!!
I have been of the humble opinion that you should pretty much always use a pseudonym, never your real name.
If you post pictures of yourself in college, sitting half nekkid sucking on a skull bong, well, you're just asking for trouble later in life.
I'm thankful that back when I was in school....there were no digital cameras nor internet to publish said images to. Thankfully....I think I have all the negatives...
Unfortunately, some former employers (like mine) (Score:3, Interesting)
sue the pants off of anyone who posts information about them online and actively investigate to determine the identities of anyone posting online about them that turns up in a Google search.
Unlike us, they have deep pockets and legal departments.
Re:No, they don't (Score:2, Interesting)
Agreed. However for *small* companies, the health of an individual can have a significant effect on what they will pay for premiums. While it is currently illegal to prohibit someone from coverage for a preexisting condition if they have prior coverage (Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act - HIPAA), and it is not appropriate to ask a potential intervieweee about health concerns, you can bet a small business owner would be rightfully concerned about who they hire. They aren't supposed to do it, and most (?all?) companies large enough to have an HR department won't do it, but there may be the few employers out there who will. If you had 6 employees and wanted to hire a 7th, would you hire that person if you knew they would be responsible for doubling your insurance premiums? It might be illegal and the risk of getting sued is pretty high, but that doesn't mean some business owner doesn't still have huge motivation to do so!
Agreed - keep your online profile and professional profile as separated as you can. I just did a Google search on my online email and my personal/job hunting email and found there wasn't anything tasty. In fact when doing a more wide open search on my given name, I found it is the same as a socialist nutjob from England and some politician from Barbados so the results are all confounded anyway.
Re:Go look for another job. (Score:3, Interesting)
Do you realize what kind of liability you could open your company up to if you show the contents of an employee's desk to the cops without their permission?
No liability at all.
There is much case law that basically says that employees have no right of privacy for anything that is company owned or controlled. That would mean facilities, offices, e-mail, computers, desks, etc.
I agree you should still say "no" to the cops without a warrant, but not because of liability concerns...you do it for the principle.
Re:No, they don't (Score:3, Interesting)
I'm not sure that doing a web search is really "snooping" either--after all, what you put on the web is information you put out there.
I don't think that follows. If I camped outside someone's house, took notes of when they arrived and left, perhaps viewed them through the window if they didn't draw the curtains, followed them whereever they went in public, most people would call that snooping, even though I never trespass on private property.
No, a simple websearch isn't snooping, just as me looking at someone in public isn't snooping. But it's possible to "snoop" without breaking into private spaces.
It's also worth noting that "private" depends on context. In the context of work, I'd say that things outside of work is my "private life". That isn't negated because I talk about something in a pub, or a picture ends up on Facebook. Here, "private" means "anything outside of work which doesn't concern or affect the business".
Re:Yeah, good luck with that. (Score:3, Interesting)
HEY! That's how I started! Sysadmin for a private high school! I was actually a student there too -- got paged out of classes. Really great when the librarian would pull me out of calculus for tech support.
Incidentally, it's worth noting, in that case you're the business owner -- well, there's no "business" per se, but you're the sole proprietor for hire.
As an employer, I don't have time to dig at all. But as you've said, your public life doesn't require digging. But I think you've mis-spoken when you discused your right of free speech and right to privacy. Those can be two separate rights, but it's important to note that you don't get them concurrently.
The right to free speech is your right to contribute to the public domain. That no one can stop you from speaking in public. Your right to privacy is your right to avoid contributing to the public domain. That no one can force you to speak in public.
But you sacrifice one when you exercise the other. You don't get to stand on your soap box and announce your desires, then have those desires be private. You get to pick which you want.
So if you speak publicly about your private and family life, then it's no longer private. If you don't want people -- potential employers too -- to dig something up on you, then you'll have to not say it.
Re:Go look for another job. (Score:3, Interesting)
People need to understand a simple concept: if you wouldn't feel comfortable saying something in front of a packed auditorium, you probably shouldn't say it in a public forum online. I absolutely defend an individual's right to express his views as he sees fit; similarly, I absolutely defend an employer's right to base his hiring decision on all publicly available information.
Most folks view talking on the internet or even slashdot more akin to talking in a packed auditorium rather than in front of one. Heck let's use slashdot as an example. We all see mainly the same headlines and summary. Then we open a thread. Depending on what you've got your filter set at you maybe be only viewing 3, 4, or 5 rated comments. Those that have been modded 4 or 5 could consider their comments being infront of an audience, but everyone else mainly would think of their stuff as being within the audience just talking. Now this is different from real life in that I can't just come in from out side pick any audience member and rehear every conversation that they've had in that auditorium ever.
I'd never want my slashdot ID matched up to my real life ID. I'm sure that I've posted things that some one doesn't like. If they had the log in they could spend an evening reading up on my comments. Now think about that. It doesn't even matter what your average posting rating is some one will dislike your views.
Re:No, they don't (Score:4, Interesting)
A friend of mine filed bankruptcy a while back. The court website has his name which shows up on the first page of a google search of his name.
They won't do anything about it. He didn't put it online yet it's there.
Re:Workplaces are juntas? (Score:2, Interesting)
Well, Spain and China are nations with borders, passports, and distinctive languages; relocating to another nation (outside of the E.U. in the case of Spain) is a rather big deal. China doesn't even allow people to leave without permission.
Employers are entities that require your services temporarily. It may be for 3 weeks, 3 months, or 3 decades, but it's temporary. You the employee have entered into a contractual agreement to do a certain amount of work in return for a certain amount of money.
Depending on the country, the government forces the employer to do all sorts of social welfare tasks like arrange for your retirement, health care, disability, maternity leave, and gender-and-ethnic quota fulfillment, but other than this it's a simple relationship. You are free to leave at any time, and they are free to stop using your services at any time. That's how the free market economies work.
During your contractual time at the company, you have agreed not to do certain things--leave the workplace without permission, disobey your supervisor, enter into conflict with other employees. You can do all this stuff on your own time but while on the clock, you are a professional purveyor of your services, not as a free spirited individual doing whatever he/she likes. The employer owes you nothing beyond this relationship, and you owe them nothing, either.
So how is this a democratic system? The fact that you the employee are completely free to leave and go start your very own company, hire your very own employees or else be a free agent employed by yourself, and make your own way in the world. Every company had to start somewhere. Even the great megacorporations of our time started as an individual in a living room with a good idea. Bill Gates founded Microsoft, for example.
This is how people express themselves democratically in a capitalistic society. Yes, you are encouraged to conform and submerge your personality at most companies, but at any instant you can break free and start a company that more completely expresses your own ideals and aspirations. You may sink and you may swim. Hopefully, you will succeed, and then you'll some day be sitting there grumbling about your pesky employees who don't do what they're told, and of course a few of them will eventually break off and start their own firms.
That's the very nature of a dynamic, successful economy, one in which people have an outlet for the pent-up pressure in the form of rebelling legally and peacefully.
The freedom and lack of legacy feudal constraints in American society for most of its citizens is what set it apart in the 19th and early 20th centuries and allowed it to grow so quickly into the dominant economy. The fact that other economies are mimicking our dynamism today is a testament to its validity. Hopefully, we will remember our roots as we attempt to compete with these very energetic economies across the water over the next few decades.
Re:No, they don't (Score:4, Interesting)
"public" and "on a website" are different things. I work for the state, my salary is public, but it's not on a website.
Re:Workplaces are juntas? (Score:3, Interesting)