Employers Trolling for Current Employee Resumes?

powderhound asks: "Recently, my employer started looking for new employees and started to find the resumes of current employees on the job Web sites. I've heard that management was not pleased. In the old days, before Web job sites, you could job hunt with relative certainty that your current employer would not find out until you gave notice. Now, any employer wishing to check on their employee's desire to find a new job need only sign up on the job Web sites and start trolling. How do we, as employees looking to change jobs, protect ourselves from possible discovery, and even worse, retribution? What have you done to protect yourself? Do you think employers are trolling job sites for their own employees?"

Comments

The Real Problem

[Medgur]

The real problem is that your employers didn't recognise their employee's discontent and ambition. Rather than opening a discussion to improve the quality of their employment they chose to become displeased. It's no wonder they're experiencing employee retention issues, they have an aggressive and hostile methodology in dealing with their employees.

Move on, move on.

Re:The Real Problem

[ivan256]

The real problem is actually that his management probably didn't consider that the people may just have their resumes out there to see what's going on... Testing the waters. It doesn't have to mean that they actually are actively seeking to leave. They got upset because they expect loyalty, so innocent explanations escaped them. It really would be best if managers realized that they were in a business relationship with their employees, and nothing more. Just keep that relationship mutually beneficial and you don't have to worry about your employees leaving.

Re:The Real Problem

[Jeff DeMaagd]

Just as employers can many times drop employees on a whim, depending on laws of course, employees can change employers as well. It is a two-way street, any manager expecting it to be a one-way street is fooling themselves. Still, I wonder if it is legal to fire someone just for having looked for alternate employment options. Maybe it is legal, but that would be one scary hostile workplace.

Re:The Real Problem

[RomulusNR]

It really would be best if managers realized that they were in a business relationship with their employees, and nothing more.

Despite how impersonal and dysfunctional that would be, I would actually tolerate that amicably. The problem, of course, is that it tends to tip the hand in favor of the employee at inconvenient times, which employers don't want. Workers are expected to be infinitely local to their employers, while employers simply don't return that loyalty.

The tendency is not towards an equitable or balanced employer-employee relationship, which the phrase "business relationship" would tend to suggest. The tendency is towards top-down control and imbalance of that relationship. YMMV, and your company might not have gotten there -- yet, or maybe luckily never. But very few companies go from an anti-employee environment to an equitable one without some sort of revoltive event (unionizing, buyout, etc.)

I agree -- far, far too many companies have no interest or concern regarding employee morale. They either appeal to a very unconvincing "good of the company" mentality, or use fear of termination -- or sometimes neither, using absolutely nothing to encourage workers -- to maintain or aggravate the demoralized status quo.

Of course, what doesn't help is that employers and employees both know (or think) that employers can always get more obedient, cheaper labor, fairly easily; and both also know (or think) that generally, employees cannot get more accomodating, more lucrative employment without risk.

So the employer-employee relationship is simply not an amicable, equitable business relationship, but something much more silently adversarial, where employers fight for the cheapest, most productive labor, and employees struggle for the best benefits and pay.

Say what you will -- organization of labor is probably the only thing that can actually make that relationship at all like a business relationship.

Re:The Real Problem

[xenocide2]

Sociopathic, is what it is. No other rational explaination for why everyone else's employee's resumes should be searchable and their's shouldn't.

Easy.

[ivan256]

Don't post your resume on a job site.

Most employers don't hire by searching resumes on the web anyway. They post a listing and wait for the applicants to come to them. Also, the old way of finding a job is still the best. Use your network of contacts, or find a reputable headhunter (ask around. 1 headhunter in 100 isn't a schmuck, and somebody you know probably knows which one it is).

If your resume isn't out there in the public sense, you don't have to worry about your employer finding it. If posting your resume is all you're doing to find a job, you certainly don't have to worry about getting hired either.

Re:Easy.

[screevo]

I got my current job from a job website. A lot of people I know have gotten sweet gigs from Monster. I don't know why you would imply that job websites aren't useful.

Re:Easy.

[Johnny Mnemonic]

Most employers don't hire by searching resumes on the web anyway. They post a listing and wait for the applicants to come to them.

I respectfully disagree. If you send your resume and application to a job posting, you are competing with the 100 other applicants that did the same. Whereas, if a recruiter finds your resume online and likes you enough to contact you, they are already sold enough to initiate the human level of contact.

I have always gotten much further in the interview process when it was initiated by the recruiter instead of the other way around.

And to that end, I almost always keep my resume online--I just only update it when I'm more actively looking. If an employer found that offensive, they should sign a contract with me that binds me for life. Until I get that, I'm going to more or less continue looking, or considering offers, perpetually.

Re:Easy.

[jhoger]

Even easier, if you've got the stones for it: be a man.

Think of employment as an economist does: it is a kind of marketplace in which you sell your labor. Any time you don't sell is your leisure time. Every day you go to work you are deciding to sell some of your labor to a particular employer.

On an ongoing basis you work, and on that basis you employer incurs a liability TO YOU. When they write out the check, they pay off that acrued liability. In fact, you are extending them credit terms of two weeks, basically. Oh, and they also usually incur a vacation liability to you. That is the extent of who owes who.

Employment is almost always at will. So beyond the acrued payroll and vacation time and possibly contractual obligations, nobody owes anybody anything really. You are free to go. They are free to let you go.

Your employer understands that there is a marketplace in which you can sell your services. Your resume on a web site is completely natural when you understand the economics of the situation. They may "not be happy" but who cares? If an employer would actually fire you for being in the job market there's a serious problem anyway. Are they afraid you're underpaid? Are they afraid you're unhappy? Frankly, any time would be a great time for them to fix that. The fact is that if a better offer comes along the rational choice is to go elsewhere, and they should know that.

Bottom line is, don't be a wuss. There are always other jobs.

In fact, I think everyone would be better off as contractors. Then the reality of the situation would be understood more clearly by both sides.

-- John.

Re:Easy.

[Monkeys!!!]

If you act like a resource, don't be suprised when you are treated like on.

Mindset

[miyako]

I should preface this comment with the fact that I'm only 22, and barely in the "real world" myself- so remember that although I may have no idea of what I'm talking about from experience, I think what I'm going to infer does make sense- and perhaps someone who has seen more of the world can validate or invalidate my ideas. That said, here goes:
Before the advent of sites such as Monster.com, etc. job hunting was a fairly active pursuit. It involved looking at potentially interested companies- sending in your resume to them, etc. Now days, job "hunting" can be much more benign. The fact is that it's quite reasonable to be perfectly content with ones job, and not actively seeking a new employer, but still to have your resume online 'incase something better comes along'. In fact, I would be that many of the people who's resumes were posted on Monster.com had posted them there before they got their current position.
It seems that the optimal solution is really to just get Managers/HR drones to realize this and to not associate running across someones resume online with the idea that they are actively searching for new employment.
If HR still doesn't like it (especially if where you work is an 'At Will' employment place), then I would politely inform them that- if they are worried about you leaving then they should consider negotiating a contract for your exclusive employement, and if you are able to find mutually acceptable terms, then you will remove your resume.

Re:Mindset

[miyako]

I'm not sure I would consider the situation an ultimatum exactly. It's more like:
As an employee, you are selling your time, knowledge and skills to the company to do some job in exchange for a salary or hourly wadge, plus usually some benefits. The way it works at most jobs is, at any time for pretty much any reason, your employer can say "well, we dont need you any more, clear out your desk and go home. We'll put your last check in the mail."
In fact, the basis of "at will" employement is that either party is able to terminate the agreement for employement at any time.
In such a situation, it is not equitable for the employer to have the power to end that employment agreement at any time without the employee having the same opportunity. As having another job is largely a factor in being able to reasonably terminate your current employment agreement, an employer asking an employee to not have their resume available for other interested parties is functionally equivilent to them removing your ability to terminate your at will employment at any time, while they retain that right.
What I am suggesting is that, if your employer wishes you to terminate that right, then for the arrangement to remain equitable, you should have mutual assurance that, if they effectively ask you to end the right to terminate your employment at will, then they themselves should give up that right. The employer may then decide that you are valuable enough that they wish to enter into such an agreement, or they may not decide that. The point is that there remains a balance of power in the employment agreement.
As for being a valuable asset to the company, I would say that if you do not feel that you are a valuable asset to the company, then you should be considering another job anyway. Self actualization is an important part of overall happyness, and for many people that invovles a feeling of usefullness, value, and accomplishment at work.
In the end, you might still end up in a position where an employer just gets rid of you and hires someone else, but in the long run I think that people that take such a stance are likely to find themselves in more satisfying positions with more respectful companies. If everyone takes such a stance, it might even be a small stride in helping to level out the vastly out-of-balance relationship between businesses and employees that currently exists. All that it takes, really, is to have the right mindset. Remember that as a worker you are not a drone or a cog in a machine, but a talented individual who is selling their talents to help the orginization acheive it's goals.

Solution

[catwh0re]

A feasible solution is to not add your current employer to your resume.

Then if you're current employer comes across your resume, you can dismiss it with "it's from when I was looking before this job". The obvious flaw is that if you've been in your job for a great number of years, then it's not a very solid story (or an adequet resume for that matter.)

Alternatively keep your resume on an external website, (which can always be current), it allows you to monitor and traffic who visits your resume, as well as say, block the IP range of your current employer/their chosen recruitment company.

Free Market.

[Anonymous Coward]

"How do we, as employees looking to change jobs, protect ourselves from possible discovery, and even worse, retribution?"

Free market. You can sell yourself with the same degree of freedom that he shops for employees.

Offer to curtail your freedom, if he curtails his. Bet he'll not bite.

I could care less...

[__aaclcg7560]

I have my resume posted on all the major job search sites and on my personal website. If the company I'm working for wants to make hay about my resume being available online, I'll tell them what I told the last guy: I'll find a better job, make more money, and be happy at your expense because you let a productive employee walk out the door. I'm not even hiding the fact that I'm laying down the legal groundwork to start a part-time consulting business that I'll take full-time in five years. Your career is your responsibility. If you let your job hold you back, you have no one to blame but yourself.

Screw 'em

[Keen Anthony]

There is one truly universal rule governing employment in the United States, the "at-will" doctrine. Just as your employer is free to fire you at anytime minus a contractual obligation, you are free to quit your employment at anytime minus a contractual obligation. There are only a few laws at Federal level protecting you against wrongful termination or harassment with the purpose of forcing you to quit, and those few laws are related mostly to whistle-blowing and discrimination based on race, gender, and disability. At state level, most state laws merely echo Federal laws, but with additional punishments. Depending on your jurisdiction and the level of the retaliation, you could have a wrongful termination lawsuit if you are forced out.

But seriously, that's not what's truly important. If you're pretty sure your employer will retaliate against you for having a wandering eye; then you need to start sending that resume out to even more places because chances are, your work environment is not very good, and you're likely not very happy where you are.

Of course, you might understandably not want to injure your employer, but in certain circumstances, I wouldn't even bother concealing the fact that I am looking for new employment, such as if my employer:

- runs the company like a private kingdom, and you'll need to marry into the royal family in order to get a promotion...

- buys high-priced luxury toys for himself, then screams at your entire division for turning down the thermostat or allegedly stealing sugar packets and coffee...

- has created an uncertain work environment where all your goals are short-term and involve just getting to the end of the day without getting fired or laid off...

Finding new work is a lot easier than reviving that part of you that has died inside after putting up with a mentally tortuous workplace.

Re:I never take mine down

[ottothecow]

Even if you do allow others to see it, it makes sense to simply never take it down (and always keep it up to date--so it is ready if you ever do need it). This way if your employer sees it, you can simply explain that your resume is always there (it will be there a week after you got your job and 3 years after you got your job) so it does not mean you are actively searching for a better opportunity. This could also serve to make them realize that they still have to compete with you on the labor market since your open resume could prompt a better offer even though you are not actively seeking it.

Of course, you can take all of that as a grain of salt because, while I do in fact have a resume, I'm just finishing my first year at the University of Chicago and nobody wants to give me a job anyway.

Re:Mod parent back up, mods are on crack!

[ottothecow]

The problem is when they look at the resume and they say "hey, this person says they are currently working for us but we have no record of them in the system" and they they contact you and discover who you really are (since your contact info probobly matches the info your company has on you).

Experience from the other side of the pond...

[Anonymous Coward]

After 10 years work experience in London, mostly within the financial sector, I have learnt (sometimes the hard way) several lessons about this and other recruitment issues.

1. It is common for agencies here to ask lots of questions, usually on the premise of "getting to understand your experience and background". This is used to lower your guard, then they will subtly ask about specific details, such as the manager's name, department name, size of team, if they are recruiting/cutting back. Basically, pumping you for information, so they can then sell one of their other candidates into your old position.

Lesson: discuss in broad terms, but never give names of colleagues, managers, teams. The HR department of your new company will contact your old company for a reference, not the agency; the agency just wants a new contact to sell to, which is a guaranteed way to annoy your old boss/colleagues.

2. If you post a CV anywhere on the internet, or even send via email, remove any information that can help to identify you without your consent. Examples beyond the obvious "Personal Details" section include company names, as it is not that hard for people to relate a person, with a specific job title to a specific company at a known time. Add a generic phone number (pay as you go mobile) and generic email account, so they can contact you, and you then decide if you wish to proceed.

Lesson:

3. Reputation is all important. As the career progresses, you will start to get referrals, from past colleagues for example. The financial sector is a decidedly close area at the best of times, and it is very easy to find someone who knows someone who can provide off the record, informal references.

Lesson: Always leave with a professional exit, and make sure if you want to continue working in that same sector, or even IT, that you maintain a good reputation.

4. The bigger the company, the more useless the HR dept. All the companies I have worked at have huge, global HR departments, and are frankly as useless as a chocolate teapot. If you want to bypass the usual agency route for recruitment, but don't want your personal details to end up lost in some filing cabinet or generic jobs email account such as 'jobs@huge_global_corp.com' then you need to have some inside help.

Lesson: Use your contacts, find someone you know either directly, or indirectly who can put your name/CV forward to the recruiting manager.

Re:I never take mine down

[Phillup]

I don't think management would be stupid enough to fall for the "it's always there" excuse if you're actively keeping it updated.

Just point out to them that since you live in a 'right to work' state you need to do this. And, you'd be more than willing to remove it in exchange for a nice long term contract that provides *you* with the security *you* want.

Or, they can hire stupid people and see how that works out for them...