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.

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.

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.

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: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: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...