Slashdot Mirror
One In Five Employers Scan Applicants' Web Lives
Ned Nederlander writes "CareerBuilder's new survey finds: 'Of those hiring managers who have screened job candidates via social networking profiles, one-third (34 percent) reported they found content that caused them to dismiss the candidate from consideration.' Some red flags: content about applicant using drugs or drinking, inappropriate photos and bad-mouthing former bosses."
What would you expect if you admitted you're a drunken dope user on Facebook? An award for honesty?
And the logic of posting photos of yourself in compromising situations online: There is none.
If each mistake being made is a new one, then progress is being made.
Employees'(or prospective employees') personal lives should be strictly off limits unless the employee voluntarily discloses the information as per professional interview guidelines(such as listing interests on a resume' or answering an interviewer's questions).
Ideally, the prospective employee should be warned in print and verify with a signature, as is done with credit and other background checks, that their name will be googled as part of the application process
Done right, it could be a positive thing -- the employee could be asked,"Is there anything online that you don't want me to see?" and a decision to hire(or not) would be based on the level of the interviewee's honesty, not that photo of them smoking a marihuana cigarette 10 years ago at a frat party.
Many places allow you the opportunity to explain prior convictions, so why shouldn't you be allowed to explain the psycho ex who photoshopped your face onto the goatse guy, then gamed Google so that "your" cavernous butthole is the first entry under your name?
Anyone who can handle being stuck in the woods with 60 kids should be able to handle irate customers pretty easily.
Any manager who scans the supposed web life of an applicant is a complete idiot if they can't verify that what they are looking at is authenticated to the applicant.
Let me put it simply. Send me your real name and address. I'll guarantee that I'll trash any job potential you have with one of these hiring managers.
Which might actually be a good thing, since any such manager has probably also populated the place with fellow idiots.
I've been a victim myself of a web smear campaign, and I can tell you that it's no fun. Plus it will stay around forever, depending on how it's done.
Except when your friends with unlocked profiles post pictures with you tagged in them.
Your resume likely gets 20 to 30 seconds of eyeball time when a manager or recruiter is scanning through a pile of resumes looking for potential interview candidates. At some point down the line, when the field is down to 5 people or so, it might make sense to screen an individual applicant's web pages.
They didn't mention which sites the hiring managers use. MySpace & Facebook are probably where you'll find lots of recent HS/college grads, but what about older professionals who aren't as likely to use those sites? I hear that a significant number of recruiters actually use linkedin.com as a recruiting tool.
I prefer rogues to imbeciles because they sometimes take a rest.
I wouldn't want to employ someone who wasn't on at least one social networking site. It's about the only real proof you can have that someone isn't the sort of person who has nothing in their life besides work.
There are two minor flaws that I can see with this application of that line of reasoning. One is that there are plenty of socially active people who don't bother with social networking sites, and plenty of avenues to be social that have no reflection in those sites. The second is that a Facebook or Myspace page isn't "proof," in that it wouldn't take much to make a fake page that passes at least cursory inspection.
That said, I can't disagree with your sentiment about wanting social people in general as part of your team.
Karma: Excellent, but still won't get you laid.
I'm constantly surprised that so many people post stupid shit about themselves using their full real name.
Also, just for fun, I googled my real name (which is not especially common) and I found three other prople who share the same name in the top 5 hits. The real me appeared once in the top 10 (I was interviewed by a newspaper as part of a charity event several years ago)
---
"I can't complain, but sometimes still do..." Joe Walsh
"Interesting" is the right moderation here... As in "Interesting that someone would be so close-minded as to require prospective employees to be on a social networking site." I realize this is Slashdot, but if you'd step away from your computer for a little bit, you'd realize there are plenty of ways to socialize without being on a social network. Such as, I dunno, hanging out with your friends, belonging to your local church, volunteering with civic organizations, participating in a local sports league, etc. In fact those in-person activities are a better indication of someone's ability to get along with co-workers than being on Facebook.
And only an idiot would film themselves committing a crime, and it would take an even bigger idiot to post that video to the Internet, and...
Help fight poverty: Punch a poor person.
Use email, text, phone, snail mail, private family website for us geeks, but DO NOT ever use myspace, facebook or any other social networking site to keep in contact with people. That is unless you want anything and everything you post to potentially become public knowledge. Setting something to "private" on any of these social networking sites that we already know are full of security holes means nothing. It just means someone needs to find some of your friends who have posted information about you on their public profile or become a "friend" of a "friend" and work their way in that way.
Fortunately, myspace, twitter, facebook, et al, all have a limited shelf life and eventually you kids and you adults who didn't grow up with computers are going to grow up and realize the idiocy of spewing your private info all over the place. Then these social networking sites are going to shrivel up and die. I find it odd that some companies have actually places a value on them. I find them pretty value-less.
I don't need facebook or any other facility to get in contact with an old friend, yet I still happen to have a busy social life. In fact nothing has changed from my days in HS or college or early adult life. If I want to get in contact with a friend, I call them. No need to post my personal info for all to see in the hopes of some long lost friend to find me or to plan this weekends event.
if I found out that someone had "googled" me and then rejected me for employment I then have evidence of religious discrimination and sexual discrimination
Or someone else was more qualified for the job. All they have to say is that they didn't hire you based on the evidence that you jump to faulty conclusions (poor snap judgement? that's a grave minus for any decision-making position) and would represent a sue-happy legal liability within the company (yeah, really non-risky hire there). Not to mention your outward hostility and mistrust toward the company's HR during the hiring process discounts you immediately as being a team player or anyone with a track of loyalty. Who a company hires IS their business.
And why in the bloody hell would you rub their faces in the fact that you're a bisexual pagan during the hiring process? If that comes across as a negative to HR, it's your own attention-whoring fault -- not theirs.
I am the richest astronaut ever to win the superbowl.
HR isn't accounting - if they have a good reason to access social networks they'll most likely get it.
A good friend of mine works in "futurology" for a major car manufacturer between his bachelor and master (great job btw) and he managed to get youtube of the blacklist within less than a week reasoning that his department needs to stay in touch with recent trends in order to formulate valid predictions about the future state of the car market.
If the head of HR wants to access facebook it will take just a couple of minutes to create a special rule for said department. And if I was head of HR I'd argue that any constraint in web access will limit the department's ability to research the applicant's background...
(And even if the company I'm working for was so dumb to deny me access I'd check such things at home)
I don't read replies by ACs.
Uhh, just search for a bunch of other people's names then? I'm pretty sure google doesn't think I am actually Kate Beckinsale.
I'm not not licking toads.
Good, they'd be doing me a favour - I clearly wouldn't be a good personality fit. Yes, I drink - I'm 34 years old, and I can do what I damn well please in my spare time, thank you very much. As long as it doesn't impair my ability to work or bring the company into disrepute, it's none of their business what I do.
It's official. Most of you are morons.
You have it exactly right.
I would not bother mentioning my Web presence on my resume except for positive achievements I might wish to point out.
If questioned in the interview, my answer will simply be "If you look me up on the Internet you'll probably find evidence of whatever drinking and drugging goes on in my personal time. If you want to know about my ability to keep that stuff from affecting my professional life, please feel free to ask my previous employers."
I see no reason to continue the interview if they press the issue beyond that.
DRM: Terminator crops for your mind!
Seriously who uses their real name?
Oh wait I know this....yeah 20-something slacktards, stoners, jocks and sundry assholes.
Pictures of applicants drinking?
"Look, this guy is at a restaurant and there's a beer on the table. Better not hire that one, must be a lush!"
Just because you're paranoid, it doesn't mean that they're not out to get you.
It sounds like the easier solution might be not hanging out with stoners who want to post your picture online :)
I agree, poster beware. It's like women who wear low-cut tops and short skirts then complain that guys check out their gear.
War as we knew it was obsolete
Nothing could beat complete denial
- Emily Haines
But apparently you are.
The front part of the email is not unique to any one person. I ahve a specific email name for employers. It gets routed and flagged Immediate. You would not find the left side of the email address on the front page of a Google search.
However, you test would make it trivially easy for anyone to game your interview process.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
Are you willing to turn that around? Face it, as an employer and a manager your company and you reflect on me professionally when I work for you. If the company's involved in shenanigans, I'm going to catch the fallout. Think about any technical type still employed at SCO, for instance. If you as a manager pull borderline-unethical stunts, future employers will be wondering if I share those same questionable ethics. So are you OK with me as an employee digging up your credit history and arrest record and everything else, digging up all the internal financial and strategic details your company'd rather not have anyone outside the company knowing about, to go through with a fine-tooth comb to decide if I want to take the risk of working for you?
"Look, this guy is at a restaurant and there's a beer on the table. Better not hire that one, must be a lush!"
I don't think that this is the problem, but, if you've put out fun pix of yourself half nekkid, with a half empty bottle of Jack in one hand, and a skull bong in the other one....you're likely to get passed over for a job, or these days...cheap insurance, a security clearance, or hell, it could affect your credit rating probably at some point.
And sadly, I hope you're never running for public office....once on the internet, this kind of stuff will haunt you for life.
On the other hand, if you keep your life private, well, this type of thing may give you an advantage, and let other people take themselves out of competition for jobs, etc...
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
Your writing is unclear; their comprehension is just fine. While you meant that you "would not pass" on their application (ie, you would not skip it), they read it to mean that you would not "pass on" their application - ie you would not forward it to the next round.
Right, I personally post under pseudonyms so that I can post stupid things or things which might upset people without having to worry about it reflecting poorly on the employer.
I see career advisers suggesting to people that they create a web presence, but the thing is that you have to be really careful about doing so and that anything you post can potentially come back to haunt you if you're not careful about it. Just because you're OK with whatever it is doesn't mean that a potential employer or client is going to be as open minded.
Anyone who judges someone from a bunch of random postings online when it comes to a job really needs to rethink their priorities.
Why? You have already demonstrated that you have poor impulse control and an inability to do something and keep your mouth shut about it. I don't really care if my employees smoke weed on their own time, but I sure as hell wouldn't hire somebody who walks in with pot-leaf t-shirts and has a bunch of bong-smoke photos on their website.
I hope to hell people doing these things just keep doing them because, hopefully, non-existent deity willing, in short order none of this will matter and people will shrug. "Oh, he drinks and smokes? Well that doesn't indicate he's a bad worker and I do half of that myself so whatever."
Because really, f*#@#&ing puritans. Most people *DO* do this stuff and live well enough as it is. The fact that people have to hide the way most people live a reasonable life is just rediculous. Closeted humanity, look at yourself and accept it. Even the most pious do drugs and drink.
What *MATTERS* is billing your state for your housing costs or making money off of energy subsidies. THESE are the important things.
meh. guess I need I need to get a job with high times magazine or someone equally apathetic to such acts.
Impulse control - heh - not every act in life should be handled with restraint. Sometimes the impulse like act is the most important. There are sooooooo many impulse based acts that I would never in a million years regret... other ones... maybe I would.
What if someone who comes in with a pot-leaf t-shirt teaches you somethings that you had a) never heard of before and b) demonstrate how to make it profitable.
You could be dealing with someone who'd be willing to take a bullet for your organization. But just because you don't like the fact they demonstrate some level of shamelessness turns you off... pfft ... your loss.
Then again, I have no money. I have no power in these things. But if I was running an organization ... that person would get an equal voice to everyone else at the interview level. Hell, I'd want to interrogate them even more.
Just because the law declares something wrong doesn't mean that it is.
Calling people names because you think you're right says a lot about what kind of co-worker these applicants have to put up with once they're hired. I'm glad you're not my boss.
-- Cheers!
There's a contrary point of view which says that since people will find things about you online anyway, build an identity of things you want them to find.
Use facebook, twitter, whatever, and talk only about things you wouldn't be afraid of future bosses seeing.
Social networking isn't going to shrivel up and die any more than email did. Maybe this generation will shrivel and die, but the concept of a persona with connections on the 'net is pretty much here to stay.
In the end - I don't fucking care.
*Sigh* That attitude doesn't impress anybody nearly as much as most people who profess to hold it wish that it did.
It worried me before, and still does a bit today. But in the end, if it means that I can have the freedom to express my thoughts online, I'll settle on mopping floors for the rest of my life ...
That's a hefty price to pay for expressing your thoughts where not only will very few people ever hear them, but fewer still will care about them. Almost none will be swayed by them.
Apparently the business world doesn't believe in freedom of expression.
Why the hell would it? This is the problem I see with the people coming out of college these days (I'm not saying that you fall into that category)... they truly expect that the rest of the world needs to start giving a shit about what they think, just because mommy and daddy never told them 'no', or their college professors made them feel like a member of a subversive clique. Guess what, there are over 300 million people in the US... chances are your opinion isn't worth a whole lot more than any of theirs.
You're supposed to shut the fuck up, do your work, go home, spend time with your family, fuck your wife/girlfriend (or not...?), watch TV and go back to work the next day. But most of the people who are managers are assholes pieces of shit, so I have no remorse over this. I find it odd that the employer that had the biggest balls to say to my face that they don't want me back was a woman. All the men just called the temp agency to ditch me. I think that taught me the most about the business world. Male managers are pussies, female managers have balls.
No, aside from going to work every day and doing your job, your boss doesn't (or shouldn't, anyway) care at all what you do with your personal time. However, if you're out getting so fucked up that it impacts your ability to work the next day, or doing something that can somehow harm the company or its reputation, then that is rightfully a concern of theirs in so far as they should terminate your employment to protect the greater good (the company and the X number of other people who work there).
Otherwise....
You are fucked if you admit to doing drugs. You are fucked if you admit to liking sex. You are fucked if you admit to hating the President. You are fucked if you admit to hating the police. You are fucked if you show any sense of rebellion to anything ... the employers will search your name, they will read your postings, and by default you lose. Even if they agree with everything you write.
I like using Alan Turing as an example. He spent probably countless nights doing research to help defeat the Nazi's - but it doesn't matter cause he's gay. The law at the time said being gay is illegal, so some pieces of shit decided to conspire against him, and started a process that basically led him to his suicide...
If you rebel to any facet of society that some bare majority - let's say even 51% objects to - they will make your life hell.
It's best to just assume no one Googled your name, and just keep living life ... it just sucks when people start doing things that make you feel like you're going through some awful acid trip, and the totally improbable starts happening for some reason.
Anyone who judges someone from a bunch of random postings online when it comes to a job really needs to rethink their priorities. Come on, I can do a good job mopping floors... why do employers care if I like to smoke weed and get drunk from time to time? Don't they? That must be an awfully large pickle to have up their ass if they do care....
I think employers should start bringing up internet search results during interviews. At least you get a chance to defend yourself. As if I remember everything I w