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."
Posting to /.
Help fight poverty: Punch a poor person.
Why does every manager not screen all applicants? Takes 5 minutes.
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?
On the other hand, social networking profiles gave some job seekers an edge over the competition. Twenty-four percent of hiring managers who researched job candidates via social networking sites said they found content that helped to solidify their decision to hire the candidate. Top factors that influenced their hiring decision included:
Some of the numbers on this article have to be wrong ... 22% shared sensitive information from their prior employer ... ?! What could that be?
My work here is dung.
You don't think this is my real name do you?
No, this is the name of my mortal enemy.
Deleted
Full story, page 6.
Crap. We need more comments, people! I'm still showing only one page here.
This guy's the limit!
It helps me avoid the bad ones and possibly increase my chances with the ones I want.
One interview I casually mentioned seeing a really good performance by a local violin player. I hadn't actually gone, just read a review. I didn't mention I knew she was his daughter, either(she'd married, so different last name). I found that after googling him and finding it in the "thanks" section of her website. That got us to talking about classical music, music magnet schools, etc. After we "shared a common interest", I was a shoe-in compared to the rest of the candidates.
Fortunately, I don't work there anymore and he's since retired:) I did actually listen to some of his daughter's stuff, later, and she /is/ a good violin player.
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. I don't want that sort of person on my team. They're horrible to work with. I want people who socialise - not necessarily with me - but with someone.
http://twitter.com/onion2k
Anyone who can handle being stuck in the woods with 60 kids should be able to handle irate customers pretty easily.
yup - although I have rejected because of odd FB profiles, about 80% of our candidates from the last trawl we did were on FB and were perfectly normal..
The only thing I mind them finding is them finding out that I'm much more interested in software engineering when I'm applying for junior sysadmin jobs. Them knowing that is a sure way for me to never get called for an interview.
You just got troll'd!
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.
How's the googling going? I hope you like reading my slashdot posts. And if you have karma, mod my posts up, too. In addition to hiring me with a nice fat salary.
I'm sorry Mr. Dragon, the numerous grammatical and spelling errors in your previous post have dissuaded us from extending an offer of employment at this time. We felt there was no need to look into your social networking persona after reading that.
ON DELETE CASCADE
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.
That's a pretty narrow view, considering there are other, more time-tested ways to socialize.
I suppose it depends on the position you're hiring for. I usually tend to frown on developers who don't have a web presence in the form of a blog with technical content and what not. Comments on technical forums or even USENET posts are always good. However, the lack of that presence does not necessarily translate into immediate dismissal, there are many other factors, obviously like the ability to ace a technical interview. But being recognized in your field by your peers is always a *huge* plus.
I really could care less (and again, that's just my opinion and the type of people I hire) if you have a facebook page or not.
Web2.0: I love when people Flickr my cuil and digg my boingboing until my google is reddit and I start to yahoo
So...
Step 1: Keep a professional "personal" site up where you praise your prior employers and you extol the virtues of work and your pride in your accomplishments at your job.
Step 2: (Optional) Keep a separate social site for your friends (which doesn't explicitly list you by name), also set to private.
Step 3: Get the names of the other applicants and set them up facebook accounts where they list their exploits stealing office supplies, being lazy/napping on the job, and taking pot breaks/drinking at work. Extra Credit for including the phrase "Man, I was so WASTED at work the other day!" anywhere in their profile.
Step 4: ???*
Step 5: Hired!
* Depending on state, Step 4 may be "Get sued for libel" (Do not go to step 5, do not collect a monthly paycheck).
Georgia Tech, the leader in Chia(tm) technology.
Oh you want to check out my profile? Sure thing, just search for smokesalottaweed. Let me know about that job. Thanks!
I make sure that if somebody Googles my real name, their first hit is my resume. Everything else is garbage.
It must be nice to have a name that dwells in relative obscurity. For those of us named things like "John Smith", "Charles Barkley", "Ron Jeremy" and "Clown Anal" that's not quite so easy.
I am the richest astronaut ever to win the superbowl.
"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.
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.
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.
Seriously who uses their real name?
Oh wait I know this....yeah 20-something slacktards, stoners, jocks and sundry assholes.
Sincerely,
Pete Goatse
Stuff about applicants' off-hours activities should not be a factor in employment decisions. Unless there's concern for libel of previous employers or detailed nonpublic technical or financial information from previous jobs (thus raising legitimate concerns about disclosure of proprietary information) appears on a Facebook or Myspace page, it shouldn't be considered as part of a hiring decision. It doesn't matter for employment whether someone's a partier on the weekends, or which political party he belongs to; if it's not work-related a manager should not be judging his or her employees on this information.
There needs to be considerably more employee and applicant protections put in place in the U.S. on discrimination based on factors unrelated to job performance. Facebook and Myspace are the least of my worries in this regard; the potential of abuse medical records (presently protected to some extent), credit reports, and criminal records is much greater.
Medical records should be considered off-limits in regards to hiring, firing, and assignment decisions, period. It's already against the law to discriminate against someone who's blind or requires a wheelchair; it should be against the law to not hire someone for non-obvious medical conditions, such as someone with a history of cancer, or to fire someone because they've had a heart attack or are being treated for a mental disorder.
Unless a position routinely involves dealing with large amount (thousands or more) of cash or goods easily convertible to cash (e.g. jewelry or casino chips), an employer has no reason to look at one's credit report. Even in these cases where there is a potential of theft to pay debts and it's reasonable to pull a credit check, there need to be strict ground rules in place on what can be considered from that report. Nothing over two years old, and that's being generous, is relevant to one's current financial situation. The fact that employers can and some do refuse to hire someone because of a personal bankruptcy, a home foreclosure, or other financial difficulties up to 10 years old or more is a disgrace. Though not present on a credit report, there are ways of discovering bankruptcies even older than 10 years, and it's common to see questions like "Have you EVER declared bankruptcy?" on employment application.
And the check of criminal records is an abuse that the government can very easily rein in for most crimes that don't garner press coverage. Why should someone who completed a jail sentence 5 or 10 years ago for drug possession and has remained clean ever since or while drunk got out of control and ended up with an assault and battery have to be continually haunted by such a mistake? Once someone's served a setence for a crime, that person should be entitled to another chance to become a productive member of society without artificial barriers to success. While it's reasonable for a DA's office or the courts to check someone's priors for the purpose of determining appropriate punishment for an offense, there's no reason it's relevant for an employer that an applicant broke the law in his past. Marginalizing felons and other criminals can lead to further crimes; if someone's mistake dooms them to a McJob for a long time, they may very well be tempted to enter more lucrative and illegal operations. If someone's currently on probation or parole for an offense, that's reasonable to consider. However once the sentence is done, the record on for charge should be sealed to all except for those in the courts with a need to know.
To those who say don't post to Myspace, Facebook, or any other site, that's a reasonable start. But what happens if you decide to go to a friend's wild party and your name and a questionable photo (even if it's just a beer can in your hand and some empties around) pops up on that friend's site when a company does a web search on you? Or you decide to campaign for someone opposing the candidate whom your employer endorsed (and possibly contributed to) and show up as a point of contact for that campaign? There's only so much you can do to limit your web presence, and the only way to keep abuse from happening is to say that one's personal life is off-limits. All of it.
And the logic of posting photos of yourself in compromising situations online: There is none.
You are quite right. If the compromising photos are interesting enough, other people will post them for you...
HA! I just wasted some of your bandwidth with a frivolous sig!
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?
...cause I'm totally fucked.
I posted a whole bunch of shit on various internet sites over the years. Everything from illicit drug usage, to my odd political leanings - and totally doing it under my real name (or nickname that can easily be traced to my real name). I honestly felt I hit the point of no return and just started to embrace the fact I'm not anonymous, and I'm all over the fucking place.
I have a love/hate relationship with Google - I love being able to find any piece of information I want quickly, but I hate the hopeless feeling of removing search results that I had even written myself.
In the end - I don't fucking care.
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 ... even if I have some obscure degree in optics.
Apparently the business world doesn't believe in freedom of expression. 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.
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 wrote online back in 1998 ...
Gotta love things like, having posted comments that support actions like killing your own military officers, while thinking about applying as a military officer 8 years later. heh let's talk about reasons for not applying for a job....
heh in a week's time this will get even more awesome as I put a research proposal forward.
So what do I do now? None of my online profiles really contain anything 'bad' in them. No bad photos, no defaming former employees, no bad language...
However, many of my online profiles are quite honest about my sexuality. I am gay. Do I need to consider going back into the closet because a future potential employer might be a homophobe?
Still #1 -- Lonely Gay Geek