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.
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
You are using the wrong word.
Your private life should be off limits.
What you do in public is public. Having people judge you by how you act in public is they way that the world works.
But guess what poor judgment will effect your life.
See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
Why? The information's both public and readily available. If someone's application for employment is dismissed because they appear to be a drunken stoner that enjoys whining about former employers then...why should the prospective employer not be aware of it?
If it was something that they obtained through the use of private detectives, or contacting previous employers then, maybe, fair enough the applicant should be warned. But if they're stupid enough to post any form of incriminating material online what makes you think they'd heed the warning in the first place?
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.
Anyone who can handle being stuck in the woods with 60 kids should be able to handle irate customers pretty easily.
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 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.
>What you do in public is public.
Yes. And why would you bother doing anything for an employer who is petty enough to hold your web presence against you?
At my jobs, the people I've worked for have been into me for who I am.
Somebody checks my facebook page or whatever, it's what it's there for. Somebody has a *problem* with what they find there, they can kiss my ass, and I'd be man enough to say it point blanc even to a boss or prospective boss.
And speaking as a boss, I might do something like this just to test you to see if you have enough integrity to stand up for yourself. If you have a lot of counterculture / political stuff on your shirt sleeve, and you try to pretend to be someone else, I have NO respect for that.
-fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.
If someone's application for employment is dismissed because they appear to be a drunken stoner that enjoys whining about former employers then...why should the prospective employer not be aware of it?
What if it's something a little less stereotypical? Say you're a political activist of some stripe. If you are publicly active in the pro-X movement, do you want to be dismissed for a job consideration because the guy checking your resume is anti-X?
I agree that anyone who posts truly embarrassing information online is an idiot. However, the idea that one must balance their freedom to express themselves under their own name against the possibility of offending a prospective employer is chilling and repugnant, IMHO. Not that the Web created that dynamic, but it certainly makes it a bit more pervasive.
Momentarily, the need for the construction of new light will no longer exist.
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.
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.
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?