Should Job Seekers Tell Employers To Quit Snooping?

onehitwonder writes in with a CIO opinion piece arguing that potential employees need to stand up to employers who snoop the Web for insights into their after-work activities, often disqualifying them as a result. "Employers are increasingly trolling the web for information about prospective employees that they can use in their hiring decisions. Consequently, career experts advise job seekers to not post any photos, opinions or information on blogs and social networking websites (like Slashdot) that a potential employer might find remotely off-putting. Instead of cautioning job seekers to censor their activity online, we job seekers and defenders of our civil liberties should tell employers to stop snooping and to stop judging our behavior outside of work, writes CIO.com Senior Online Editor Meridith Levinson. By basing professional hiring decisions on candidates' personal lives and beliefs, employers are effectively legislating people's behavior, and they're creating an online environment where people can't express their true beliefs, state their unvarnished opinions, be themselves, and that runs contrary to the free, communal ethos of the Web. Employers that exploit the Web to snoop into and judge people's personal lives infringe on everyone's privacy, and their actions verge on discrimination."

Comments

Why should they stop snooping

[greg_barton]

If an employer doesn't like what they find, I don't want to work for them.

I even have a "best way to google my name" section on my resume:

"Greg Barton" java -indonesia -kayak -mozart -football

i.e. I'm the Greg Barton who's a java programmer, but not the Indonesia expert, olympic kayaker, football coach, or Mozart scholar.

That actually helped me get in the door on my current job. :)

Employers should be required

[Jane Q. Public]

by law to give prospective employees an honest reason why they were rejected. I know they don't like to do this because of potential repercussions, but that is really not as big of an issue as they try to make it.

The explanation can be as simple as "others were more qualified". There is nothing wrong with this explanation. But if the real reason is different ("I liked the look of Potential Secretary X's legs better", then they should not lie about it... although they will anyway. The point is that they should not, and there should be a rule saying that they should not. It distorts the employment market, which is detrimental to commerce and to society in general.

This would solve a lot of problems. It would help prospective employees actually find out what their weak spots are as far as the job market is concerned (rather than just being told "we picked somebody else"), and thus it would help match up companies with the employees they are actually looking for. Note that someone who is job hunting cannot improve their skills to get a good job if they are misled about what skills are in demand.

Also, if there were actually a law about it, if someone felt that they were rejected for unfair reasons ("the other candidate gave me oral sex"), they would actually have some recourse. Hard to prove? Sure. But if they CAN prove it, then at least they could get some compensation... as they should be able to, because by being rejected under false pretenses, they not only lose a potential job but they are not given the information they need to improve themselves so that they can get another.

I am not talking about discrimination here. I am talking about honesty in hiring. Two very different things. Discrimination laws might (in some cases) make it illegal to hire the person who gave you oral sex, if others were more qualified. My proposed law is not about discrimination at all. As long as you told the rejects honestly why they were rejected, then you would have nothing to worry about... except those discrimination laws of course, which you would have to worry about anyway.

Re:No, they don't

[QRDeNameland]

Googling someone to see if they're a Nazi child molester on the no-fly list is perfectly legal, and as a hiring manager, you can bet I'm going to keep doing it.

Just out of curiosity, is it just as legal if your google search finds the person posts on an online forum for, say, cancer patients, to use that as a pre-screen for who might be unacceptable insurance risks? I wouldn't be surprised if it was.

Unfortunately, I think it is ultimately wise to divorce your real identity from anything you do online however innocent it might be. (An exception could be made for strictly employment-related or technical stuff, but one should think really hard anytime they put real identity info online.) You never know what information could be used against you in some future situation.

Re:No, they don't

[Anonymous Coward]

But what about the information other people have put out about me?

Where does hypocrisy begin?

[golodh]

The parent post is an excellent example of a manager attempting to think. Methodologically speaking, web presence is of course a very poor indicator of people's performance on the job.

How so?

Well, the people posting silly stuff about themselves tend to do so while thinking of a certain context and/or being in a particular state of mind (at home, relaxed, with friends, feeling in the mood for some snarkiness). So ... more often than not, context is half the message (if not more). But all and any context is lost in transmission via the Internet, thus loosing about half the message.

Suppose on the other hand that someone *really* has something to hide. They would take exceptionally good care not to leave tracks that are easily available for a hiring manager with some time on his hands and itchy keyboard fingers. They would even change their name if necessary.

Therefore Internet presence is likely to give false positives while false negatives are all but guaranteed. Whilst there might be some justification for Googling to see if people are "a Nazi child molester on the no-fly list", it's really unlikely that you'll find any such clear-cut evidence and for anything less what you find is hearsay evidence at best. It's not illegal, but neither is Tarot reading to screen applicants. But who cares, right?

Hypocrisy, double standards, and CYA ("Cover Your Backside") tactics are as American as apple pie. And the impact on people trying to land a job is simply not the issue for the ones responsible for hiring someone.

Why not?

Well, how would you like to be the manager responsible for hiring someone who subsequently has an industrial accident (while cold sober), and whose web presence shows him/her writing something snarky about getting soused on the job? Or who is subsequently investigated for having one single marijuana plant at home and who has blogged about the virtues of said weed for relaxation? Or someone who creates racial tensions after being hired while his (somewhat racist) blog is there for the world to see? Or (if you work in catering or manufacture baby food) someone who turns out to be sloppy with hygiene when his Facebook page shows him in a messy kitchen?

Would you feel comfortable when the word "due dilligence" is used around you afterwards? Would you like to hear your ambitious rival mouthing hypocritical guff about "putting the company first", "exercising commonsense when hiring people", or "being net-savvy" afterwards?

No?

Then you'd better use *all* online information you can Google your hands on in 5 minutes, right?

I don't think that managers hiring people really believe that an unfortunate scrap of Facebook material makes someone unsuitable. It's just that they've got a choice to make (if they're hiring at all) and they can't waste all morning on it. Any reason to weed someone out that doesn't reflect poorly on them (better yet, which makes them look "savvy") in the eyes the only audience that counts (other executives) is a help.

Fear of being unreasonably second-guessed is a major justification for a whole host of useless security boondoggles, and I firmly believe that it's also why we see employers Googling for people that send in their resume.

I agree with you, hiring mangerman

[TiggertheMad]

Strangely enough, i think this can work both ways.

I have worked as a software contractor for a few years, and I have seen some disfunctional companies. I have to agree with your practices, captain HR sqeakyclean, because I do the same to you.

The boss I work for, the CIO, even you, get the same treatment you give me. So, if you are having problems with talent passing on your critical positions, well...you gave us the idea. Cat's out of the bag, good luck.

To Slashdot: Yeah, I am sort of being ironic and cute turning the parent poster's idea around. But, really, do this. I have been called in for contracts where half the company is suing the other half, I have worked with religious right wing bigots, and I almost went to an interview with Infinnium labs before I found out about their craziness. As embarrassing as some photos of a drunken kegger might be for you, your employers probably have a whole lot more to hide than you do.