Slashdot Mirror
Social Networking Sites Getting Risky For Recruiting
onehitwonder writes "While many recruiters and HR managers are taking advantage of the Web and online social networks to screen candidates for positions inside their organizations, a bank in Texas has decided that using social networking websites in its recruiting process is too risky legally. Amegy Bank of Texas now prohibits internal HR staff and external recruiters from using social networking sites in its hiring process. Amegy's decision to ban the use of social networking sites in its hiring process demonstrates its respect for prospective employees' privacy. It also sends a message to the employers and recruiters using social networks to snoop into job seekers' personal lives that their actions border on discrimination and could get them in a lot of legal trouble."
Some people put a lot of info on their social networking sites. Some of it is information that is protected under discrimination laws. Now even if your HR people are squeaky clean about it and ignore all that, the problem could be proving it. You check up on someone's page and find out that they do something you don't like, and that you can discriminate on. However also on that page it lets you know they are Mormon. You don't hire them, they sue you for religious discrimination because your organization has a bunch of Catholics at the top.
Well the lawsuit is now a problem. They'll claim you found out they were Mormon and that's the reason you won't hire them. You claim it is for another reason, maybe something they've now removed from their page. Well it's now "He said, she said." Maybe the jury doesn't buy that the other thing was what you cared about and all of a sudden you owe a bunch of money.
by Texas law unless I am mistaken, is a single branch and an entire company.
Maybe they have changed the laws since I was last there, but "a bank in Texas" might be roughly analogous, capital-wise, to a manufacturing plant in my local area. So one bank in Texas setting a policy is hardly big news.
It is REALLY hard to prove discrimination as it is. When it is discovered, it should then be actionable in some way. As it stands, there is probably nothing in the law books that would stand against it, but social networking sites could potentially show damages because of their use being discouraged.
Personally? I don't appear on any social networking sites... other than this one. If you really want to know who I am, you gotta know who I am and then read all my comments. But there are no pictures and so to confirm my identity would not be a simple matter for most.
(Please, this is not a challenge...)
But just like discrimination against age, disability, religion and race they just have to pay lip service and any employer can discriminate all they like.
The reality is that I am a high school drop-out, and I am a Chief Technology Officer. I didn't get there by starting a company, I was recruited by the company itself. I have 15+ years of experience (my first "contract" position was when I was 15). Oh, and I'm 32 years old now.
I once was given a job offer and then they rescinded it because I did not have a high school diploma. Were they wrong? You decide. I am where I am because I have the skills, experience and am damn good at my job.
Doesn't mean they won't. I know a couple managers, and frankly you are sticking your neck out if you make a couple of bad hires. What is to stop someone from snooping on your myspace/facebook (other than privacy settings) from their own home.
It all comes down to what has been said before, if you don't want the world to know, don't put it on the internet. Its the reason why I discontinued facebook, because quite frankly, I find it rather advantageous to be mysterious ( especially with women ;) ).
Anyone who has ever hired someone has googled him/her. It's almost inevitable not to land on a person's social networking page, if this person uses her own name online. It will be very hard to totally ignore the information you found there. Even if you don't intend to you will unconciously or conciously use it during the job interview.
-- Cheers!
Everyone's afraid of doing anything that could land a potential lawsuit. We're getting to the point where you won't even be able to give a reference because of how it might be interpreted. People put up that info by choice, don't like that your future company might look at it, too bad, take it down or deal.
The musings of just another geek and his junk.
If a person decided to allow anyone to see his/her profile, what is there to respect?
1)Google yourself, find which results you can control, and get those to the top of google.
2)When your employer googles you, he sees what you want him to.
3)???
4)PROFIT!
Most innovations typically play along the periphery of what is permitted because the norm is, by definition, in the middle. By its very nature, social networking runs contrary to U.S. constitutional rights to privacy. That doesn't stop facebook's popularity but I guess that it could cause any large corporation's legal department to blow a gasket. As a participant in an enterprise offering in social networking, I've run in to the opposite end of this spectrum. Companies don't want to reveal their internal problems yet risk doing so as they start searching around in social networks not directly under their control.
...the most ridiculously amazing profile ever:
Hobbies and Interests:
- working hard every day
- always obeying superiors
- working overtime for standard pay
Favorite Movies:
Favorite Books:
Favorite Music:
- none I'm always working
- - -
Things NOT to include:
Hobbies and Interests:
- feeding my cocaine addiction
- leather and bondage fetish
- reading slashdot
- - -
My Facebook profile makes me look extremely plain. It is the bare essentials. A personal email contact, my high school and undergraduate information, and a list of some very safe hobbies like 'sports' or 'cooking'. It took me forever to untag all those pictures of me naked on acid.
Social networking does not run "contrary to U.S. constitutional rights to privacy." If you post something on a billboard, you waive your right to privacy regarding that material. You can't have it both ways.
Now, LinkedIn is a different matter. I leave that public, as I use that for work networking.
Honestly, this reminds me of the days when we were starting to realize we couldn't actually just throw our email addresses out there willy-nilly.
Amegy's decision... sends a message to the employers and recruiters using social networks to snoop into job seekers' personal lives that their actions border on discrimination and could get them in a lot of legal trouble.
Kevin Colvin.
Perhaps I'm being naive, but why would anyone sue a company for not hiring them? Company A interviews 20 people for position B, happens to look at prospect C's Facebook profile in the process, doesn't like what they see and go for candidate D. They tell everyone but D "Sorry, we found someone else". That's just how it goes. What basis does C have to sue them?
Sure, but a Facebook profile, in the eyes of the masses isn't a billboard. Most people view it as a place for friends and family, similar to a house. Looking at someone's Facebook profile is (in the minds of many) equivalent to watching you in your house and listening to your conversations while you are eating dinner. Or following you and your friends to the bar and making a discussion to hire you or not based on that conversation with your friends. It is the opinion of many (including myself) that you are hired to do a certain job for certain hours (such as 9-5), by the time 5:15 rolls around, the company should have no real control or concern for you, save that you return back at 9 the next morning to do your job. Can't do the job? Then fire them. Can do the job well? Hire and keep them. This is taking micromanagement to a new level in my opinion, and while, yes, anyone can read your Facebook, that does not mean you should (or should legally be able to) make decisions on hiring/firing people based on it without prior consent (such as someone saying check Facebook for a list of projects I worked on).
Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
It doesn't matter in the least how you look at it or how it is "perceived by the masses". The ONLY thing that matters, legally, is how public it is.
My point was that anybody can look at a billboard. You could paint something on a billboard and consider it somewhat private, but the reality is that it isn't private... it is publicly visible. Your "looking at it" as private is nothing but a delusion on your part... a belief or feeling that runs contrary to reality.
On many social networking sites, you can control who can see what information. And if you made that information visible to the public, then the law is very clear that you are just plain SOL. And that is reasonable! Your really can't have it both ways! If you post something in a place that is visible to the public, it is completely unreasonable to blame the public for looking at it!
And it is also unreasonable to look at it as though someone were "following you around", because they are probably looking at it from their own livingroom! How is that "following you"?
I agree that an employer should not be concerned with what you do on your own time... as long as you are not bad-mouthing them in public, or otherwise harming their public reputation. Then they might have a legitimate concern.
"... that does not mean you should (or should legally be able to) make decisions on hiring/firing people based on it without prior consent (such as someone saying check Facebook for a list of projects I worked on)."
The problem there is that you quite literally cannot have that both ways! Public information is public information. It is not permissible in the United States to tell someone "this information is public, but you, and you, and most especially you cannot look at it or think about it or use it." That's just not the way Freedom of Speech works, man!
First, I am not a lawyer. That said, I could see instances where it could hurt a company NOT to check social networking sites. If a prospective employee's profile indicates a tendency toward racial or sexual discrimination, for instance, and the person was hired in a supervisory position, then acted in a discriminatory manner, those discriminated against may be able to argue in court that the company was lax in its hiring practices, which would make it responsible for the discrimination due to its lack of research.
I believe that a company shouldn't be using non-job-related items for its hiring decisions. On the other hand, if information that disqualifies a candidate for that job is public, I believe that it is the company's duty to use that information.
I could be legally wrong, and I welcome corrections from those more acquainted with the law.
State wide bank as far as I know. Always treated myself and company with respect. Glad to hear they have made this decision. Been with them since they started small as Southwest Bank of Texas. If I'm not mistaken, they are the largest independent in Texas.
On facebook you can limit your information to only be accessible to friends, friends of friends or your network. It's quite granular, if your information is accessible by people you don't want it to be then that's your fault for not using the privacy settings that facebook provides.
If you build it, nerds will come. Soylentnews.org
If I post "I smoke pot every day, unless I know I'm facing a drug test" on my Facebook page - the same facebook page I put my resume on - it could get you into trouble if you hire me.
Let's say you do the urine test thing and hire me as a taxi driver. The next time I have a wreck while high you'll lose for failing to do "due diligence" in the hiring process.
Probably the best thing for employers to do is do contract out the job on a "red light/green light" basis, and have the hired guns look only for material that would actually cause legal harm to the employer, not material that is merely against the values of the company or which expresses a political opinion.
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
I set up several different 'profiles' on-line linked by e-mail addresses on different sites. Depending on the job applied for, that e-mail address and subsequent 'profile' is what I use.
Search for my slashdot UID anywhere, and all you find are this specific user ID's slashdot posts.
It does not connect to 'me' directly, easily, or obviously. I'm sure it could be done given enough motivation, but realistically, 'why bother' for someone like me?
Down With Slashdot BETA!!! I've been around the corner and seen the oliphant; you can only abuse me from your perspecti
Step into a huge movement. Don't Tread In Me.
I certainly do not have an account on any of the social networking sites. If I want to network socially, I'll go outside.
Though I'm glad a company is showing some common sense where privacy is regarded. If your new hire likes to listen to fall out boy and talk about her belly button piercing, that's none of her employers business.
They're using their grammar skills there.
For some people, there is just as damaging information on Google. Anyone else remember Charles Booher? http://www.metroactive.com/papers/metro/01.26.05/booher-0504.html
Here's a scenario:
Say I apply for a job by sending in my resume. Prominently featured in 48pt font just above my name are the words, "I'm Mormon and Proud of It!" Let's say, hypothetically, that I don't get the job. Is the company liable for discriminating against me because they are in possession of knowledge of the fact that I am a Mormon and subsequently didn't hire me? Of course not.
This is just an employer being overly cautious because it doesn't think that the information about potential employees that can be gleaned from Facebook is all that valuable. And maybe it's not. If an applicant is an obvious douchebag on Facebook, he's probably a douchebag during an interview as well.
Besides all that, "discrimination" isn't an across-the-board no-no. Only certain things are illegal if used to discriminate in hiring. Like race, age, national origin, sex, etc. Discriminating against a person (i.e. not hiring him or her) for being a moron, possessing an unimpressive resume, or publicly displaying yourself as a drunkard on social networking sites is EXACTLY the kind of discrimination in which hiring companies SHOULD be engaging.
No, it demonstrates typical HR paranoid fear of lawyers and a complete lack of understanding that there is more to a potential employee that a school diploma. I would consider it irresponsible not to google a potential candidate. You have to research your spending decisions, and hiring someone is a big ticket item.
End anonymous moderation and posting on
Bullshit. If it's publicly posted, it's not private.
Bullshit. If it's public, it's not snooping. (Or anywhere near discriminatory.)
Amegy when filling the 45 or so positions that open every month in the 2,000-employee company.
So the news isn't that some mid-size company decided it wants to change hiring practices.
The news is that THEY'RE HIRING! :)
Might be good if a lot of you actually read the article. While the legal 'expectation of privacy' is constantly eroded by the internet, the issue is not use of 'public' information, fair use, etc. The issue is the reliability of the information, the protection provided to the user of the information, and whether or not use of the information could inadvertently damage someone and create a liability.
All you need to know from the article:
The policy isn't based on past case law. Solomon says she is not aware of any rulings directly on point in this type of situation. What it is based on, she says, is old-fashioned common sense and her client's threshold for risk.
"Old-fashioned common sense" uses actual case law. This is total BS. Employers can use these sites all they want. Discrimination? Just try to prove it.
Sometimes social network sites are the most honest form of references you can find on an prospective candidate. And while some people express preferences or display aspects of their lives that put them in a protected class, one we're legal bound not to ask about, it is information that they choose to display in association with the name they use to seek employment. Personally, I try to ignore that stuff while I look for aspects of their life that may relate to their capability as an employee. If you are concerned that you might be denied employment because you <whatever>, use an alias.
On the flip side, some candidates reveal things that make it very easy to weed them from the process for reasons that, legal or not, are in the best interest of the company and staff. The most recent in our case was a candidate that wrote us a particularly angry letter about our interview process. A quick google revealed him to be a stalker who kept a record of threats he made and threats he received through chronicle of his life. We also found a separate site devoted to his lawsuit against a former employer over some other stalking/harassment type issue. Rather than apologize and try to correct our process, we bid him farewell.
Should we avoid learning all we can that is relevant to the job about someone we might consider hiring? Google provides levels of information previously only available through the use of a private eye and with the good comes the bad and unnecessary. So we have to ignore religion, age, race, gender, preferences, et cetera. But hiring managers have been doing that for years, this information often comes up or can be inferred during an interview.
This policy seems like a Luddite decision. It would probably be better for HR to do the research and then filter out the protected information so the hiring manager doesn't get tainted. Then the hiring can be done irrespective of protected class status and yet with full awareness of the relevant data.
These opinions guaranteed or your money back.
Our HR department is the opposite. We were recently given a list of questions we must ask everyone whenthey return from sick leave.
Imagine how stupid I felt asking someone who returned after having a broken leg in a car accident which was the other driver's fault: "Do you think that this is likely to recur?", and with his leg in plaster "Have you any written evidence, such a s a medical certificate, showing that this was a genuine illness?".
More to the point with the possibility of a flu pandemic people have to make every reasonable effort to come into work, and must declare that they did so on returning
.
There is an escalation process for repeat absences, whatever the reason and a bonus for not being sick in a year, so I am sure some people will think "hey this could be swine flu but if I don't try to get in I could end up in disciplinary. On the bright side if it is swine flu maybe someone in HR will catch it".
One of my friends at Stanford told me to 'take care' of my social networking sites like orkut and facebook. According to him, many universities now google the graduate applicants and scan their social networking profiles. I don't like this one bit.
It's not about public or private information. Whether you are married or not, how old you are, is public information too, but AFAIK they are NOT allowed to ask you for this information at all in the USA.
I believe companies should indeed not be allowed to look up ANY kind of "public" information about you without your explicit consent (and no, having a facebook profile isn't explicit consent). They should base their decision on the information you provide (or do not provide) to them, and the interview process.
If anyone thinks this validates putting up pictures of yourself doing stupid stuff and listing your favorite sexual positions because 'hey a bank in texas' is nervous that something you PUBLISHED to the Internet is an invasion of privacy, then you are probably also one of those people who thinks because one time someone stopped on the NJ turnpike to avoid hitting a kitty, that you can walk across it at will.
Anything you are actually publishing to a publicly visible page cannot EVER be misconstrued as your private business. Any lawyer who was actually awake can pretty easily convince a jury that you were actively promoting whatever behavior it was that they are looking at. The idea that a social site gets a special privelege over any other website is like saying 'hey I was on a reality show... People are supposed to act stupid on those!'
Your employer is likely to do a credit check for goodness sake. They can make you pee into a cup. Do you really think any large company is going to risk hiring someone into a position of responsibility when they are actively promoting themselves as a drunkard, sex-addict, racist, or any other of a thousand image crushing stereotypes?
If anyone actually breathed a sigh of relief, they should suck that air back down. We are not moving towards an error were there is more privacy. This is not a bellwether. The only thing that might happen is that you will be required to sign a form saying you waive your right to privacy if you are applying for a job. And you will.
I don't see how it can possibly be seen as discriminatory when the candidates are voluntarily publishing this information for all the world to see.
If you post pictures of yourself doing stupid or untoward things that demean your own character, and you don't get a job as a result, it is not discrimination. Last I checked, employers are still allowed to consider character and integrity in making hiring decisions.
Can you show me where in the Constitution there is enumerated a Right to Privacy?
This would eliminate 99% of these issues.
I am very small, utmostly microscopic.
The 4th amendment is most probably the most explicit protection of privacy; however, I believe that the 3rd, 9th, and 14th amendments also pertain to privacy. I am not a lawyer nor am I licensed to practice law nor give credible legal council.
... do a little checking. And social networking sites have to be taken into account.
I will say this: if you're applying for a job in law enforcement, I don't care how good your resume looks. When we google your name and up pops your MySpace page, detailing your love for the mighty marijuana plant, complete with pictures showing you ingesting it in many interesting ways, you're not getting the job.
And yes, this happened.
"An unarmed man can only flee from evil, and evil is not overcome by fleeing from it." Col. Jeff Cooper
Sites like LinkedIn, seem to exist primarily for professional purposes and job searching, references, etc. Not using that for recruiting seems foolish.
On the other hand, if someone is online talking about their collection of fetish porn and doing it under their real name on a social networking site, it shouldn't be a big surprise when HR puts their name into google before hiring them.
-- -- Warning. Do not stare directly at the sun.
Once one publicly posts something on-line, one loses any expectation of privacy. Keep your private out of our public.
There is no "-1 offended" or "-1 you don't agree with me" mod options for a reason.
"suddenoutbreakofcommonsense" and "thankgod"?
It seems to me that if you're putting potentially damaging PRIVATE information out there in a PUBLIC forum, and that information might make you less appealing to an employer, you have no right to complain when it comes back to bite you in the ass. No matter what kind of information it is. There's a reason "private life" is considered "private" and separate from the job.
Whether it's your religious affiliation or your drunken frat pictures, use your brain before making private information about yourself public.
Legally, I know this wouldn't leave me with a leg to stand on. But in Mr Dicken's words, sometimes "the law is a ass" - especially when it comes to things that really should be common sense.
Listen, friend, don't be naive. You may be reducing your risk, but you are certainly not eliminating it. You still have to trust your "friends", Facebook, 3rd party Facebook apps, and also believe that safeguards for these can't be circumvented.
You should honestly expect every bit of information you put on any social networking site to be mineable. I set my privacy settings quite closed, but I still assume that anyone can view my info if they're so inclined.
You give no feedback, eh? Here's the other side of it:
I have been unemployed now for over 5 years. I have received countless coaching regarding my resume and interviewing and no one has pointed out any problems. And yet, I can't get a job. Why is that? I don't know - nobody says anything. It's hurting my marriage and my life. While hunting for work, I also get out and volunteer to be with people, btw; so I'm not sitting home drinking beer and watching Jerry Springer all day.
Here's what's happening. I'm becoming more and more of a burden to society. Meaning, I may have to sponge off of you and every other taxpayer. See, while you're working for the Government until pretty much until May (that's the average time an American makes for their tax liability), you will be paying for me to run around trying to find ways to get work: all because nobody will tell me why they won't hire me.
Just keep that in mind the next time you want to feel like a big man and reject folks for whatever arbitrary values you hold.
I'm sorry, but this is public information. If you want it to be private, you keep it private. If Jane and Joe Average can access the information it's not private.
How it gets used is another matter, but...
If I'm at a party and keep my ears open and hear a reliable source say "Fred has been recruiting people to go around at night and kill all the blacks people in the town", I'm not going to hire Fred. Now if they note that Fred got drunk a lot in college, that doesn't really matter to me, unless he was too drunk to go to classes and cheated his way through. I don't see checking out facebook or myspace as any different.
We're getting farther and farther away from freedom and equality, all in the name of Freedom and Equality. It's like Dave Barry says, when someone tells you they're doing something "for the People" it's usually not the people at large who win.
Wow... It's like you copied this verbatim from my Facebook page. Anyone care to go shoot skeet after work before we go shoe shopping at the Mall?
I agree with this. Unless you have taken steps to password protect or otherwise secure your stuff, you really shouldn't complain that someone is violating your privacy. Facebook is a great website. But if you put pictures of you doing keg stands and protesting at some event, employers might find themselves asking, "Could we do better?" If that content never makes it up there to begin with, then you have nothing to worry about. If you put it on the web, consider it public.
We don't live in Shouldland.
Yes, it is completely legal, and they don't HAVE to ask you... because we are talking here about publicly posted information! You don't have to ask somebody to look at something that is posted in public. I have already made this point more than once, but you seem to have missed it.
"I believe companies should indeed not be allowed to look up ANY kind of "public" information about you without your explicit consent (and no, having a facebook profile isn't explicit consent). They should base their decision on the information you provide (or do not provide) to them, and the interview process."
You can believe that all you like, but that is completely unrealistic. There is no way to stop them. Also, even if it were enforceable (it isn't), it is not good public policy to tell people "this information is going to be posted in plain sight, but you can't look at it!"
The FACT is, the ONLY practical way to keep employers and others from looking at information you post, is to keep it private. If you make it public, you make it public. No matter how you feel about the matter, it is totally unrealistic, unreasonable, and impractical to expect that you can post information in public, and then make it illegal for someone else to look. No. The answer is: if you don't want it to be seen, don't post it. No other solution actually works.
Fact is, the more "educated" or "trained" our so-called Journalists get, the more our newspapers and news outlets feed us pablum and celebrity dross. The same holds true for the Human Resource or Personnel "Professionals" who are supposedly trained or certified to screen Applicants at major American Companies or Corporations. These people need a trail of crumbs to find their own washrooms, let alone a way towards hiring a qualified, able, and well-experienced new Worker. You really do not want to get me started, but the truth is, even once you get an interview, or get hired by an American company or corporation, the amazing level of dimwitted "leadership" is quite astonishing. While it makes for interesting cartoon panels, the fact is, a dying American Economy is no joke. Most people think ten percent unemployment is perfectly okay. Companies, Corporations, Governments and Elites especially, think that a tight labor market, one in which Workers are getting "trashed" every day in a million ways, is somehow good for themselves, or for the economy, or maybe just for purposes of "discipline." However, this is just another conceit that shows the extreme levels of ignorance stalking the North American Continent of late. While foreigners with intelligence, saavy, business acumen and social norms and values, not to mention well established traditions and religious values, surge ahead with ease and fluidity in today's modern, interconnected and "global" economies of scale, the Anglo-American economic engine is sputtering and running on fewer cylinders than the engine actually has for propelling our own Economy forward. I could go into more detail, and many specifics. However, they will have to await my Writer's Advance and Signed Book Contract, and maybe a Movie Deal, thereafter. You want answers? I got your answers, right here!
MDelCamp1 on YouTube - check out my PlayLists there.