Slashdot Mirror
Europe Says Employers Must Warn Job Applicants Before Checking Them Out on Social Media (cnn.com)
Europe has a message for employers: Think twice before you check the social media profiles of job applicants. From a report: European officials have issued new guidelines that warn bosses about the legal hazards of scrolling through the social media profiles of potential hires. The rules require employers to issue a disclaimer before they check applicants' online accounts, including Facebook, Instagram, Snapchat, Twitter and LinkedIn. If applicants don't see the warning, the company could be in breach of European Union data protection rules. Employers are also barred from compiling social media data as part of the hiring process unless it is "necessary and relevant" for a particular job. The guidelines are part of a lengthy document clarifying data protection laws that apply to employers across 28 EU countries.
It does sort of go along with the 'right to be forgotten' stuff. So at least they're consistent.
The End
It actually makes perfect sense. Would you like to be disqualified from a job for something that you do on your free time that is perfectly legal, and in no way related to your job, but your employer finds objectionable?
For instance, I am a biker. I go to biker bars. I go to various bike week events. I take pictures. I post them on Facebook so that my biker friends can enjoy them, and am not ashamed of any of them even a little bit. All of which is perfectly legal and in no way related to my job or performance as an IT person. What if my employer is a prude and doesn't like the fact that I have pictures of bikini clad women on my Facebook and decides not to hire me, or even worse, fire me, solely based on their prudishness? How I choose to spent my free time is none of my employer's business as long as it does not impact my work.
For me, personally, that won't be an issue because I keep my account on private and I would never agree to give my credentials to any potential employer. I also do not "friend" people from work. For others, that might not be the case.
Understand that there is a HUGE difference about how people in the EU and in the US think about privacy.
In the US if it isn't public, it is private. In the EU if it isn't private, it is public.
Also in the EU the general idea is that the laws should be there for the people in the first place. And they are used to even the playing field between the heavyweight companies and the lightweight individuals.
This is so much difference that the standard answer from an American will be "This is stupid, because companies." while a European will most likely say "This is great, because companies"
Again: the idea of what privacy means is different between the two. You can see this with e,g, Net Neutrality.
Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
For job applications in CA, there's a checkbox to receive a copy of the background check and/or credit reports that the employer requests. In 20+ years of working in IT, no private sector company has ever requested a background check and/or credit reports. Only my government IT job requested background check AND credit reports (all three bureaus). I expect social media to be more of the same.
And just how the heck do they expect to enforce this? I mean, short of the employer directly *asking* the employee if they have a such-and-such social media account, how would anyone other than the person who did the search know about it?
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
Wife worked for a county DA's office at one time.
Had a case of a drive-by shooting where one of the defendants claimed she was not involved with any gang/gang-like activity. Investigator for DA's office found her FB/MySpace account that had pictures of the defendant pointing/handling firearms and wearing gang colors.
People put stupid shit on social media. I am not saying that businesses shouldn't be able to check, just saying that it isn't that weird that people post shit on social media.
Two wrongs don't make a right, but 3 lefts do - Lew of GO magazine
I'm sure businesses will still look, but the rule means they'll have to find some other reason to not give people the job, offer a promotion, or fire them.
What surprises me is that there's ample evidence out there that companies search people's social network profiles -- some do it casually and others do it as a formal part of the HR process. Why hasn't it sunk in with average job seekers that oversharing on their public profiles is a bad idea? I've noticed that LinkedIn posts, comments, etc. are getting more controversial since they redesigned the site as a Facebook clone. Why would anyone risk taking themselves out of the running for a job by posting an opinion on something that their potential future employer doesn't like?
The truth is that your social media profiles, if they exist, have to be as boring as possible if you want to be the ultimate drop-in replacement employee these days. HR departments have hundreds of applicants for each job and every reason in the book to narrow the pool. If you post a million pictures of your kids, you might not be perceived as a workaholic team player. If you post rowdy drunk pictures, you might be perceived as a walking latent lawsuit. Political and religious opinions are huge red flags because you never know who you're going to upset. Your public social media profiles need to be totally clean, but they do need to exist -- because then you might be perceived as a hermit. :-)
Warn people before they are allowed to provide jobs in Europe
What? Try that the other way around.
I avoid some restaurants because of the genre of food they serve -even though it is legal for them to serve it.
Don't get no warnings from me.
Is that you John McAfee?
There's a lot of "it can be used" variants in your post as if that meant something.
Portable cookers can be used to make breakfast while driving.
Aliens can use the moon as a place to host their military bases.
Electricity can be used to shock people to death.
So lets obliterate the moon, ban cooking, and only allow electricity in government buildings.
Would I *LIKE* to be...? No... but at the same time, I'm aware that my decisions and actions can have consequences down the line, not all of which I will necessarily foresee or intend. However unfairly I might be discriminated against over something in the past that somebody might find offensive today, it's still my own responsibility to live with it. I am not *entitled* to forgiveness by those I may have happened to offend, no matter how insignificant I might think the matter to be. It is my responsibility only to be the best person that I know how to be with the choices and opportunities that *are* available to me in the here and the now, and not sweat about the choices that aren't... even if they are being withheld for unfair reasons.
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
Comment removed based on user account deletion
It happens all the time that the role you play with respect to someone changes what you can do with or to them. For example by default you can have sex with anyone who is willing, but if you're their psychotherapist that's grounds for malpractice and having your licensed revoked.
You can by default gossip about people; any information that came into your hands legally is fair game for passing on. Unless you are that person's lawyer.
Saying that as an employer or prospective employer you're restricted in the ways you can poke around in an employee's private life isn't problematic in principle. The problem it presents is practical: you can only catch people if they're stupid and blab about it. In general as a hiring manager you should never discuss the reason you didn't hire a candidate with that candidate, if you don't want your justification challenged in a court of law (or even public opinions). If asked, you give the candidate a vague, non-negatable justification, e.g., "We felt there were other candidates who were a better fit."
So what a law like this does is enables foolish employers to hire foolish employees.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
So even though any of us can check out anyone else's pages on say, Facebook a business cannot?
There's also a lot of questions that an individual can ask you that a business is not allowed to ask you during an interview. This is already established certainly in the US and I would expect most likely in Europe.
They're not allowed to ask if you're married for example, or how old you are (facebook normally has that information so perhaps a lawyer could argue they are breaking the law by going to facebook in the first place).
"That's the way to do it" - Punch
You beat the system by being unemployable.
Or you create your own job, as employers don't have to jump through the same hoops as employees.
I mean, I do believe, that pretty much anything you do outside of work that doesn't directly affect the business...should be off limits.
I also believe that companies should be banned from asking for credentials to log into social media, etc accounts.
However, I'm not sure I have a problem with the business' HR searching through publicly available data a person self publishes for the world.
I mean, if someone is stupid enough to post a bunch of party pictures with him sucking a skull bong in areas where this behavior is still illegal....well, that says more than a persons habit, that they are not smart enough that they should know this should be kept private, a lack of common sense you might say.
I think weed should be legalized in all the US...I don't believe in drug tests....but if you're job depends on not doing that activity, and you self "incriminate" online...well, that says you're kinda stupid and maybe not the type of employee someone would want.
As I've mentioned before, I personally take it even further, in that I have no social media accounts, and have never signed up for any to date.
I've always been concerned about this from decades back that it could impact my bottom line $$...and my livelyhood vs someones cat pics, just isn't worth it to me.
Besides, all the people that I want to converse with, know how to reach me...and we try as often as possible to get together in meatspace. We only use texting/email...and yes, even voice calls to arrange the more important face to face times.
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
So lets obliterate the moon, ban cooking, and only allow electricity in government buildings.
So the end game is North Korea?
"His name was James Damore."
They have this thing called fines.
Like the billions of Euros in fines they issued to various US firms doing business in the EU who violated privacy laws.
Corporations tend to notice those.
As to "who searched" it's an auditable event and it's usually something brought on when they deny someone a position.
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
That *does* have an impact on your performance as a restaurant to me.
What I do in my spare time does not have an impact on how I do my job.
Is that you John McAfee?
That's a bit of a silly question. Of course he isn't John McAfee! Do you think John McAfee would be on Slashdot with a bunch of losers?
No, he's always too drunk to log in,
"That's the way to do it" - Punch
'The rules require employers to issue a disclaimer before they check applicants' online accounts, including Facebook, Instagram, Snapchat, Twitter and LinkedIn. If applicants don't see the warning, the company could be in breach of European Union data protection rules'.
That doesn't really change anything. The would-be employee is then in the position of a man in a secure cell awaiting execution in the morning. He knows what's going to happen, but he can't change it. If you could change your social media postings in retrospect, that might make some difference - but of course you can't.
'Employers are also barred from compiling social media data as part of the hiring process unless it is "necessary and relevant" for a particular job'.
As determined by the employer, of course. I have enough experience with corporations - big and small - to understand that this kind of clause is nothing more than window dressing. It makes things look better, but changes nothing in practice.
The key issue is not about reading a person's online profile - anyone can do that. It's about forming judgments about someone's suitability for employment based on the profile.
It seems to me that the US and European views of the matter differ very markedly. Americans, as far as I can gather, tend to think that the employer should have full discretion to hire and fire at will. Europeans, rightly or wrongly, look for some kind of standards of fairness. You shouldn't be turned down for employment because someone disliked the way you look, or speak, or the colour of your skin or your religion. Or because you wrote something online that the employer found annoying.
It all depends on whether you believe people should have a right to employment on decent terms. If not, all this legislation should be repealed.
I am sure that there are many other solipsists out there.
I do not think you understand the impracticality of that.... considering that many jobs can have dozens or sometimes even hundreds of applicants, doing that for every single person that didn't get the job is prohibitively expensive, especially when it is unlikely to reveal anything fruitful in the first place. When one doesn't get a job they applied for, the most obvious reason is probably the real one: they decided to hire somebody else.
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
Except that this fool is putting his information online for any random stranger to see. Why wouldn't a potential employer thinking about entrusting him with the keys to their IT infrastructure avail themselves of it?
... to live than pretty much anywhere else, certainly including the United States. The US is in a breakneck race to the bottom, essentially becoming a prison state. If you're a poor immigrant, you'll get kicked out, but if you have any assets at all, you have to surrender them at the border if you want to emigrate. Surveillance is pervasive, justice is for sale, and corporations basically write and pass their own legislation (don't think for a moment that TPP won't be revived the second Trump leaves office).
America isn't a place to follow your dreams. It's a place to escape from, if you can.
FTA: "The rules require employers to issue a disclaimer before they check applicants' online accounts"
So part of the application process will be a statement that "by submitting your application you agree that the company may view your public account on social media sites."
Why is this a big deal? I always do light research candidates online, it's a way of validating what is on their resume. I've even had co-workers with spouses/friends who work at the places where the candidates are, and I've gotten feedback that made me not consider them.
How the hell are you supposed to hire someone if you don't learn about them? Of course, I am only interested in how they are at their job, not in their personal life.
My beliefs do not require that you agree with them.
I don't think you understand how the EU hiring process tends to work. To you it's inconceivable that it would involve so much bureaucracy and paperwork.
I'm not sure that word means what you think it means.
It's the EU.
Not the US.
Things are different.
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
Really?
I seem to recall on job applications there being a place to fill in your marital status, and your DOB....?
It's been awhile since I last filled one out (I'm self employed 1099 contractor now)....but I know I've seen this on applications in the past...?
The DOB for sure.
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
Really?
Why?
Do people not know some people value privacy still these days?
I know it isn't a problem when applying for jobs that require a clearance......it is actually a big PLUS.
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
The far-rightwing idealogue is not ashamed of his opinions, and makes them clear to all on his Facebook page. He should not expect many job offers from the entertainment industry anytime soon. Likewise the far-leftwinger, from that gun store. How many employers have a low opinion of bikers? I dunno, but certainly plenty more than think poorly of someone active in the Rotary Club -- which is the only kind of activity I would highlight on a Facebook page if I was so stupid to be highlighting activity on a Facebook page while job hunting.
It's not about legal versus illegal.
When a business hires me, they hire my expertise and business behavior. They don't own the whole lot of me.
Here's an example: I'm a metalhead. Let's assume I publicly post on Facebook a picture of my face looking angry at the camera, with my hair loose, partially covering my face and a black background. Nothing else. Let's say this is my profile picture.
Then this picture of me in a specific posture (say, an imitation of whichever metal singer I like) is being looked at by my company XYZ prospective boss, who's a Michael Bolton fan who despises metalheads. He's going to reject my application for absolutely no business reason. Of course, nobody's going to even hint to the true reason, they'll say "your skills are not exactly what we need" or whatever bullshit they have to say to make the rejection look legal.
This expands to vegans rejecting meat eaters, non-smokers rejecting smokers, abstinents rejecting drinkers, leftists rejecting rightists, this type of sexual minority rejecting that type of sexual minority and everything in between.
If any of us go ahead and browse our colleagues' public social media information, we're bound to find numerous images, posts, videos which we dislike, and mutter "I wouldn't have hired this person". The difference being that while you don't have that power, others do, and shit can roll both ways. Today you're on one end of the stick, tomorrow you can be on the other.
"Don't post publicly", you say? Social media is all about making connections. Maybe you want to find people who think alike, and you want them to find you too. Posting publicly "I like this black metal band" doesn't make you a satanist... unless your overly-religious prospective manager thinks so and rejects your application because it doesn't fit his winged angels wet dream.
...gis sdrawkcab (usually not responding to ACs; don't bother posting as AC)
Anti-homosexual discrimination in employment is perfectly legal in most places, including most of the USA. So, no, it isn't different.
Really?
I seem to recall on job applications there being a place to fill in your marital status, and your DOB....?
It's been awhile since I last filled one out (I'm self employed 1099 contractor now)....but I know I've seen this on applications in the past...?
The DOB for sure.
Age, Children, Marital status... whether you drink socially or smoke. I think there are a few other questions they're not supposed to ask you before hiring you.
It may not be technically illegal to ask the question but might as well be; you can be sued if you ask those questions and don't give the person a job. As it is legal precedent that denying someone a job after asking those questions breaks other hiring rules. You can't refuse to hire someone on any of those grounds.
"That's the way to do it" - Punch
I wouldn't tell you about any social media accounts I may or may not have in the first place because it's none of your damn business.
"Wait. Something's happening. It's opening up! My God, it's full of apricots!"
This is not true. I work for a religious non-profit, and religious non-profits are protected BY LAW against hiring discrimination of homosexuals, those not adhering to the same religious belief system, or other reasons. Is this OK? No. Is it legal? Yes.
Anti-homosexual discrimination in employment is perfectly legal in most places, including most of the USA. So, no, it isn't different.
No.
If you want news from today, you have to come back tomorrow.
You sound like the kind of HR person that would spell find as fund. And I doubt Id be interested in the positions you're offering.
Illegal in EU. Contracts are only all-or-nothing if *after* discussion between parties it cannot be changed. I've had clauses changed or removed because wording was vague and could easily be construed as an overly onerous condition. Clarification after the fact (like verbal or even email) is not considered in the event of a dispute, only what is in the contract.
Forcing someone to sign an enployment contract they haven't read in order to be employed is also illegal and renders the entire contact null and void.
"Wait. Something's happening. It's opening up! My God, it's full of apricots!"
Anyone else find it amusing on Facebook that anyone dumb enough to be a trashy, partying, alcoholic piece of crap or raging racist or SJW crazy person also tend to not have the foresight to set their default post privacy to "friends only" instead of public.
By the way, this is incredibly dumb. It's out in public on the public internet. You don't need to warn them that you're viewing public info.
I never used the word "inconceivable", you did. I said it was impractical, because in reality, nearly any investigation would generally only reveal that the most obvious reason why person A didn't get the job: because they hired person Z, is actually all there is to it.
To suggest otherwise would obligate any employer to be required to hire any and all applicants that represented any kind of visible minority, because of the allegation that any refusal to hire them must always be on account of their race.
The EU might be pretty different from NA, but I don't think it's *THAT* different.
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
Hahaha. Slashdot is antisocial media, you insensitive clod!
For starters, you only need to do that for the person who DID get hired.
Also, you only need to bust the employer once to start a legal investigation.
...gis sdrawkcab (usually not responding to ACs; don't bother posting as AC)
Right... but that's further assuming that there's even any evidence that the employer did it.
Because you know, cookies and browsing histories are just soo hard to delete. Heck, who is to say they even used a company computer?
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
Yeah, it's almost as insane as "corporate personhood."
Those crazy Europeans, trying to restrict the ability of their immortal intangible uber-wealthy corporation citizens to pry into the lives of mere mortals!
I do not think you understand the impracticality of that
I do not think you understand the impracticality of hiring in Europe.
-- All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. -- Edmund Burke
People behave like Facebook and Twitter is only read by their family and friends. The EU is acknowledging this behavior. You imply that people are rational. The are not and we in the EU take this illogical and emotional behavior into account. And no disagreement is not a hate crime, as we also have free speech.
OK ... I would say this slowly, but it is written, so you will have to read it slowly; no doubt you have no other option anyway. Work and personal life are separate, and that is the whole point here. Concluding that someone who posts pictures of bikini clad woman on Facebook is likely to also post IT passwords on Facebook is *why* I have no worries that you will read what I have written slowly. Which reminds me: how do you keep a moron in suspense? (Check back here in this very post tomorrow for the answer)
Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
You are a fucking idiot. You should have told your PI to stay the fuck out of biker bars and find out about his work history. At least the PI got paid to ogle those bikini clad woman while you sought to make sure nobody in your employ likes bikini clad woman though. Good for him.
Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
My facebook posts only my friends see or members of the group in which I post.
You must have a weird idea how facebook works.
OTOH plenty of facebook users have "wrong privacy settings".
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
Then you are an idiot.
99% of my friends have none. Unless you consider soundcloud a social media site.
We are all to old.
I use facebook to be in a big Aikido community. 90% of my facebook connections are Aikidoka like I am. Except for the occasional party picture after an Aikido event, most posts are about seminars of teachers we find interesting.
If I would not practice Aikido, and Sailing, i would not be on facebook.
There is no single photo of me on FB that I have posted myself. I'm only posted and tagged by other Aikidoka ... and lately my girl friend.
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
It's not even open to debate, Zero Dick. A guy posting pix of bikini clad girls in biker bars as a regular feature in his open social media shows poor judgement if he hopes to obtain/retain a corporate IT position in the U.S. Does it necessarily make him an inferior server jockey? No, of course not. It just shows he really doesn't have a clue about Big Boy Corporate Concerns and/or lacks a modicum of maturity. Would the world be a better place if server jockeys could feel free to post pix of bikini babes in biker bars without fear of deep-sixing their careers? Perhaps, but only the foolishly naive, woefully self-absorbed or hopelessly pig-headed believe that we live in that world now, and that's my point.
I went to the CNN page, but they didn't give us a source on this either. Anyone have a link to the source on this?
What this world is coming to - is for you and me to decide.
So in your mind there isn't an IT guy on the planet who has a job and also isn't a dickless douche like you. That is so fucking precious! I know of IT guys who snort coke with their boss on the off hours you precious uninformed snowflake :^)
Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
Two reasons. 1) For the same reason people find it suspicious if you exercise your 5th Amendment rights... only criminals have something to hide. False, of course, but plenty of people who have never been charged with a crime or had their privacy invaded think it is an easy thing to give up.
Privacy is a funny thing. Because so many people don't understand where it starts and ends. And it doesn't exist on the internet. I don't post anything on line that I wouldn't say in person. So it's all good. Anything I feel is not for sharing is not there.
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
Because both have nothing to do with each other?
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
It actually makes perfect sense. Would you like to be disqualified from a job for something that you do on your free time that is perfectly legal, and in no way related to your job, but your employer finds objectionable?
As a non-private thing, I don't post anything on social media that I think would be an issue. I'm a biker as well, but aside from photos of my ride, my Social media pages have my photography, which is mostly flowers. And all that is available for the world. It's just that I figure that people are trying to bend th einternet into something that it never was.
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
For me, personally, that won't be an issue because I keep my account on private ...
I use the services of a private investigator to check into the background of potential new hires.
Did you hire another PI to investigate the background of the first private investigator?
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
Bottom line, trusting anything to remain private on this planet is foolhardy.
You don't need a Facebook account to be on Facebook. In many cases you can find photos of a person by just knowing their spouse, family members or close friends. I recently found a picture of myself on Yelp because a friend posted a photo of us in a bar. I was marginally involved with my 20 year high school reunion planning and many people were tracked down through family members who were on Facebook or LinkedIn.
-- All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. -- Edmund Burke
If I am an HR department and fund that you don't have a social media account I may actually find it highly suspicious.
Great, you'll save me from making the mistake of working for your business.
Any chance you could also require applications in Word format, or better yet via some obscure and awkward online form that only your organisation uses, so I can also avoid wasting any time accidentally applying?
If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
There are plenty of secretaries that hate their boss and their job and sent out letters with a sinister smile that contain: "We have to dismiss your application because of (pregnancy, being gay, jewish, black, your last facebook post)" (pick one)
And they will attest in court that the boss said so (obviously they were not supposed to put that into the letter).
And you can not even fire the secretary for attesting in court against the boss.
You can only "urge her to leave" and give her/him a nice payout.
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
I don't know about what's legal and illegal to ask and officially consider in the hiring process for EU countries. But here in 'Murica you can't ask about things like marriage, sexual orientation, children, religion, etc.
That having been said there's nothing to stop a potential employer from looking at an applicant's social media and finding out answers to all those pesky illegal questions without ever having to ask them. And then using said quasi-legal information as part of the decision making process for hiring.
This is paper tiger legislation because while the law says they can't do it there's no real way to prove they did. They search, they get info, they make a hiring decision. They never tell you why you didn't get hired.
Wife worked for a county DA's office at one time.
Had a case of a drive-by shooting where one of the defendants claimed she was not involved with any gang/gang-like activity. Investigator for DA's office found her FB/MySpace account that had pictures of the defendant pointing/handling firearms and wearing gang colors.
People put stupid shit on social media. I am not saying that businesses shouldn't be able to check, just saying that it isn't that weird that people post shit on social media.
People who are likely to be criminals, share a trait called criminal stupidity. So it isn't surprising that they would incriminate themselves. Certainly someone being charged with a crime should expect to be looked at.
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
Don't use social media, or at the very least, don't use social media in a way that can be connected to you. It works for me.
That means that in the US, you would consider 20% of the population "highly suspicious".
Fortunately, it's not as simple as that. Try that attitude in a tribunal/court on someone who is older but perfectly well qualified for the job as advertised if you like, but bring your company cheque book.
If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
That's not even close to being true.
And even if it is illegal, you'd have to prove that's why you were passed over. That's a tough nut to crack.
Age, Children, Marital status... whether you drink socially or smoke. I think there are a few other questions they're not supposed to ask you before hiring you.
It may not be technically illegal to ask the question but might as well be; you can be sued if you ask those questions and don't give the person a job. As it is legal precedent that denying someone a job after asking those questions breaks other hiring rules. You can't refuse to hire someone on any of those grounds.
Kowing that those questions have a certain importance, I always put that sort of thing right on a resume. Marital status, children, number of years married.Also that I was not averse to travel, and highly focused on job completion. And if I was female, I'd let them know my plans for a family, which they are not allowed to ask. But can be a real plus at hiring time.
I think that not being allowed to ask questions like those make hiring of women much more complex - like the woman at work who was hired, then started popping out babies and taking a year+ off for each one. Over ten years, she only worked around 5 years. And being replaced during her time off by wage payroll women, three other women lost their jobs every time she came back. But nothing could be done, because discrimination.
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
Do you really think that how a person chooses to handle their own personal information has any bearing whatsoever on how they would handle company information?
Because that's ludicrous.
I seem to recall on job applications there being a place to fill in your marital status, and your DOB....?
Not on any of the applications I've filled out in the last couple of decades. That information is asked for after the hire is made, but not before.
Seriously, spring for some remedial reading courses at your local community college. Well worth the investment for you. Also look up the meaning for "precious snowflake" in the context of an online forum.
But back to your train wreck of an argument: I'm not saying there isn't a server monkey who hasn't snorted cocaine with his boss and kept his job, I'm saying there is none who has done that and posted a picture of it on Facebook. Or if there was and he did, I can pretty much guarantee he was fired -- and his boss too. See the point of this whole thread is not that server monkeys can't or won't do amazingly stupid things in their off-hours -- we both know they're more likely to than just about any other class of employee -- it's that the ones who keep their jobs and rise in the ranks don't post pictures of their dubious leisure pursuits online for all to see.
I hear this all the time...and frankly I"m stumped.
Like I mentioned, I don't do social media, yet I have NO shortage of friends or ability to find people interested in things I like.
I just go out and MEET them. I like some metal too, I go to shows and meet people when I'm there. I like photography, I found a photography group in town....etc.
I find that friends I meet by doing this tend to be real and stick around, longer than friends I hear people often complaining about that they know on social media...and usually never actually meet and hang with in person.
I've honestly never found not being on FB or other social media to be a social detriment.
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
People behave like Facebook and Twitter is only read by their family and friends. The EU is acknowledging this behavior. You imply that people are rational. The are not and we in the EU take this illogical and emotional behavior into account. And no disagreement is not a hate crime, as we also have free speech.
No you don't have free speech. Look into the german hate speech laws. You don't have to threaten anyone, you are simply writing forbidden words, and can be arrested and punished for it.
As for your first point, are you saying that Europe must protect the posting freedom of something inherently not private by pretending it is private because stupid people think it is private?
Darn Europe - you weird.
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
Just admit to yourself that you are an ignorant Douchebag who said some exceedingly stupid shut and move on with your pathetic life precious snowflake.
Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
My facebook posts only my friends see or members of the group in which I post. You must have a weird idea how facebook works.
Perhaps it isn't me with the weird idea how Facebook "works". But hey, it's all perfectly private as long as they tell ya it is, yes no?
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
European nations have their faults as well, so I'd dial that back a bit. That said, it seems pretty clear the the US is currently in decline (and that decline is accelerating), and many European nations are advancing.
I don't really count /. as a social media forum.
Its just a bulletin board you can spout off on....not a place you make connections.
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
The whole argument of "what I do in my private time is my business, as long as it doesn't affect my work" is preposterous.
How so? If it doesn't affect my work, why would it be any business of my employer?
Let's say that you have a perfect employee who likes frequenting bars right after work, and one day get his laptop stolen from their car...wouldn't you like to know how much "work" goes with them.
If you are taking company materials or communications off premises without adequate security, then you are not a "perfect employee" and the problem isn't that you enjoy going to bars.
What about someone who is wearing a jacket with the company logo on it while harassing women somewhere...
In what way would that reflect on the company? Do you mean that when someone behaves despicably while wearing Pepsi-branded clothing you think less of Pepsi?
In Europe even access to public data is regulated. For example, a credit reference agency can't bypass limits on reporting things like bankruptcy by pointing to publicly available news reports. Banks can't use such information, even if they have it, to make decisions (although it can be hard to prove).
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
It is unusual to not have social media accounts of some type. I'd say it either makes you some kind of dangerous outcast or quiet geiunus. However I think many employers will not be thinking the genius part.
Website Just Down For Me? Find out
I have indeed said some amazingly stupid "shut" but not in this discussion here today. You, on the other hand, have been -- what's the word server jockeys use to describe being publicly humiliated...? -- oh yeah, "pwned."
What are you talking about? [A] What has this to do with social media, and [B] I've never been laid and always left a job of my own accord and on great terms.
And why are you posting as an AC if being "cowardly" is such a big negative for you?
Without context and in isolation this will probably sound weird for most people, but what it really represents is that employers should judge job applicants only on stuff that applicants are aware of and in control.
It's a single thing that composes a set of laws on fair and equal opportunity for employment... which will probably get into a far more comprehensive set of discussions, but just so people know.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Comment removed based on user account deletion
My Facebook account is private, has no picture and is mainly used for me to look at pictures of family members who are living abroad.
That doesn't mean Facebook is NOT for finding other people or letting other people find someone.
The fact you or me aren't using it or are using it for limited, specific interaction doesn't change the role of social media as a whole.
That's one aspect.
Another one is that if you want to meet people from around the world, with similar interests as you have, social media is the fastest, cheapest and most efficient method to do so.
Third reason to use social media is to find very small businesses or individuals who offer various services. For example, the only way to contact some private individuals who make high quality vaping coils is Facebook. They have a facebook page and nothing else. Sure, after first contact you get their phone number but until then, you gotta use whet's available.
But we're not talking about Facebook alone, we're talking about social media as a whole, that includes online forums, communities, etc.
...gis sdrawkcab (usually not responding to ACs; don't bother posting as AC)
That's where statistical analysis might help.
Is company X only hiring young people, despite applicants coming from all age categories?
Is company only hiring non-smokers?
Is company only hiring this and that type of people?
Are rejected applicants sharing some social media parameters that might lead to the suspicion that company X is screening them using this method?
et caetera.
...gis sdrawkcab (usually not responding to ACs; don't bother posting as AC)
I agree the term "friend" is VERY loosely used on Facebook, to the extent it lost any sort of meaningful value, however "social media" includes any online community. Forums, discussion boards, hell even Slashdot fits the bill.
...gis sdrawkcab (usually not responding to ACs; don't bother posting as AC)
Really, what's so difficult to distinguish between Europe and the European Union????????
Catalin Braescu
Ofaly.com
I also believe that companies should be banned from asking for credentials to log into social media, etc accounts.
They aren't? Where I live, this would be illegal.
Ezekiel 23:20
No idea what you are talking about?
'Friends' making screenshots and distributing tem to 'non friends'?
My privacy settings make you not see anything from me, except that I have an account ... go figure.
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
LinkedIn is on the list of online accounts you aren't allowed to check.
I had one recent applicant put a link to their LinkedIn profile on their resume.
My beliefs do not require that you agree with them.
I never said *I* wouldn't hire him. Pay attention, and please look up the definition of "Fascist," you're using the word incorrectly. I'm saying that it is my educated opinion after a long professional career in business that many, many people in most large companies will not hire him, and that if he thinks he can post pictures of himself with bikini babes and bikers all over his social media and that it won't negatively impact his hiring chances than he is foolishly naive, woefully self-absorbed or hopelessly pig-headed -- or a millennial, if I am not being redundant. It is amazing to me that anyone would argue otherwise.
'People who are likely to be criminals, share a trait called criminal stupidity. '
Indeed. Like Donald Jr. 'Fredo' Trump, stupid, weak and traitorous.
That's a Roger!
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
No idea what you are talking about?
True enough.
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
There are a variety of personal questions that employers are barred from asking a candidate:
* How old are you?
* Are you married?
* Are you LGBTQ?
* Do you have kids?
* Do you own a car? (unless the job requires a personal vehicle)
That's just the tip of the iceberg. Yet the employer is free to look you up on social media and find the answers to many of those questions without your knowing. They can find even more personal details and possibly see who your friends are. This is way more invasive than the seemingly innocuous questions above.
Why do we in the U.S. disallow one but not the other?
I'm sure the first argument is that it's your own fault for posting publicly, but that would only make sense if you were shouting room the rooftops. The employer has to take specific action to view your social profiles. Similarly, if you blurt out, "I'm 37 and married with two kids," in the interview, that's on you. They still can't use that information to discriminate, but potential discrimination is the reason they can't ask themselves.
How is searching for your social profiles any different from asking probing questions?
Freedom to fear. Freedom from thought. Freedom to kill.
I guess the War on Terror really is about freedom!
[quote]And being replaced during her time off by wage payroll women, three other women lost their jobs every time she came back.[/quote]
So you mean that your one fecund coworker was doing the work of three other people when she was working? Sounds like she was well worth keeping, then.
No, what happened was that each time she became pregnant, and left work a bit before the child was due, then took a year off, the work she was doing still needed done, so some ladies were hired to do that work while she was away. But she had to get her job back by policy when she wanted to return. So in each case, a woman lost her job every time this woman came back to work. It's one example of the law of unintended consequence. Certainly on the face of it, it makes sense that a woman would be eligible to get her job back. But the unintended consequense is that the other women who would have liked to continue working - lost their job. Its up to us to debate how fair that is or isn't. But it was a little vexing for some, because it couldn't be blamed on male privilege.
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
I've been using the Net to meet and converse with strangers I'll never meet for over 25 years now. I find the ability to build a virtual community fascinating.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
The problem is that jobs are not always available. I've had to work places I would rather not have before, between jobs I like.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
In my experience, it is as simple as that. As long as you have some half-assed excuse for not hiring, you're probably in the clear.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
What if you share posts about ending the drug war or politics? If the HR person disagrees with your stance, they may not hire you. Is that acceptable? Those things won't affect your ability to do the job, but it gives an unscrupulous employer the opportunity to discriminate against you.
Or maybe you have a photo of you with your spouse of the same gender or a different race? Again, that person can now discriminate against you which would actually be illegal.
It's easy to avoid posting things that will obviously show you in a bad light like party photos or you drawing a dick on your passed-out friend's face. I still think you should be protected, but a lot of people probably side with you on that count.
The reason to disallow employers from poking their noses into your social life is discrimination. Some forms have legal protection while others do not. Better to just block the possibility.
Freedom to fear. Freedom from thought. Freedom to kill.
I guess the War on Terror really is about freedom!
I guess it depends on where you are. There's been a lot of tension between governments and employers in the UK in recent years because of the amount it costs employers to defend hiring and firing decisions, which in some cases employees were able to challenge for negligible if any cost. Obviously that's a good thing in terms of protecting employees from genuine abuse, but it can also be hard for an employer to get rid of someone genuinely bad who decides to cause trouble.
I know the rules have changed relatively recently, so maybe this isn't the problem it used to be any more. Certainly not so long ago I knew of multiple employers who would privately admit to making sub-optimal hiring decisions entirely because they were afraid of the challenges from black/female/whatever applicants. Ironically, the most blatant example was hiring an equal opportunities rep, where several very qualified old white guys were overlooked in favour of the only black, female applicant, who was much younger and had far less relevant experience. Though perhaps in this particular case, that example doesn't help my argument...
If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
Fuck you Spock. I'm a doctor, not a community relations officer.
If you think I voted for Trump because of this post, you're wrong. I voted for Dr. Jill Stein of the Green Party. Again.
Europe Says Employers Must (...)
Europe says nothing, Europe is a continent.
European Union produces regulations, but it is always difficult to figure what EU institution spoke. Here it could be the EU commission, EU council, member state regulators...
After reading TFA, it seems it is EU commission. What I still do not know is what are the legal grounds for the new guidelines.
Do the rules apply only when I apply for a position myself? What about those headhunters on LinkedIn? They have surely checked my profile before contacting me.
> However, I'm not sure I have a problem with the business' HR searching through publicly available data a person self publishes for the world.
What I do in a pub with mates is also 'public'. Maybe I should take the HR down with me one Saturday, so they can make notes on my behavior ?
It's not what I publish to the world.. there's private life and things that I publish privately for my close friends and family to see, and there's professional life that is completely separate from the former.
Let's assume I publicly post on Facebook a picture of my face looking angry at the camera, with my hair loose, partially covering my face and a black background. Nothing else. Let's say this is my profile picture. Then this picture of me in a specific posture (say, an imitation of whichever metal singer I like) is being looked at by my company XYZ prospective boss, who's a Michael Bolton fan who despises metalheads. He's going to reject my application for absolutely no business reason. Of course, nobody's going to even hint to the true reason, they'll say "your skills are not exactly what we need" or whatever bullshit they have to say to make the rejection look legal
Which is why you never post pictures of yourself online.
In my case, (I have a sufficiently generic name), when you search for my name, the real text result is sufficiently down the page to be inconspicuous, and for pictures, you have to scroll a long time to find the first reference.
And I have been on the internet for 25 years (look at my /. #)...
> You would probably be better off not working...
In today's difficult job market, that's what you're effectively saying. As long as you and your boss keep quiet about your personal likes/dislikes, you can get along at work. Even if things aren't happy at the office, at least you're making the car payments and rent while searching for a better job.
I'm not repeating myself
I'm an X window user; I'm an ex-Windows user
Exactly! The warheads are actually pointed at THE MOON, not at the US ;)
So the solution is to become an "online hermit" rather than disallow companies from gaining access to information which is not relevant to the hiring process?
...gis sdrawkcab (usually not responding to ACs; don't bother posting as AC)
There are lots of interesting comments here.
However let us just for a moment restrict to ourselves. IT and other technical/STEM/whatever ladies and guys.
These days I expect anybody I hire in this sector to have at least a basic understanding of all the "everything on internet is public" stuff.
These days I expect anybody I hire in this sector to have at least a basic understanding of restrict access to your facebook (and similar) profile to friends if you don't consider those public including yang Tsu in China, Markus Hinterhuber in Germany and your next employer.
These days I expect anybody I hire in this sector to have at least a basic understanding of Linkedin is business, not personal. This means a profile picture appropriate for the kind of job you are looking for (bad vacation pic in swimming trunks is unexpected on a high level CV), a reasonable amount of spell and grammar checking and so on (as I said, calibrated to the kind of job).
If these don't match it doesn't mean I won't hire them, but it is an alarm sign compounding other impressions. AGAIN: CALIBRATED TO THE KIND OF JOB, now don't come and crucify me.
There are indeed considerable differences between US and UK law here, as I understand it.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes