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 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.
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. :-)
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.
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.........
'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.
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)
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!
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
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.
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.
Comment removed based on user account deletion