This seems to be one of those rather hot topics that pops up every now and then in the press and the spin is always, well it seems to be that you should never post anything online for fear that it will come back to haunt you in any future job search. Z-man has multiple problems with this not the least of which is Free Speech but here for a typical column offering the typical sagelike advice in this area are some excerpts from conservative Kyle Smith's piece yesterday in the New York Post, Idiocy in the age of Facebook - Why you're not getting that job (2/28):
"A 2009 study concluded that 45% of employers were checking social-networking sites before deciding to hire someone...The news gets worse: of that 45% who bothered to check 80% subsequently decided not to offer a job to someone based on info found on the sites..."
Aren't there enough violations of free speech already? I know I know an employer can technically do this I suppose just like a radio station can fire someone for saying whatever but it's a violation of the spirit of free speech and when you look at it cumulatively we're a less free nation because of it. What you do online is your own creative domain and this is likely to have a chilling effect on bloggers, commenters, MySpacers, Facebookers etc. It's absolutely no business of the employer how much you drank at a party last week let's say or what conspiracy theories you believe in. It might be unwise to post some things but that's for your fellow commenters to point out, to issue TMI Alerts but it still shouldn't invalidate you from further consideration to fill that post. Besides don't these pencil-pushing geeks have anything better to do?
"As an employer you're taking a chance when you hire someone. No one wants to hire a dud. What if someone has a history, say, posting rude sex jokes about women on his Facebook 'wall' and turns out to be much the same around the coffee pot? No sex-harassment lawyer is going to fail to tell the jury that...
OK stop right there!! Time was, in recent memory in fact that most conservatives questioned, criticized the growing field of sexual-harassment law but ever since we learned from Paula Jones that Clinton has a crooked member they got with the program. I'm calling them out on this. Kyle bro you're smarter than this, many people are not going to repeat in the workplace what they say online ("geez Madam can I pour some blueberry syrup on those pancake nipples of yours?"). If there's one thing I hate with a passion it's this fashionable politically correct conservatism, neocon pussies all.
"...The No. 1 reason not to hire someone discovered on social-networking sites, though, is 'provocative or inappropriate photos'."...
Again too much time on their hands, not worried enough about the Bottom Line which may be part of the reason why our economy is in such a shambles. You got time to worry about this shit then pluck your candidates from a convent. Are such images right or wrong? that's purely in the eyes of the beholder but what Kyle doesn't mention is it can surely work in the opposite direction and I'm sure it does. When Tiger retires and runs his own golf equipment company I'm sure he would take it into consideration.
Then there's some crap about divorce lawyers just love Facebook and college admissions offices are getting into the act too. Z-man's position is simple -- if a boss cares this much about your online activity then he or she is probably not worth working for in the first place.
I'm thinkin it is just another tool in the hiring process. Had a guy one time that was missing 6 straight years off an otherwise
ReplyDeleteimpressive resume. "So, what did you do those six years?" [pause]
"None of your business!" Hmmm
That's somewhat different here BB and I've talked about this already. Those gaps in your resume well you have to make up something, freelance photography, whatever but what I'm talking about here are these nosy and prying employment busybodies who want to know every nook and cranny of your lives like an English muffin. Sure it's different if a potential employer accidentally stumbles across something you posted that was radical, that advocated violence let's say but what's going on here is going out of your way, deliberately looking up a person's cyberhistory when it has no bearing on the job. If you have any kind of libertarian streak whatsoever you have to be offended by this on at least some level.
ReplyDeleteI will say this, that no one person has an right to any particular job, and so an employer can hire or not hire someone for whatever reason they wish, unless of course it is due to age, gender or religious belief. There is no law protecting part animals as far as I know.
ReplyDeleteIt's like a chess game anymore.
ReplyDelete43% of companies run a credit check before hiring. Job seekers puff up or even lie on their resumes and during interviews. The hiring entity is looking for dependability, loyalty, ability to fit in, and hopefully some smarts. Been on both sides of the chess game...(but being retired, I can say dumb stuff on the internet)
Beth it should work the other way then too. Maybe we should all look up what employers post on the Internet, learn all about them and their little lives -- how much they drink, their sexual fetishes etc. What's good for the goose...
ReplyDeleteThis is a fairly new topic for me, not hiring someone because of what they said on the Web but usually what happens when a totally new topic presents itself before me is I form a gut instinct, my gut tells me this and my gut tells me that and this time my gut tells me I don't like it. I have a nagging theory though Beth. You and I have both discussed the pattern of some of our best bloggers having seemingly stopped blogging altogether and I'm wondering whether this is or could be the reason. I know DD alluded to it in his farewell blog last December. IF this is the case then it really is sad, that this factor alone could have such a chilling effect. Also I've worked with two young guys, avid MySpacers both who you could say maybe posted stupid stuff online but turned out to be good workers who got the job done and in my book that's all that counts.
ReplyDeleteI never said you couldn't look up info on your boss, have at it!
ReplyDeleteAs for the bloggers who have stopped blogging, especially Daniel, you could hardly call his writing controversial, if anything he tried his darndest to not offend, so I don't think he was pushed out of the blogosphere.
I know that about Daniel but what I mean is maybe folks are overly cautious these days. Someone can tell you don't do this or don't do that, don't send an e-mail out 'cause look at what happened to Martha Stewart not that you did anything wrong but, well you know. Let me use this analogy and I talked about this principle elsewhere, I called it The All-or-Nothing Principle. WABC radio host Monica Crowley was once stalked by some guy who literally sent her hundreds of e-mails I think it was and so if your the average guy and think she's kinda hot and thinking maybe I'll send her an e-mail or two (or three or four) on some political topic and maybe even comment on her talent well you're gonna think twice and find something else to do with your time (at least while the story was hot). Basically though I just think this cybersleuthing is a waste of valuable company time. So you find out someone drinks too much or likes to lick toes, whoop-dee-doo!!
ReplyDeleteDunno about you, but IMO drinking beats the heck out of licking toes...
ReplyDeleteWhich is exactly my point, most of the stuff that these employers are digging up is probably not exactly earth-shattering. I just take very strong positions as Beth does. Not saying I'm 100% right on this (ok 95% right) but sure if someone posts things about how they slack off at work, here are the tricks of the trade then ok don't hire that guy or girl but short of this what exactly in Sam Hill are we talking about here? & hey let's say the toe-licker is a real kickass worker, HIRE HIM!!! (but keep your shoes on).
ReplyDeleteAgain a woman takes a picture of her twat and posts it. Do I as an employer want to hire her? The better question might be what am I doing looking at such stuff?
ReplyDeletehmmmmmm??????