Any lawyers or HR pigs here?

[Sander]

You really think employers aren't using social media and google to do active discrimination. It opens up new worlds of possibilities for discrimination. Black American who voted for McCain, not in this workplace, views on abortion, Israel, pepsi/coke, when they had a child, if they are gay/transgendered, like/hate halo. Every possible aspect of a person is now up for discrimination thanks to the internet. This stuff needs heavily regulation because businesses and people are terrible.

No, I don't think discrimination based on your actions is actually discrimination. We're not talking about "Oh, he's Jewish, better not hire him" (which is illegal anyway). We're talking about "Oh hey he's an aggressive asshole on the internet. Better not hire him."

Discrimination based on things not relevant to the job is already regulated and illegal.

 

[Tagaziel]

How do you propose to regulate it? All social networking sites and in fact, the entire Internet, operate on the basis of voluntarily shared information. People tend to forget that increased freedom of information and easy accessibility works both ways. Why should an employer be prohibited from reviewing all information about his potential employee, especially if it's shared openly?

If I was to employ someone, I'd prefer to be sure that he's a trustworthy, competent person, not just by the looks of his file, but also judging by his conduct on the Internet. Particularly if I was running a predominantly Internet-using company.

 

[Cimmerian Nights]

You post one pic of yourself fucking a sheep, and suddenly the Humane Society stops returning your calls for a second interview. What kind of sick world do we live in?

 

[Kilus]

No, I don't think discrimination based on your actions is actually discrimination. We're not talking about "Oh, he's Jewish, better not hire him" (which is illegal anyway). We're talking about "Oh hey he's an aggressive asshole on the internet. Better not hire him."

Discrimination based on things not relevant to the job is already regulated and illegal.

Yes, that's what you are talking about. That's not what some person deciding whether a candidate goes on the short list or not is thinking. Also actions. Abortions, gay couple adopting, voting for a certain political party, not being in contact with parents, having IVF, wanting to contact birth parents. Are they not all actions that can be data mined through facebook and are things people will discriminate against?

Discrimination based on things not relevant to the job is already regulated and illegal.

But isn't the easiest way to see if that is happening based on the interview questions asked? If they can simply go on facebook and look into things they aren't allowed to ask in a interview kinda gives them a way of discriminating without the interviewee knowing.

How do you propose to regulate it? All social networking sites and in fact, the entire Internet, operate on the basis of voluntarily shared information. People tend to forget that increased freedom of information and easy accessibility works both ways. Why should an employer be prohibited from reviewing all information about his potential employee, especially if it's shared openly?

I would make the employer hand over all searches, webpages and notes taken for background information. And really big fines if companies withhold any of that.

If I was to employ someone, I'd prefer to be sure that he's a trustworthy, competent person, not just by the looks of his file, but also judging by his conduct on the Internet. Particularly if I was running a predominantly Internet-using company.

A employer might also not like furries and/or Corgis.

 

[Guiltyofbeingtrite]

Saying things on facebook is NO different than saying them in public, during the interview. Or wearing a tshirt with a stated belief on it. Forbidding a hiring employer from checking is akin to telling a hiring employer to ignore the fact that the applicant wrote "I <3 abortion" on their cover letter for a Catholic Charities job.

I work in online communications and social media and you're damn well sure we're seeing how someone presents themselves online if we're hiring them to be represent the company online.

Also, it's completely legal, in the US, to not hire someone based on political beliefs, and even gender or sexual preference in the majority of states. I disagree with the latter but certainly not the former.

 

[valcik]

Saying things on facebook is NO different than saying them in public ..

Yup. Even worse, saying things on facebook can be much dangerous than in public. Not only curious employers are watching, even a Big Brother is looking over your shoulder at social networks:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...s-arrested-destroy-America-Twitter-jokes.html

 

[Tagaziel]

Yes, that's what you are talking about. That's not what some person deciding whether a candidate goes on the short list or not is thinking. Also actions. Abortions, gay couple adopting, voting for a certain political party, not being in contact with parents, having IVF, wanting to contact birth parents. Are they not all actions that can be data mined through facebook and are things people will discriminate against?

But isn't the easiest way to see if that is happening based on the interview questions asked? If they can simply go on facebook and look into things they aren't allowed to ask in a interview kinda gives them a way of discriminating without the interviewee knowing.

May I ask why are you so obsessed with employers discriminating? If it's a large problem, then please provide at least some tangible proof, such as a study conducted among employers or other relevant work.

I would make the employer hand over all searches, webpages and notes taken for background information. And really big fines if companies withhold any of that.

Uh, what? So, in order to fix a problem that's already fixed by existing law, you propose to impose needless bureaucratic requirements to catalogue every single search, note and webpage that were made as part of the recruitment process?

Existing regulations already provide tools to combat discrimination, if one suspects it's been the basis for not hiring them. In such cases, the onus is on the employer to provide proof that the basis for dismissal was an actual professional one.

A employer might also not like furries and/or Corgis.

So? In most cases, people are not hired because they wouldn't be effective employees. Not because they like corgis.

 

[donperkan]

So you got your fingers burned becuse you shared personal information on the internet.

Did you learn something out of it.

I understand you are angry and frustrated but there really is no one to blame for this, you can't even blame yourself like some suggested. The internet is relatively young and social media boom happened only recently so people didn't have the time to adapt to these mediums. It's only natural that problems like these start to emerge. Enforcing government regulations will not make any difference, people have to learn to cope with this tehnology.

In future when tempted to reveal something personal remember that the value of personal information has skyrocketed in the past few years.

 

[Kilus]

May I ask why are you so obsessed with employers discriminating? If it's a large problem, then please provide at least some tangible proof, such as a study conducted among employers or other relevant work.

http://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/statistics/enforcement/charges.cfm

100,000 reports out of 154 million workers(plus unemployed) per year to a federal organisation. I would say it's a big problem and in my opinion it going to get far bigger in the coming years.

Uh, what? So, in order to fix a problem that's already fixed by existing law, you propose to impose needless bureaucratic requirements to catalogue every single search, note and webpage that were made as part of the recruitment process?

Just because a problem is illegal doesn't mean it's fixed. And yes, and not just part of the recruitment process, if they intend to do it as part of the employment process that information needs to relayed to employees. How a business conducts it self in regards to peoples privacy needs to be held to account.

Existing regulations already provide tools to combat discrimination, if one suspects it's been the basis for not hiring them. In such cases, the onus is on the employer to provide proof that the basis for dismissal was an actual professional one.

Existing regulations haven't accounted for the rise in social networks and the increase in internet based data mining.

So? In most cases, people are not hired because they wouldn't be effective employees. Not because they like corgis.

Yes, discrimination from business is stupid. It literally costs them money(without factoring in lawsuits) in lost productively. It still happens and thanks to facebook it going to get far more stupid.

 

[Tagaziel]

http://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/statistics/enforcement/charges.cfm

100,000 reports out of 154 million workers(plus unemployed) per year to a federal organisation. I would say it's a big problem and in my opinion it going to get far bigger in the coming years.

100 000 reports (assuming each is tied to a single, unique person) isn't that big when you consider the size of the group. 100 000 out of 154 000 000 means that for every single person touched by the problem there are 1 540 other people who aren't.

Just because a problem is illegal doesn't mean it's fixed. And yes, and not just part of the recruitment process, if they intend to do it as part of the employment process that information needs to relayed to employees. How a business conducts it self in regards to peoples privacy needs to be held to account.

I think you missed the point that the Internet is neither anonymous nor private. Any information that is shared on public sites is, by definition, public. And if it's public, no notice is required. You might as well demand that companies issue notices to employees such as "Your supervisor may overhear your conversations as he goes to get a coffee" or "your supervisor may notice the make and colour of your car".

You would have a point if employers were accessing or requesting access to private, confidential information, such as medical records or votes. However, since information you're talking about is hardly private, your point falls flat on its face.

Existing regulations haven't accounted for the rise in social networks and the increase in internet based data mining.

And how is that any different to normal background checks performed by companies before the rise of the Internet? If someone is publicly sharing information that may compromise his chances of getting a job, then it's his own fault. No employer should be forced to enumerate what publicly available information he has accessed to evaluate an employee, because it's absurd and only serves to generate red tape.

Yes, discrimination from business is stupid. It literally costs them money(without factoring in lawsuits) in lost productively. It still happens and thanks to facebook it going to get far more stupid.

So? As the figures you quoted show, this is a minor problem.

 

[Sander]

Yes, that's what you are talking about. That's not what some person deciding whether a candidate goes on the short list or not is thinking. Also actions. Abortions, gay couple adopting, voting for a certain political party, not being in contact with parents, having IVF, wanting to contact birth parents. Are they not all actions that can be data mined through facebook and are things people will discriminate against?

Sure. What, exactly, do you propose to do against this? Your "hand over all the search data" issue is both incredibly time and money-consuming, and quite simply impractical - not to mention trivial to circumvent.

 

[UniversalWolf]

It's called freedom of association, friends, a.k.a. good discrimination.

You post one pic of yourself fucking a sheep, and suddenly the Humane Society stops returning your calls for a second interview.

Indeed. Next time you fellate a pre-pubescent squirrel don't post a picture. Instead craft an elaborate persona of normalcy to dupe potential employers just like everyone else does. Or start your own business and do your own discriminating.

 

[Sub-Human]

If you're really concerned, simply get rid of your Facebook/Twitter account, whatever. I use social networks often, but I don't post any publicly visible information that could come to haunt me later on.