Read this if your interviewing for jobs

mgeorge

Well I've learnt today that one of my students came to me telling me he didnt get a job
because the employeer was viewing candidates profiles prior to highering any one.

Obviously I dont agree with because of many reasons, mainly because if an employeer
decides to higher you because what you said on your profile is clearly in violation of a
persons constutional rights. aka (free speech) but employeers do not care apparently.

So if any of you are going in for interviews I'd suggest you make your myspace/facebook
or any other online public profiles private till you get hired. So that way if they do fire you
after it is public and what has been said in the past you'd have a law suit with a 100% chance
to win.

sprkymrk

mgeorge27 wrote:

Well I've learnt today that one of my students came to me telling me he didnt get a job because the employeer was viewing candidates profiles prior to highering any one.

This happens all the time. It's actually become a common practice (and legal) to "google" a person before hiring/interviewing them. This is generally easy once an employer has your resume due to the wealth of information you already provided them.

mgeorge27 wrote:

Obviously I dont agree with because of many reasons, mainly because if an employeer decides to higher you because what you said on your profile is clearly in violation of a persons constutional rights. aka (free speech) but employeers do not care apparently.

They did not violate his free speech at all. Did they censor his site after seeing it? No.

Is it considered discrimination to not hire someone because of what they posted on a myspace account? Only if they decided not to hire you due to race, color, religion, gender, or national origin.

mgeorge27 wrote:

So if any of you are going in for interviews I'd suggest you make your myspace/facebook or any other online public profiles private till you get hired.

Good advice whether you are going for interviews or not.

Have you seen your students myspace profile? Any idea what turned them off about it? Maybe he can learn something from this.

mgeorge

Yes I've seen a few of my students profiles and they blog about how they don't agree with
alot of previous employeers policies relating to information technology topics.

Such as proceedure policies and what can and cannot be used.

One student complained that this company still used batch file scripting and could not
use VBS login scripting and when he was working their they asked why use batch? and
the best answer he got is because "its just policy"

Personally i'd agree with him as well... any one who uses a batch script for a logon script
is kinda behind in times. Obviously if some company says they are making great
advancedments in technology and they are still using batch scripting, then i guess using
VBS would be a great start...

I hate to agree with my students at times but they are right some times. Since he voiced his
opinion and used his freedom of speech, such blogs prevented him from getting a job.

I think a bill should be passed that prevents employeers from looking into such information
with out the direct consent of the individual. Obviously a bill was passed for background
checking back in the 80's where an individuals consent would be required for background
checks. I'd have to agree that a bill needs to be passed to prevent such electronic
discrimination. Looking into an individuals personal life to decide rather to employe an
individual gives people the feeling of being invaded. Obviously this seems like discrimiation
against the free speech right.

I dont know who agree's with me but this is how I feel about this topic.

JDMurray

mgeorge27 wrote:

So if any of you are going in for interviews I'd suggest you make your myspace/facebook or any other online public profiles private till you get hired. So that way if they do fire you after it is public and what has been said in the past you'd have a law suit with a 100% chance to win.

This sort of thing is routinely discussed in Internet news podcasts. More organizations are realizing that Google is a cheap way to find "possible dirt" on their employees and employment candidates. The full name of the Internet is "The Public Internet," and organizations like Google and the NSA are making sure that everything placed on to the Internet--including email--is recorded forever.

mgeorge27 wrote:

Obviously I dont agree with because of many reasons, mainly because if an employeer decides to higher you because what you said on your profile is clearly in violation of a persons constutional rights. aka (free speech) but employers do not care apparently.

Not hiring someone because they exercised their 1st amendment right to free speech is not a violation of free speech. Also, there is nothing in the constitution that guarantees employment.

The Internet and its users are not protected by the constitutional laws of the USA. The Internet is privately owned, mostly by telephone and telecommunications companies, and regulated by over 100 different organizations and countries. People using the Internet are not, by default, assigned the same rights under the U.S. constitution as a U.S. citizen, and U.S. citizens do not have a de facto right to free speech on the Internet.

mgeorge

I agree with ya but in 1993 congress passed a law requring all background checks to be conducted with the consent of the candidate or it violates several federal laws.

Even then background checks are limited to information which is only usable for employers to make a rational decision rather to extend and offer or deny employment.

Obviously googling some one is a form of a background check, used to obtain information (even personal information which is not revelent to employment at all which can influence an employment decision). While it is public and its free its legal but since this free information was obtained without informing a candidate and the information was used to influence the employment decision, i feel this issue should fall under background checking laws or that obtaining this information and using it to make decisions should be regulated such as how far is too far can an employeer go?

I think this is more of a discrimination then a vilolation of free speech. If a candidate says I love this company and has very little experince or qualifications and another candidate who is perfectly suited for the position says i hate this company but ill accept the offer cuz i need money and the lesser qualified person receives the job, isnt this a definition of discrimination?

If an employeer did not higher you because you got drunk and passed out on a friday night, how would you feel about this?

Seems like no one agree's with me but I have peoples best interest at heart.

sprkymrk

mgeorge27 wrote:

I agree with ya but in 1993 congress passed a law requring all background checks to be conducted with the consent of the candidate or it violates several federal laws.

If you freely advertise or express facts about yourself on a public forum, then anyone reading it does not constitute a background check. Background checks generally involve police records, which is why consent is needed. If you post something publicly, you've essentially consented to allow anyone in the world to read it.

mgeorge27 wrote:

Obviously googling some one is a form of a background check, used to obtain information (even personal information which is not revelent to employment at all which can influence an employment decision). While it is public and its free its legal but since this free information was obtained without informing a candidate and the information was used to influence the employment decision, i feel this issue should fall under background checking laws or that obtaining this information and using it to make decisions should be regulated such as how far is too far can an employeer go?

I would be a LOT more worried about how far law makers can go if you start down that path. The easiest solution is not to post personal information on blogs or profile pages that you don't want people to know. There's an old saying:
"Better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to open your mouth and remove all doubt".
In other words, don't post something you might regret.

mgeorge27 wrote:

I think this is more of a discrimination then a vilolation of free speech.

As I mentioned before, in the US the only things that can be considered discrimination in hiring (in the US) are for race, color, religion, gender, or national origin. If you don't like a person's clothes, cologne, hair style, or if you think they are ugly or you don't want to hire them because they smoke or pick their nose, you can show them the door and it's not discrimination.

If you had a company you would certainly want to be able to hire or not hire whomever you choose without having to worry about law suits every time some bum wanted a job that you didn't give him. I understand you feel for your student because you thought he should have gotten the job, but if you take personal bias out and look at it from the other guy's perspective you might change your mind.

My 2 cents.

snadam

yep, this is exactly wht I dont use myspace. Its an open door for anyone to look at. I am very discreet about what I say/upload on the web, as well as urge my friends/family to do the same. Nobody needs to know or see how "$hitfaced I looked like last weekend", etc...

as far as 1st ammendment stuff goes. Yes, you have the freedom to say whatever, but thats it. It doesnt cover your ass AFTER the fact. Say what you want, but be prepared to face the consequences.

I am sure myspace has thier ass covered with a nice little disclaimer that nobody reads, but clicks the "I Agree" button, stating thier liablility status etc...

Personally, I think if you knowingly and willingly place information about yourself on a public medium such as myspace, or even bigger, the world wide web, its fair game for everyone to see. Isint that the freaking point?!?!?

FYI, this is merely my 2 cents. Im not trying to offend anybone. Just trying to make conversation.

JDMurray

mgeorge27 wrote:

I agree with ya but in 1993 congress passed a law requring all background checks to be conducted with the consent of the candidate or it violates several federal laws.

That 1993 act specifically refers to a criminal records check, which is only one component of a standard background check.

sprkymrk wrote:

If you freely advertise or express facts about yourself on a public forum, then anyone reading it does not constitute a background check. Background checks generally involve police records, which is why consent is needed. If you post something publicly, you've essentially consented to allow anyone in the world to read it.

I completely agree. Once again, the name of the place is "The Public Internet."

mgeorge

Public internet or not, obtaining personal information from social websites to to influence decisions
rather to employ or deny employment is unmoral and unethnical. Their might be no documented
law that says they cant do it, but we all know its nasty and somthing should be done about it.

A candidates personal life should have no influence at all on rather he/she should be employeed.

and thats the main point im trying to get to

While googling my self, Finland recently banned employers from googling applicants.

markzab

As soon as I saw this topic it reminded me of a news article I saw on CNN a few days back. Couldn't find the exact article but this is from another site. The school's actions are rediculous IMO...

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/years/2007/0426072pirate1.html

mgeorge

Yeah I read that, i found it pathetic. Some ones personal life sould not even matter to their
professional life at all. Which is my whole point here. If some one wants to get drunk let them.

As long as they are able to preform their job duties with out questionable preformance, it
should not matter what to ever. Would be nice if America banned applicant googling like finland.

sprkymrk

Personal lives DO affect professional lives - plain and simple.

We don't need a law to ban employers from using the Internet to make intelligent hiring decisions.

If you think the laws are so great in Finland, google Mikko Ellila to see how the Fins treat "free speech".

Again, I'm sorry about your student not getting the job, but how would you feel if you got hired for a job, then a week later told "Sorry, we liked you better, but this other jerk we didn't hire claims we read his blog and that's against the law. We can't afford the publicity or expense of a law suit so now we have to hire him even though he's not as qualified as you".

Talk about a can of worms.

silentc1015

I had heard of this happening in some places, but I don't think it's a problem at all. I completely agree with employer's using this as a tool to determine who to hire. After all, I wouldn't want to hire someone who had pot leaves as their myspace background with a ton of blog entries talking about how they get wasted every single day of the week. People with really screwed up personal lives can still come across as normal in an interview. The job candidate is really the one being deceitful in situations like this by acting as though they're responsible, when in their personal life, they really aren't. I'm all for any tool that can be used to uncover this deceit and keep me from having to work with people like that.

Mishra

If you posted it on the internet, then people can read it on the internet. I understand the point you are trying to make, saying that employers shouldn't just be able to get on the internet to figure out your age to get around the fact they can't ask you personally... But thats how it works and I say tough nuggets. Quit posting pictures of yourself getting drunk and trying to be proud of it.

No matter what method they are figuring you out, they are going to pass judgement no matter what. In my opinion, if an employer is going through the trouble to try and find my personality on the internet, through references, on a resume, in the interview, through a background check, from previous employers, then end up not hiring me because they found something small... Then I really didn't want to work for that employer in the first place. So its almost more of a blessing that they decided against me.

silentc1015

Mishra wrote:

No matter what method they are figuring you out, they are going to pass judgement no matter what. In my opinion, if an employer is going through the trouble to try and find my personality on the internet, through references, on a resume, in the interview, through a background check, from previous employers, then end up not hiring me because they found something small... Then I really didn't want to work for that employer in the first place. So its almost more of a blessing that they decided against me.

That's a good point. If an employer decides that you aren't a good fit for the company and/or team by what you have in your public profiles, do you really want to work for them in the first place? If ALL employers decide your lifestyle is incompatible with the company (ie. involving drugs, alcohol, partying, etc) maybe you should take a good hard look at how you're living, and as Mishra put it, stop posting stupid pictures of yourself up where all the world can see them.

JDMurray

mgeorge27 wrote:

Public internet or not, obtaining personal information from social websites to to influence decisions rather to employ or deny employment is unmoral and unethnical.

immoral = evil
unethical = unlawful

So, if I read a bunch of stuff in your personal Web sites that leads me to liking and hiring you, I'm being evil and unlawful?

mgeorge27 wrote:

A candidates personal life should have no influence at all on rather he/she should be employeed.

It should have no influence, but it naturally does. People freely give up quite a bit of personal information about themselves in an interview which is weighed in the decision process. You can't stop a hiring manager from being human.

mgeorge27 wrote:

Finland recently banned employers from googling applicants.

That is completely unenforceable. The only way Finnish authorities could possibly be aware that this were happening was if somebody within a business reported a hiring manager that was doing it. Peer-enforcement is easily abused and is not a proper form of professional regulation.

mgeorge

no, unmoral = without moral standards, unethical = not conforming to approved standards or professional standards.
Many companies always talk about their high moral standards and professional work ethics but when they make a
rational decision based on a cadadites personal lfe, thats pathetic.

You are taking my post the wrong way jdmurry.

I kinda get the ideal that your for this type of redicious judgement. Obviously posted stuff online cannot be 100%
correct and/or accurate but is still used to judge an individual regardless of what it says.

Yes sprkymrk, personal lives affect professional lives because some people are just plain freakin nosey as hell
and those are the people I dont care about typically. I have to agree with silentc1015, if a
intervier/company does this in the first place and judges you by your personal life, are
they really worth working for? Knowing that people just google into your life and everyone
in the office talks about what you did on sunday?

I'm in agreement with the pot leaves and what not and getting wasted, but my lord when that is
5 years old and you dont even have those websites any more but they are still cached on google,
and they still affect you from getting a job. Then what are you to do?

No body is perfect, most adults have done what teenagers have done before but they just
dont have the rediclious evidence because the evolution of technology. Sure your
interviewer probably smoked pot when he was in nam, but does that change ur mind on
rather you want to work for this guy? Should it change their mind that you did somthing they
did over 30 years ago? Would any one care if your boss got shot in the @$$ like forrest gump?
would that affect his work ability? or would it become the work week laugh among the staff?

Personally if i was interviewing some one, i wouldnt give a crap about their personal life because im just not
that nosey, i draw a line where its professional and personal.

As being an instructur, I dont ask my students who they got drunk with or what girls did they do it with
on the weekend, thats just innapprorate as well as I JUST DONT CARE, its their life not mine.
This boaderlines on the same topic as im reading news that talk about university juding potential
students before even allowing them admissions. One of the everyday morals tought in school
is not to judge a book by its cover, and it bothers me that such universities are doing exactly
what they teach students NOT TO DO!.

Although it's nice to use google and spy up on people, even the people who are interviewing you.
To find out rather or not a company judges you by your online life. Or simply just to find out
rather the person who's interviewing you is homosexaul...

YES; I do agree that using goole on cadidates is a great tool.

BUT!; I dont agree on how the make their decisions based on information thats false, old
or just plain stupid, and not even revelant in rather or not this candadite can preform the job duties.

This post was orginally inteded to inform people to change their stuff, not to start a debate.

BeaverC32

I understand you didn't mean to start a debate, but now that the ball is already rolling...

If the information is publicly available, whether it is through MySpace, AIM, or whatever else is out there, I see no harm in employer's making a hiring decision based (at least partially) on what they find.

Let's use a fictitious example so I can convey my reasoning:

Suppose you are a single parent, and you want to hire a babysitter to watch your toddler 3 nights a week. You interview an 18-year old who seems to have it all: a great personality, is very outgoing, charismatic, great with children, etc. You're about to offer the job, but then you take a quick look at MySpace. To your surprise, you find this teenager's page, which has pictures of her drunk, making out with different guys, and has other vulgar material. Would you still hire this person to take care of your children? Can you still trust them? How can you be sure they are responsible?

Would this be any different for a job in IT, rather than as a babysitter? I don't see why it would be...

You still need to trust your employees.
You want to hire mature individuals, not reckless "renegades".

Very interesting topic!

mrhaun03

Not tryin to keep the debate going, mgeorge, but I agree and disagree with you. People are going to judge you no matter what. It's a fact of life. I am judged every day cause I wear baggy clothes...people think i'm a hoodlum or whatever you wanna call it. Don't hate on me, judge me after you talk to me. I would google a potential employee, but I wouldn't judge them until after the interview.

If you wanna get drunk and post pics about it...fine with me, just make sure you're on time to work and work to the best of your ability. I agree...the weed leaves won't fly. But my personal life shouldn't influence whether or not I'm hired unless it's something that would affect my job.

Anyways, good post, mgeorge...people should definitely be aware that they are being judged well before they meet the employer in person.

JDMurray

mgeorge27 wrote:

Many companies always talk about their high moral standards and professional work ethics but when they make a rational decision based on a cadadites personal lfe, thats pathetic.

You are taking my post the wrong way jdmurry.

That's your personal opinion and I have no problems with it. But you haven't presented any case for why you believe this situation to be unmoral and unethical. Merely saying that it is doesn't make it so.

sprkymrk

mgeorge27 wrote:

Yes sprkymrk, personal lives affect professional lives because some people are just plain freakin nosey as hell and those are the people I dont care about typically.

It's okay for you to judge an employer as being nosey because he googles you. But why should the fact that he is nosey bother you as long as he does his job?

mgeorge27 wrote:

Then what are you to do?

Learn from it.

mgeorge27 wrote:

Personally if i was interviewing some one, i wouldnt give a crap about their personal life because im just not that nosey, i draw a line where its professional and personal.

Then don't be surprised if you hire someone that comes in late every Tuesday because he gets drunk while watching Monday night football or calls in sick a lot due to stress related marital/drinking/drug problems.

mgeorge27 wrote:

Although it's nice to use google and spy up on people, even the people who are interviewing you.
To find out rather or not a company judges you by your online life. Or simply just to find out
rather the person who's interviewing you is homosexaul...

Spying implies secretly collecting sensitive or classified information. Veiwing public information on the Internet is a far cry from spying.

mgeorge27 wrote:

This post was orginally inteded to inform people to change their stuff, not to start a debate.

And just like posting information on myspace or a blog, once it's out there you have no control over how others percieve it.

Darthn3ss

if looking up people on the internet should be illegal, then so should references.

markzab

I think i agree with both sides of the coin, and mainly because we'll never be able to stop employers from secretly or not, googling your name on the net. That being said, if you know you're about to go for some interviews, why not google your own name to see what comes up. Mine isn't too bad because I actually get returns of old posts from groupstudy.com. Posts of me helping people in the same concepts that my employer would be looking for out of me. But also I have a myspace page. I'm young and have fun and my myspace page has some things that might not be considered professional, at all, for work.

I'd simply go and change my page to comething more family oriented before I was going to post my reume up.

I guess use their goggling you to your advantage?

blackmage439

Darthn3ss wrote:

if looking up people on the internet should be illegal, then so should references.

... what?

According to Dictionary.com, a reference is "a person to whom one refers for testimony as to one's character, abilities, etc." Now, according to the rules of politeness and common sense, you should ask your prospective references for permission to give their name out before giving their information to an employer. If an employer does not have their contact information, then they cannot contact that person unless they track them down by trial and error.

For example, let's say you don't give out references from your current job. A prospective employer can try contacting the manager of your workplace through a (possibly tedious) Google search. That manager may or may not know you personally, and if you work at a large company, they might have never even heard of you.

"Googling" some one is basically an unauthorized (but not illegal) online-persona background check. A reference is someone who you personally solicit for help. I don't see a connection here...

Anyway, onto the topic at hand. I knew from the moment I began using the internet that I had to be careful. I learned very early in my internet life that ISPs carry loads upon loads of data, containing logs about every IP address they sell to consumers. If you view it, they know. As far as I am aware, any federal agency can just get a warrant for your logs and see every single IP address you have every visited on the internet. Basically, the internet is an open information gateway. Anybody has the right to view public information contained on there. Besides, it's a great, free tool for employers to more easily decide who they want to hire. Would you rather hire someone who has a racy Myspace page, or someone with a clean online slate? Yes, the argument can be made that your personal life is your own business, and not anyone's at your job. However, that's almost like saying that we shouldn't punish a criminal for killing only in his free time.

Is this legal? Yes. Is it a moral thing to do? Maybe, maybe not. Last year, I heard about some kids at a high school who were disciplined for posting on Myspace about drinking alcohol (there were pictures, too). I think a teacher lost her job for doing the same thing, as well. Were these respective school boards right in using unauthorized online-gathered information in their decisions? Well, in the case of the teacher, a lawsuit is trying to figure that out. Here's another way of looking at it. Guilty criminals go free every year just because certian pieces of evidence could not be obtained "legally." While this is a moral dilemma, those rules are in place to protect the accused's rights as a citizen. Even in law enforcement there are rules to follow. The internet has no rules, except those written into law. The 1st Amendment does grant you the right to speak, however, that right can be used too liberally and cause difficulties for yourself.

What's the lesson here? You don't need to delete your online profiles. Just be careful. If there's something about you that you don't want your mother to know, you probably don't want anyone else to, so don't post it on the internet!