Is it fair for employers to judge a person by what they say on the Internet?

[Rashiminos]

It's their prerogative, but I think it would draw their notion of free speech into question, if the employer has one.

 

[Silurian]

Employers could well end up with too much information about people in the future so they will be forced to be more discriminating.

But this could well be done with key words/ phrase searches. So if Mr Matterhorn has vomit, drunk and party associated with them twice as much as Mr Bighorn it could flag them as possibly having a problem. So Mr Bighorn may well get the interview.

Regarding Facebook from BBC

The Irish data protection commissioner has recommended widespread changes to improve privacy on Facebook.

They include making its terms and conditions clearer and offering users greater control over how their data is used on the site.

The findings are particularly significant because Facebook Ireland was given responsibility for all non-US and Canadian data in September 2010.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-16289426

I expect that the EU will bring in regulations on the extent and technology used in internet personnel checks within the next ten years.

 

[Mise]

To be honest, I'm sort of attracted to the idea that my relatively sober, discrete and well-balanced lifestyle would be rewarded financially by employers. I'm turned off by the idea that they would favour heteronormativity or WASPs or whatever.

 

[Bestbank Tiger]

It's their prerogative, but I think it would draw their notion of free speech into question, if the employer has one.

I dunno...what if someone's a virulent racist and routinely posts KKK propaganda on their Facebook page and on message boards? Would you want that person working for you, especially if your company deals with the general public and the position gives the racist an opportunity to discriminate?

Would you fault a female-owned business for passing on a prospective employee whose online presence shows him to be a chauvinist Neanderthal?

 

[Disgustipated]

What if that KKK member kept his beliefs outside of work, and within the company he was the best worker in the company?

Discrimination is not good, no matter what the form. Judge a person by how he is in the workplace, not by what he does outside the workplace.

 

[Bestbank Tiger]

What if that KKK member kept his beliefs outside of work, and within the company he was the best worker in the company?

If you're making a new hire, you don't know whether you can trust him to be professional at work. Plus if a discrimination complaint ever comes in against your company, the fact that you knowingly hired a racist is going to look really, really bad in court or in front of the regulatory agency.

 

[Gary Childress]

If you're making a new hire, you don't know whether you can trust him to be professional at work. Plus if a discrimination complaint ever comes in against your company, the fact that you knowingly hired a racist is going to look really, really bad in court or in front of the regulatory agency.

I don't know maybe belonging to the KKK is something that ought to raise a "red flag" maybe it isn't. In any case, where do employers draw the line and who is going to know where they draw the line. Suppose company XYZ employs 50% of the people in a given community. Suppose the board of directors of XYZ doesn't like republicans. Does that mean it's OK for XYZ to comb the Internet to determine who favors republicans and who doesn't and hire based upon that critieria? Or suppose its socialists that XYZ doesn't like. Or maybe its Christians or maybe it's athiests? With the power to comb the Internet and view people's records, etc a company can, in practice, discriminate based upon anything it damn well pleases. Granted in this modern age of technology there is no way to stop them other than to cover our tracks.

In this sense employers are practicing eugenics. Those with the wrong characteristics fail to get a job and probably don't flourish in society. Maybe that's OK if we're talking about singling out axe murderers but if we're talking about something like a person's political views or religious views then that opens a can of worms.

 

[Commodore]

What if that KKK member kept his beliefs outside of work, and within the company he was the best worker in the company?

Discrimination is not good, no matter what the form. Judge a person by how he is in the workplace, not by what he does outside the workplace.

I disagree completely. No matter how hard you try to keep them separate, what you do in your personal life can have a very profound impact on your professional life. While your employer doesn't need to know every intimate little detail of your life, they do have the right to know about anything that could either positively or negatively affect your job performance.

And again, I must harp on the fact that you cannot expect privacy when you make your life open in a public forum. Even if you make your profile private on Facebook, it's still on Facebook which is a public forum.

 

[Tahuti]

I disagree completely. No matter how hard you try to keep them separate, what you do in your personal life can have a very profound impact on your professional life. While your employer doesn't need to know every intimate little detail of your life, they do have the right to know about anything that could either positively or negatively affect your job performance.

And again, I must harp on the fact that you cannot expect privacy when you make your life open in a public forum. Even if you make your profile private on Facebook, it's still on Facebook which is a public forum.

I think he means that an employee could be a horsehockyhead even though he doesn't express as such on the internet and vice versa.

 

[Zkribbler]

I remember a guy from the space agency telling how they selected astronauts. They had all kinds of legitimate tests, which got rid of most applicants, but there were still far too many. So the agency started coming up with bogus tests, i.e. how long each applicant could keep his feet in ice water. There was no reason for using the test other than to whittle the number of people down.

Likewise, you next employer will probably have more applicant's than necessary. So any reason to not consider someone will be grabbed onto.

It's not fair. But who ever said life was fair.

 

[downtown]

I remember a guy from the space agency telling how they selected astronauts. They had all kinds of legitimate tests, which got rid of most applicants, but there were still far too many. So the agency started coming up with bogus tests, i.e. how long each applicant could keep his feet in ice water. There was no reason for using the test other than to whittle the number of people down.

Likewise, you next employer will probably have more applicant's than necessary. So any reason to not consider someone will be grabbed onto.

It's not fair. But who ever said life was fair.

In the US that would be highly illegal. You can't use any kind of test or screening mechanism that you can't prove directly impacts your ability to handle the posted job description. It's why many firms are terrified of using "intelligence" tests, since under review, they're much more likely to be ruled discriminatory.

 

[IglooDame]

I remember a guy from the space agency telling how they selected astronauts. They had all kinds of legitimate tests, which got rid of most applicants, but there were still far too many. So the agency started coming up with bogus tests, i.e. how long each applicant could keep his feet in ice water. There was no reason for using the test other than to whittle the number of people down.

Likewise, you next employer will probably have more applicant's than necessary. So any reason to not consider someone will be grabbed onto.

It's not fair. But who ever said life was fair.

Rather than trimming from the bottom (using bogus or near-bogus tests), why not pull from the top? List them by number of flight hours and take the top x%, for example. Surely it is more relevant (both from a legal/CYA and a legitimate standpoint) than feet-in-icewater.

I'm actually in the middle of hiring another tech. We have over a dozen resumes, most of them moderately qualified. I'm not doing over a dozen phone interviews, so after removing any that have disqualifiers (five misspellings in a single resume? And 'technician' and 'Microsoft' are two of the words? ), I'm taking the top five, judging by number of years of relevant experience and degree of relevance of that experience. No icewater required.

 

[Leoreth]

It's why many firms are terrified of using "intelligence" tests, since under review, they're much more likely to be ruled discriminatory.

Because intelligence tests are not reliable in measuring actual intelligence or because only hiring the most intelligent applicants is already discriminatory?

 

[Zelig]

In the US that would be highly illegal. You can't use any kind of test or screening mechanism that you can't prove directly impacts your ability to handle the posted job description. It's why many firms are terrified of using "intelligence" tests, since under review, they're much more likely to be ruled discriminatory.

Yeah, and its far more efficient to just get HR to randomly junk applications.

 

[Disgustipated]

How could intelligence tests be discriminatory? Ridiculous. Pretty soon the government will force us to hire bums off the street.

 

[Hygro]

How could intelligence tests be discriminatory? Ridiculous. Pretty soon the government will force us to hire bums off the street.

How are poll taxes discriminatory? Pretty soon we'll require draw bridges to be shut down by noon.

 

[Cutlass]

How could intelligence tests be discriminatory? Ridiculous. Pretty soon the government will force us to hire bums off the street.

Intelligence can't be measured directly. Instead the tests measure more of the educational opportunities a person has had. So people who have had superior opportunities might be dumber, but test better.