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

[Hygro]

I think it's fair. It's not like it can't work in your favor.

 

[squadbroken]

Don't use your real damn name on the internet.

 

[aimeeandbeatles]

Don't use your real damn name on the internet.

Use your worst enemies

 

[Zelig]

My main worry is that I don't trust most HR staff to be competent enough to do a proper online background check on me.

I trust any potential bosses insofar as I wouldn't take a job working under someone who wasn't competent enough to pass me through a background check.

lol when someone pieces together all my internet personas I'm so screwed.

I'd hire you based on your CFC persona.

I think other than social media, things said online would be hard to pin down. No one is going to know my PW:Name and contre are one in the same. Unless I was stupid enough to reveal my name to you all.

Hurhurhur.

 

[Cutlass]

A background check on me will get you a blurred together report on 2 people. I got them separated out once. But looks like the useless credit bureaus have entwined our accounts again. So background check on me without running it past me to see what is real and what isn't will just screw me over unfairly.

 

[stormerne]

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

I've heard it said that some employers will look up people's names on the Internet to find out more about them before they hire them. Is this fair? Is this a good way to determine if that person will make a fit in the company?

It's not only fair but it's essential, but not for the reason you may think...

Forget, for a moment, about a potential employer judging you on your internet usage. Let's assume you have already been offered a job by them and that you accepted. If your internet usage can be identified by them, then it's likely it can be identified by many other people too. And it may become obvious that you work for them. So - whether you like it or not - you and your internet activities could be seen by others as representing their company.

So forget about whether you're a good match for the company. They're asking themselves, "Do we want to tie this candidate's reputation to our company reputation?" Do you have a history that could be seen as damaging their reputation? Do you have the potential to screw them over, even innocently and unwittingly?

It's all about money. Your future and your potential contribution to the company is tiny compared to the damage you might do to their reputation and the business they might lose because of it.

Recruiters don't get fired for saying no to candidates (as long as they do it legally), but they do get fired for making damaging hires.

 

[Disgustipated]

Thankfully my name is common, and I don't use my real name here (my name isn't actually disgustipated). I've run numerous google searches of myself, and can't find anything of the real me. The only scary thing I find on the internets is when I put in my name and my telephone number (it pops up with my address).

I am on face book (although I frequently cancel it, but I'm currently on), but I almost never post anything on there. I mainly use it to look at other people's pictures. That's the only value of facebook that I can see- to look at pictures.

 

[Mise]

They would know your telephone number and address, so you shouldn't assume that all they're going to look for is your name. You ought to have your email address on your CV as well, your employment history, university and school. Pretty much everything you need to know in order to stalk you.

 

[Cutlass]

It's not only fair but it's essential, but not for the reason you may think...

Forget, for a moment, about a potential employer judging you on your internet usage. Let's assume you have already been offered a job by them and that you accepted. If your internet usage can be identified by them, then it's likely it can be identified by many other people too. And it may become obvious that you work for them. So - whether you like it or not - you and your internet activities could be seen by others as representing their company.

So forget about whether you're a good match for the company. They're asking themselves, "Do we want to tie this candidate's reputation to our company reputation?" Do you have a history that could be seen as damaging their reputation? Do you have the potential to screw them over, even innocently and unwittingly?

It's all about money. Your future and your potential contribution to the company is tiny compared to the damage you might do to their reputation and the business they might lose because of it.

Recruiters don't get fired for saying no to candidates (as long as they do it legally), but they do get fired for making damaging hires.

While that sounds fine in theory, it makes a mockery of the concept that employers don't exercise authoritarian control over their employees. Now not only must all of your off work time conform to company expectations, all of your prework time does as well. So essentially the whole of a person's life is dominated by present and future employers, right down to social activities.

And people think the government is the only thing that can take a person's liberty.

 

[Murky]

Given the ubiquity of social networking, it's unlikely that employers would not take advantage of a data resource that they might think will work in their favor. That's why I say, be careful what you say online.

So long as you're not saying things that would threaten or hurt your employer in someway they probably would just ignore most of it. The most common things you see on FB are photos(don't post nude or suggestive pics). Most of what would get you fired is if you explicitly threatening the business or say something that would makes you look really bad.

 

[Neonanocyborgasm]

It's fair in that the employer has the right to know who he's hiring. It's not fair when he takes statements out of context and makes biased inferences. Unfortunately, there's not much that can be done about this. I always post with a nick and on Facebook, I never put up anything in public that I wouldn't accept an employer to see.

 

[mourndraken]

whatever method they use to judge us is always unfair, always has been. The bottomline really isn't that deep

 

[stormerne]

While that sounds fine in theory, it makes a mockery of the concept that employers don't exercise authoritarian control over their employees. Now not only must all of your off work time conform to company expectations, all of your prework time does as well. So essentially the whole of a person's life is dominated by present and future employers, right down to social activities.

And people think the government is the only thing that can take a person's liberty.

Yup. Take a close look at employment contracts nowadays for sackable offences and, in addition to the normal "serious professional misconduct" clause, you'll probably find a clause that mentions something like "behavior likely to bring the company into disrepute."

 

[GoodGame]

It's not a good way, but in many cases it's the only way apart from your resume. Think about it from the employer's perspective. You are about to spend tens of thousands of dollars on someone you've never met before. Would you not want to learn as much about him as you can? And suppose you see someone who appears to be insensitive or rude, would you want to hire him?

If the candidate has been nice and civil, but happens to have a different political opinion from the boss, it's not right for the employer to discriminate based on that. On the other hand, if the boss does that, he's more than likely a jerk, and you wouldn't want to work for him anyway...

I disagree. A lot is gotten from the interview process (the questions, the way the person presents themself, the quality of answers given to questions). A lot more is gotten from what the references have to say about the client, as well as the quality of the person chosen to be a reference.

The main use of "internet" information is to find any extremist or criminal activity. Trolling the internet is mostly a hobby. If one trolls/bloggs under a pseudonym, then it's reasonably unimportant to the hiring process.

 

[Millman]

What context? In terms of hiring or terms of employing someone?

Also, could you bring up a case so we don't have to speculate on the outcome of your question?

 

[Terxpahseyton]

Use of social networks is a result of peer pressure (you are threatened with social sanctions if you don't comply). The exploitation of this by the employer is IMO immoral. Because it basically means: Person A is forced to publicly reveal private part of life --> employer spies and hence limits private freedom of Person A.
Sucks.
It's different with chats, boards and the like. There you have no peer pressure to reveal your true identity.

But of course, the competition of the free market doesn't care about such fairly complicated relationships and its effects. It is not a system of responsibility for consequences further down the road. It is a system of immediate gain. Hence, people won't care for such consequences and many even actually intelligent people won't hesitate to justify it with flimsy arguments without realizing their flimsiness.

 

[Shaihulud]

Being humans, employers will always judge what we have written, posted on the internet. it can mean a good thing if you know which channel/forum your boss is monitoring, I know some people who made it big by kissing ass to an embarrassing degree over the internet.

 

[squall78]

Well it's part of your overall character, so employers want to find out about you as much as possible outside of a resume and interview.

 

[Terxpahseyton]

Like the wishes of the employers equal justification Great stuff... It is like one answers "Is it okay that asteroids hit earth" with "Well, there is this force called gravity you know" Oh... really? Too bad that wasn't the question.
Employers are people - remember? And the desires of people are not the same as the the concept of justice, morality, potential of reality, right and wrong and so on. Remember that to?
Oh the grandness of ideology and its constant latent advocacy.

 

[Defiant47]

Like the wishes of the employers equal justification Great stuff... It is like one answers "Is it okay that asteroids hit earth" with "Well, there is this force called gravity you know" Oh... really? Too bad that wasn't the question.
Employers are people - remember? And the desires of people are not the same as the the concept of justice, morality, potential of reality, right and wrong and so on. Remember that to?
Oh the grandness of ideology and its constant latent advocacy.

That's how like half of the answers have been in this thread.

"Well, there's this force called gravity, you know..."