This is an interesting little blurb about how about 70% of HR professionals in a study admitted that they turned down a job candidate based on online reputation.  From context, it appears we're talking MySpace, Facebook, etc. types of online media.

This has fascinating implications for discrimination laws.  I have a friend who does high level HR work for a large company.  He said that the first thing HR does with resumes is to go through and do an internet search on the person's name and the email address listed.  I asked if they looked at pictures.  He said yes.  I said congrats, you just admitted to me that you have an official policy to review the age, sex, marital status, religious affiliation and race of your candidates.  He stared at me and then said "oh shit". 

The practical effect of doing these searches is precisely that.  I totally understand why an HR department would do that.  Hell, I would sue the hell out of, say, a security company that didn't do that and it turned out that the employee had a facebook group for "robbing the stupid".  But that means that these searches are going to turn up exactly the types of information that companies are prohibited from asking directly.

The problem is that people act like Facebook, etc., is private when it truly is not.  People blather all the time about their kids and spouses and vacations and going to church and on and on and on.  Hell, people list their sexual orientations.  How the hell is a company going to prove that it didn't hire someone because s/he was talking about how wasted s/he was at the club and not because of the picture of that person with her/his same sex partner?  How is a company supposed to prove it didn't hire a guy because he was saying how he nearly went postal when the last place fired him and not because the picture shows that he's in his 50's?  How is a woman supposed to prove she didn't get a job because she simply wasn't qualified and not because she talks about her struggles as a single mother?

Now, I know the obvious answer is to interpret anti-discrimination statutes narrowly and not in the massive way the laws are currently viewed.  But that's not the current situation.  The current situation is such that a more cynical plaintiff's lawyer could have a tremendous amount of fun getting an HR person to sit through a dep and explain why this person posting pictures about her cat is fine but that person posting a picture holding a beer is not.  Good times good times. 

That brings up something else.  Say you're someone like me who is aware of these issues and works diligently to keep your Super Sekrit Real Identity off the intertubes.  But.  You have friends.  And your friends take pictures of you when you're off on vacation.  Your friends post pictures of you completely hammered to Facebook and tag those pictures with your name.  That's then discovered by a prospective employer.  Bingo bango you have the same problems. 

This is an enormously lucrative business for evil trial lawyers mwahahahaha problem for businesses.  You have to do some type of due diligence or you're screwed.  Do too much and you're screwed.  All I can say is I'm glad I don't do employment defense work. 

Posted by: alexthechick at 11:57 AM | Comments (4) | Add Comment
Post contains 572 words, total size 4 kb.