Job Applicant, Beware:
Job Applicant, Beware: You're Being Googled If a potential employer uncovers salacious or otherwise unflattering material about you online, that job offer you were expecting could vaporize. With 77 percent of employers Googling and otherwise researching applicants, you never know what your future bosses may think about those times you ranted about your coworkers or got sloshed at a party. So how do you deal? Heed these tips. Read more MCCathy and All-- The real title of this thread should be "Nosy Employers, Beware." We job applicants and employees who are sick of out-of-control employers that intrude into our lives away from work can, must, and will make it so. As the Allan Hoffman article to which MCCathy links in her original post to this thread notes: -o0o- . . . [T]he pervasiveness of social networking sites, such asFacebook and MySpace, and the way young people virtually live onlinemean employers won’t be able to judge candidates based on their digitaldirt. If they do, the thinking goes, they will miss out on top-notchemployees, given that just about everyone will have some incriminatinginformation online. In a postingat the Brazen Careerist Web site, Jason Warner, Google’s head ofstaffing for online sales and operations, contends that this trend“will become a non-issue as this phase of the Internet Age plays itselfout.” He suggests . . .
[As noted by Hoffman] . . . consider this: The generation moving into theworkforce may not want to work for an employer that wouldn’t hire atalented 20-something for having a drunken photo on Facebook, suggestsScott Allen, coauthor of The Virtual Handshake: Opening Doors and Closing Deals Online. “The standards are going to radically change,” he says. You betchum they're going to radically change. Like many thoughtful (and outspoken) working people in modern America, I've long beenconcerned about how many employers, especially from the time of RonaldReagan and even more so under George W. Bush, have been trying to turnyour, my, and everyone's lives in our "free" America into a nightmare,high-tech version of the old-fashioned company town, or even IraLevin's Stepford. Few if any of us would question employers' prerogatives to regulatethe conduct of employees while on duty and/or on employer premises, butwe're here dealing with an entirely different issue. The notion that aprivate employer could lawfully act like an unaccountable, overreachinggovernment by seeking to dictate your or my life away from work--evenwhen it comes to such personal choices as smoking or drinking or, forthat matter, political or social activities--has frighteningimplications for your, my, and everyone else's freedom and privacy. Aswith government, when private employers are allowed to dictate any oneaspect of one's private life, where does it stop? This worker, and many others, say to employers: "It stops here. Got that?"In an erawhen the Internet and other forms of modern technology make itfrighteningly easy for employers and others to find out about manyaspects of our personal lives we've long regarded as personal, this canhave chilling implications. As National Workrights Institute(NWI) legal director Jeremy Gruber has noted, these implications andthe actions of certain employers pose grave dangers for our society,our freedoms, and for each of us. As he put it, employers who delveinto our lives outside of work "are making decisions based oninformation not submitted by the employee or references. It is whollyunrelated to the employment relationship." What's more,Gruber added, "The idea that when you hire someone, you should be ableto look at every aspect of their personal life is completely at odds ofhow a democratic society should operate. It has huge consequences forfreedom in this country, when people are afraid or are changing theirbehavior because of what a potential future employer might say or do." You can find the full article at this link: http://www.ere.net/inside-recruiting/news/digging-through-candidates-digital-dirt-179849.asp NWIpresident Lewis Maltby, meanwhile, has written an excellent--and widelypublished--article exploring what it means when employers do seek todictate employees' political activities or even punish them for suchactivities. (Maltby's full article appears at http://www.nyls.edu/pages/3813.asp.) Forexample, in a world-publicized 2004 case, Lynne Gobbell, an Alabamafactory worker, was fired from her job after she refused to remove abumper sticker backing a presidential candidate--one her company'sowner opposed--from her personal car. In the 1990s, William Neiss, aWisconsin real-estate broker, lost his job for refusing to make adonation to a political party favored by his boss. Many more cases like this have taken place over the years, especially since the development of the Internet. Onesuch case is my own. In 2002, during a long job hunt after a mid-2001layoff, I was denied a plum job as an editor with a nonprofiteducational association in part because of what the employer, when Ichallenged its vague (and contradiction-ridden) claim of things beingsimply a matter of "subtle factors" involving "fit"--meanwhile, Isuspected and alleged sex discrimination (the editorial departmentinvolved was all-female and, as far as I have been able to tell, hasstayed so, even after advertising at least two or three new openingsfor editors)--called, in chilling terms, my "record of being involvedin controversial matters," namely, feminism and children's rights(neither of which in any way posed any conflict of interest!),certainly never brought up in any interview or correspondence, butfound after the employer decided to do an Internet search. When I became aware of this, I not only felt violated, but slimed. Thissleazy practice, too, while disturbing and reprehensible, is in manystates still legal. This must be stopped through legislation likeCalifornia's, which specifically forbids employers from dictating orattempting to dictate employees' political activity, or New York's,which generally prohibits employment discrimination based on lawfulpolitical activities. Every state and Congress should thusadopt legislation, as a few states--notably Colorado and NorthDakota--have, protecting the right of employees and job applicants toengage in lawful off-hours, off-premises activities they choose withoutfear of employment discrimination. Generally, such activities are noneof an employer's business unless they pose an actual and substantialconflict of interest or ot ...[Message truncated]
[Continued from previous posting] Every state and Congress should thusadopt legislation, as a few states--notably Colorado and NorthDakota--have, protecting the right of employees and job applicants toengage in lawful off-hours, off-premises activities they choose withoutfear of employment discrimination. Generally, such activities are noneof an employer's business unless they pose an actual and substantialconflict of interest or otherwise materially and substantially impairone's ability to do one's job. Mere dislike of or disagreement with aworker's political views or skittishness about "company image" orpossible "controversy" is not enough. The NWI has published anexcellent report on the overall issue of what is commonly called"lifestyle discrimination"--employment discrimination based on lawfuloff-duty, off-employer-premises conduct by employees or jobapplicants--at this link: http://www.workrights.org/issue_lifestyle.html Wealso need strong state and federal legislation, as a fewstates--notably Colorado and North Dakota--have, protecting the rightof employees and job applicants to engage in lawful off-hours,off-premises activities they choose without fear of employmentdiscrimination. Generally, such activities are none of an employer'sbusiness unless they pose an actual and substantial conflict ofinterest or otherwise materially and substantially impair one's abilityto do one s job. Mere dislike of or disagreement with a worker'spolitical views or skittishness about "company image" or possible"controversy" is not enough. The NWI has published an excellentreport on the overall issue of what is commonly called "lifestylediscrimination"--employment discrimination based on lawful off-duty,off-employer-premises conduct by employees or job applicants--at thislink: http://www.workrights.org/issue_lifestyle/ldbrief2.pdf: Assomeone who has long taken pride in being a concerned, active, andoutspoken citizen on many issues, I have found that many people (especially younger people) in today's job-scarce economy are hesitant to take part in anyform of political activism--writing a letter to a newspaper, calling aradio talk show, posting something on the Internet, taking part in amarch or a rally, or even coming to a public hearing or other publicforum with their legislators--for fear that some employer might somehowfind out about and frown on such actions. Today, the Internet, creditbureaus, and like means make it frighteningly easy for employers tosnoop into job applicants' or employees' personal beliefs andactivities. Ironically, the fear that many workers now haveof employment discrimination based on their political activities is thevery thing that keeps them from taking the steps, both as individualsand with others, to bring about an end to this and related abuses. Let'stake back our lives, our privacy, and our most basic rights--now. Write your state and federal legislators this week. Urge them to enactlegislation banning employment discrimination on account of lawfuloff-hours, off-duty activities. Get at least 10 family members,friends, and/or co-workers to do the same. This is one very good reason whyanyone who works for a living, whatever their age or occupation, shouldand must become andstay politically active, especially for workers' rights, and not give aflying fig what any out-of-control employer says, thinks, wants, ordoes. Don't be afraid to speak up and speak out, especially as a groupwith others, for your rights as a worker, a citizen, and a human being. Thereare a lot more of us workers than there are nosy employers. As withthe struggles against forcing working people to live only in companytowns and shop at company stores. we must and will make it clear toemployers that we, not they, generally have the right to choose how welive our lives away from work. lmem Don't ever use your real name when chatting online. A few years ago, you could input a phone number like 555-1212 and it would show you the person who owned that number and where they lived! Google has since blocked that for security reasons. I use ONLY my personal email address for personal business needs. I have another email address I use for other Internet use.
What kills me is the credit check they do. I owe over $30,000 in combined debts--student loans, an eviction, and an old credit card debt (anyone remember when Providian offered credit cards to people with bad credit? Yeah, I got hooked on that too.). If I don't get a job to pay those debts off, how will I get them paid? Fortunately, whenever I've Googled my name, it comes up that there are people in the art world who share my surname. Interesting bit of interesting information. One of these artists does bronze sculptures, and one has my first name. Just because I'm in debt doesn't mean I'm going to embezzle to pay for my debts. But it's easier for them to rely on the assumption that if you owe alot of money, you're automatically an embezzler or thief. They should remember ass/u/me when trying to use a credit report to justify not hiring me or anyone else who wasn't born with a silver spoon in their mouth. | |
|
Career Tips
|