One In Five Employers Scan Applicants' Web Lives 566
Ned Nederlander writes "CareerBuilder's new survey finds: 'Of those hiring managers who have screened job candidates via social networking profiles, one-third (34 percent) reported they found content that caused them to dismiss the candidate from consideration.' Some red flags: content about applicant using drugs or drinking, inappropriate photos and bad-mouthing former bosses."
Only 20%?? (Score:5, Interesting)
What About the Good Things? (Score:5, Interesting)
On the other hand, social networking profiles gave some job seekers an edge over the competition. Twenty-four percent of hiring managers who researched job candidates via social networking sites said they found content that helped to solidify their decision to hire the candidate. Top factors that influenced their hiring decision included:
Some of the numbers on this article have to be wrong ... 22% shared sensitive information from their prior employer ... ?! What could that be?
Re:Interview process improvement (Score:5, Interesting)
Why? The information's both public and readily available. If someone's application for employment is dismissed because they appear to be a drunken stoner that enjoys whining about former employers then...why should the prospective employer not be aware of it?
If it was something that they obtained through the use of private detectives, or contacting previous employers then, maybe, fair enough the applicant should be warned. But if they're stupid enough to post any form of incriminating material online what makes you think they'd heed the warning in the first place?
Re:Interview process improvement (Score:3, Interesting)
Actually it's not exactly legal in quite a few US states, (Illinois for example) it can be grounds for discrimination suits. I know of plenty of employers who have been sued for that. Warned in print is not an exception.
However, most people are smart enough to hide their facebook/etc. As a safe bet people should just google themselves.
I do the same thing to my employers (Score:5, Interesting)
It helps me avoid the bad ones and possibly increase my chances with the ones I want.
One interview I casually mentioned seeing a really good performance by a local violin player. I hadn't actually gone, just read a review. I didn't mention I knew she was his daughter, either(she'd married, so different last name). I found that after googling him and finding it in the "thanks" section of her website. That got us to talking about classical music, music magnet schools, etc. After we "shared a common interest", I was a shoe-in compared to the rest of the candidates.
Fortunately, I don't work there anymore and he's since retired:) I did actually listen to some of his daughter's stuff, later, and she /is/ a good violin player.
Re:Think of it from the employer's POV (Score:3, Interesting)
I wouldn't want to employ someone who wasn't on at least one social networking site. It's about the only real proof you can have that someone isn't the sort of person who has nothing in their life besides work. I don't want that sort of person on my team. They're horrible to work with. I want people who socialise - not necessarily with me - but with someone.
Re:Think of it from the employer's POV (Score:2, Interesting)
yup - although I have rejected because of odd FB profiles, about 80% of our candidates from the last trawl we did were on FB and were perfectly normal..
Ouch (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Interview process improvement (Score:4, Interesting)
If someone's application for employment is dismissed because they appear to be a drunken stoner that enjoys whining about former employers then...why should the prospective employer not be aware of it?
What if it's something a little less stereotypical? Say you're a political activist of some stripe. If you are publicly active in the pro-X movement, do you want to be dismissed for a job consideration because the guy checking your resume is anti-X?
I agree that anyone who posts truly embarrassing information online is an idiot. However, the idea that one must balance their freedom to express themselves under their own name against the possibility of offending a prospective employer is chilling and repugnant, IMHO. Not that the Web created that dynamic, but it certainly makes it a bit more pervasive.
Re:Only 20%?? (Score:4, Interesting)
"Your resume likely gets 20 to 30 seconds of eyeball time when a manager or recruiter is scanning through a pile of resumes looking for potential interview candidates."
Cool.... They then spend enough time on my online profile to find out that I've read as much literature as the average English Professor, they will see my publications, they will see me shaking hands with John Glenn, Tiger Teague and Ronald Reagan, they will laugh at my quotes, and then decide not to hire me because I've listed my religious view as "Episcopagan."
Their loss!
Re:and... (Score:4, Interesting)
No, more like people doing actual stupid shit [youtube.com] (not a rickroll, promise).
Re:Silly people (Score:3, Interesting)
Prospective employee's WORK PERFORMANCE should be the measure of employment, not that person's PERSONAL life.
Unless the prospective employee has done something quite public like write a book, it's not possible to gauge their work performance. I have yet to see a bad recommendation from a previous employer, except for the guy that got fired for threatening his boss's wife with rape.
It seems to me like people are looking for a way out of being judged based upon their prior actions. It's not illogical to conclude that if someone is a bad person outside of work, he or she is probably not going to be a good person at work, either.
It's the employer's right to use all available and legal means to determine which employee is best for the job. Being disqualified for having a facebook album dedicated to killing puppies or binge drinking is much more preferable to being disqualified for, say, not being a minority.
my problem (Score:1, Interesting)
My problem is in 1988 I gave my name, phone number etc. to some local Bulletin Board System sysops and my name found its way on a list of local people, so those "in the know" locally (and later nationally) all had my information. In 1994 this information was put on a list with some other people nationally since a small group on IRC didn't like any of us. In 1998, this list was sent by some other guy on IRC (I had stopped using IRC two years before because I was too busy) to another guy who put it in a text magazine. And it is still up there on the net, on two different sites (at least). Also, more or less the same information is available from currently one source if my name is put backwards.
All of this because when I was 15 I was too dumb to keep my information private in order to log onto local BBS's. And because when I was 20, a small group of people on IRC decided they did not like a lot of other people on IRC. 14 years later and the information I gave away 20 years ago at age 15 is hurting my chance of employment.
I see a solution as well. Despite learning my lesson 20 years ago, this information (name, phone # etc.) I gave out 20 years ago is still floating around. So I have tried to keep my name and information from appearing on the web. Thus, this stuff pops up pretty easily when looking for me. The only solution I see is flooding the web with my name - answering IT questions and crap, being uncontroversial.
Re:and... (Score:4, Interesting)
I've done this a few times looking at applicants who kind of seemed a little... seedy. I just looked at their contact information. Saw that they had an e-mail address. Then I said to myself, "Hey! What happens if I google the everything before the @ in their e-mail address?". If I didn't see anything on the first page that actually related to the person in question, then I didn't pass on their resume and application. Remember, not all employers are stupid.
If it's not work-related, it should be off-limits (Score:4, Interesting)
Stuff about applicants' off-hours activities should not be a factor in employment decisions. Unless there's concern for libel of previous employers or detailed nonpublic technical or financial information from previous jobs (thus raising legitimate concerns about disclosure of proprietary information) appears on a Facebook or Myspace page, it shouldn't be considered as part of a hiring decision. It doesn't matter for employment whether someone's a partier on the weekends, or which political party he belongs to; if it's not work-related a manager should not be judging his or her employees on this information.
There needs to be considerably more employee and applicant protections put in place in the U.S. on discrimination based on factors unrelated to job performance. Facebook and Myspace are the least of my worries in this regard; the potential of abuse medical records (presently protected to some extent), credit reports, and criminal records is much greater.
Medical records should be considered off-limits in regards to hiring, firing, and assignment decisions, period. It's already against the law to discriminate against someone who's blind or requires a wheelchair; it should be against the law to not hire someone for non-obvious medical conditions, such as someone with a history of cancer, or to fire someone because they've had a heart attack or are being treated for a mental disorder.
Unless a position routinely involves dealing with large amount (thousands or more) of cash or goods easily convertible to cash (e.g. jewelry or casino chips), an employer has no reason to look at one's credit report. Even in these cases where there is a potential of theft to pay debts and it's reasonable to pull a credit check, there need to be strict ground rules in place on what can be considered from that report. Nothing over two years old, and that's being generous, is relevant to one's current financial situation. The fact that employers can and some do refuse to hire someone because of a personal bankruptcy, a home foreclosure, or other financial difficulties up to 10 years old or more is a disgrace. Though not present on a credit report, there are ways of discovering bankruptcies even older than 10 years, and it's common to see questions like "Have you EVER declared bankruptcy?" on employment application.
And the check of criminal records is an abuse that the government can very easily rein in for most crimes that don't garner press coverage. Why should someone who completed a jail sentence 5 or 10 years ago for drug possession and has remained clean ever since or while drunk got out of control and ended up with an assault and battery have to be continually haunted by such a mistake? Once someone's served a setence for a crime, that person should be entitled to another chance to become a productive member of society without artificial barriers to success. While it's reasonable for a DA's office or the courts to check someone's priors for the purpose of determining appropriate punishment for an offense, there's no reason it's relevant for an employer that an applicant broke the law in his past. Marginalizing felons and other criminals can lead to further crimes; if someone's mistake dooms them to a McJob for a long time, they may very well be tempted to enter more lucrative and illegal operations. If someone's currently on probation or parole for an offense, that's reasonable to consider. However once the sentence is done, the record on for charge should be sealed to all except for those in the courts with a need to know.
To those who say don't post to Myspace, Facebook, or any other site, that's a reasonable start. But what happens if you decide to go to a friend's wild party and your name and a questionable photo (even if it's just a beer can in your hand and some empties around) pops up on that friend's site when a company does a web search on you? Or you decide to campaign for someone opposing the candidate whom your employer endorsed (and possibly contributed to) and show up as a point of contact for that campaign? There's only so much you can do to limit your web presence, and the only way to keep abuse from happening is to say that one's personal life is off-limits. All of it.
Re:and... (Score:4, Interesting)
At a previous job one of the applicants I interviewed had put his personal web page on his resume - entry-level job, we were looking for someone straight out of college.
The kid didn't get the job, but after we decided we didn't want to make him an offer, we took a look at his page. It was almost exclusively pictures of him drinking, hanging out in bars and fraternities, etc. Just confirmed our decision.
What you do on your own time is your business, but pictures like that are not a good first impression. Perhaps if he'd written an interesting web app to display those pictures, it'd have given us some idea of his skills. But nope - just basic HTML & thumbnails pointing to the full-size pictures.
Putting pictures of yourself drinking online - maybe foolish.
Handing a prospective employer the URL to those pictures on YOUR RESUME? That's just stupid.
Re:Silly people (Score:3, Interesting)
Here's one for ya, without a facebook account your friends posting pictures with you in them and tagging them with your name can be searched for by everyone, whereas if you had an account you could make your name un-searchable by anyone you haven't previously approved.
Not to rain on your whole "I'm a privacy maverick" parade, but if the reason you don't use social networking sites is because you just don't like them then damn well say THAT, instead of making up nonsense.
I'll bite... (Score:3, Interesting)
...cause I'm totally fucked.
I posted a whole bunch of shit on various internet sites over the years. Everything from illicit drug usage, to my odd political leanings - and totally doing it under my real name (or nickname that can easily be traced to my real name). I honestly felt I hit the point of no return and just started to embrace the fact I'm not anonymous, and I'm all over the fucking place.
I have a love/hate relationship with Google - I love being able to find any piece of information I want quickly, but I hate the hopeless feeling of removing search results that I had even written myself.
In the end - I don't fucking care.
It worried me before, and still does a bit today. But in the end, if it means that I can have the freedom to express my thoughts online, I'll settle on mopping floors for the rest of my life ... even if I have some obscure degree in optics.
Apparently the business world doesn't believe in freedom of expression. You're supposed to shut the fuck up, do your work, go home, spend time with your family, fuck your wife/girlfriend (or not...?), watch TV and go back to work the next day. But most of the people who are managers are assholes pieces of shit, so I have no remorse over this. I find it odd that the employer that had the biggest balls to say to my face that they don't want me back was a woman. All the men just called the temp agency to ditch me. I think that taught me the most about the business world. Male managers are pussies, female managers have balls.
Otherwise....
You are fucked if you admit to doing drugs. You are fucked if you admit to liking sex. You are fucked if you admit to hating the President. You are fucked if you admit to hating the police. You are fucked if you show any sense of rebellion to anything ... the employers will search your name, they will read your postings, and by default you lose. Even if they agree with everything you write.
I like using Alan Turing as an example. He spent probably countless nights doing research to help defeat the Nazi's - but it doesn't matter cause he's gay. The law at the time said being gay is illegal, so some pieces of shit decided to conspire against him, and started a process that basically led him to his suicide...
If you rebel to any facet of society that some bare majority - let's say even 51% objects to - they will make your life hell.
It's best to just assume no one Googled your name, and just keep living life ... it just sucks when people start doing things that make you feel like you're going through some awful acid trip, and the totally improbable starts happening for some reason.
Anyone who judges someone from a bunch of random postings online when it comes to a job really needs to rethink their priorities. Come on, I can do a good job mopping floors... why do employers care if I like to smoke weed and get drunk from time to time? Don't they? That must be an awfully large pickle to have up their ass if they do care....
I think employers should start bringing up internet search results during interviews. At least you get a chance to defend yourself. As if I remember everything I wrote online back in 1998 ...
Gotta love things like, having posted comments that support actions like killing your own military officers, while thinking about applying as a military officer 8 years later. heh let's talk about reasons for not applying for a job....
heh in a week's time this will get even more awesome as I put a research proposal forward.
Re:Rejected for drinking? (Score:3, Interesting)
Some possible entries:
"Tried the Chateau LaFoot Snootschild '91 at the wine tasting last night. It's quite good but nowhere near worth the $200/bottle price. I prefer a California Zinfandel anyway".
"Went to Smith's party last night; he had just finished a batch of his homebrew; it's pretty good stuff. I'd love to be able to do that but my wife objects to filling the basement with fermentation tanks"
"Met up with some old friends from college, had a few beers down at our old favorite hangout. Now I've got a major hangover; guess I can't drink like I used to back in the day".
Which of these shows you haven't grown up, exactly?
Re:Only 20%?? (Score:3, Interesting)
If you had ever had a social life, you would see the fallacy of this assumption.
Weirdly though, 20% of all hiring managers seem to agree with you.
Re:and... (Score:2, Interesting)
The kid didn't get the job, but after we decided we didn't want to make him an offer, we took a look at his page. It was almost exclusively pictures of him drinking, hanging out in bars and fraternities, etc. Just confirmed our decision.
No, it doesn't confirm your decision - a single anecdote hardly proves correlation, let alone causation. If you'd already made up your mind not to hire him, it's easy to pick on all sorts of pointless things ("it then turned out he had a Slashdot account - just confirmed our decision!").
The more interesting question is, what if you decided you wanted to hire him, and then saw his web page. Would you have turned him down?
If yes, I say more fool you. It may be stupid to show potential employers such URLs, given that they make such judgements - OTOH, that someone might go out to "bars" (especially when at young and at University) is hardly shocking or special, and it's equally stupid to judge them on this.
If no, then it's not true that it makes a difference.