Europe Says Employers Must Warn Job Applicants Before Checking Them Out on Social Media (cnn.com) 221
Europe has a message for employers: Think twice before you check the social media profiles of job applicants. From a report: European officials have issued new guidelines that warn bosses about the legal hazards of scrolling through the social media profiles of potential hires. The rules require employers to issue a disclaimer before they check applicants' online accounts, including Facebook, Instagram, Snapchat, Twitter and LinkedIn. If applicants don't see the warning, the company could be in breach of European Union data protection rules. Employers are also barred from compiling social media data as part of the hiring process unless it is "necessary and relevant" for a particular job. The guidelines are part of a lengthy document clarifying data protection laws that apply to employers across 28 EU countries.
Comment removed (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Understand that there is a HUGE difference about how people in the EU and in the US think about privacy.
In the US if it isn't public, it is private. In the EU if it isn't private, it is public.
Not really, trying to put this nicely, but you don't understand much about Europeans.
In Europe (and most developed countries) there are clear definitions of public and private. Public is usually a government provided thing. We tend to have stricter definitions of private, Facebook, LinkedIn, et al. are private even though you don't need to go to great lengths to access the information. We tend to count whether you want the data to be private, not whether privacy is enforced.
Now this law, you need to r
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
This is one thing that Europe gets right. Americans are so brainwashed into thinking they're all temporarily displaced billionaires that they just have this instinctive negative reaction to ideas and laws that might actually protect them. It's sickening really, considering that the time of best prosperity in this country was one of heavy marginal taxation on upper incomes (no, a 90% tax rate does NOT mean you give 90% of your money to the government), strong worker protections, strong unionization, a gove
Re: (Score:2)
The world is watching the U.S. but the U.S. is only government spying on the world.
Re: (Score:2)
Europeans think more like:
'How much of my life/self do I have to give up for this X?' In the US we're more like: 'How much money can I make with this X?''
Huh. I guess that I and most of the people I know are secret Europeans!
Ye Olde Checkbox... (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
I've worked in four states and have always had that option when asking for a background check. I work in high-security areas, so all my jobs have done a check (all states I've lived in and federal). I've always received a copy.
Re: (Score:2)
Its known thieves they are looking for. They also disqualify anyone that isnt truthful about what the background check will find.
Enforcement??? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You check standard hiring practice. You can't catch one HR bending the rules, but you can punish companies with written policies that are clearly illegal. If the rule breaking is only ttaught in seminars, often somebody tapes it to protect themselves, and if they ever have issues with the company leaks it.
Re: (Score:2)
I do not think you understand the impracticality of that.... considering that many jobs can have dozens or sometimes even hundreds of applicants, doing that for every single person that didn't get the job is prohibitively expensive, especially when it is unlikely to reveal anything fruitful in the first place. When one doesn't get a job they applied for, the most obvious reason is probabl
Re: (Score:2)
For starters, you only need to do that for the person who DID get hired.
Also, you only need to bust the employer once to start a legal investigation.
Re: (Score:2)
Right... but that's further assuming that there's even any evidence that the employer did it.
Because you know, cookies and browsing histories are just soo hard to delete. Heck, who is to say they even used a company computer?
Re: (Score:2)
That's where statistical analysis might help.
Is company X only hiring young people, despite applicants coming from all age categories?
Is company only hiring non-smokers?
Is company only hiring this and that type of people?
Are rejected applicants sharing some social media parameters that might lead to the suspicion that company X is screening them using this method?
et caetera.
Re: (Score:2)
I do not think you understand the impracticality of that
I do not think you understand the impracticality of hiring in Europe.
Re: (Score:2)
I never used the word "inconceivable", you did. I said it was impractical, because in reality, nearly any investigation would generally only reveal that the most obvious reason why person A didn't get the job: because they hired person Z, is actually all there is to it.
To suggest otherwise would obligate any employer to be required to hire any and all applicants that represented any kind of visible minority, because of the allegation that any refusal to hire them must always be on account of their race
Re: (Score:2)
There are plenty of secretaries that hate their boss and their job and sent out letters with a sinister smile that contain: "We have to dismiss your application because of (pregnancy, being gay, jewish, black, your last facebook post)" (pick one)
And they will attest in court that the boss said so (obviously they were not supposed to put that into the letter).
And you can not even fire the secretary for attesting in court against the boss.
You can only "urge her to leave" and give her/him a nice payout.
Re: (Score:2)
Of course... because browsing histories are so impossible to obscure or delete.
And even if they weren't... if businesses felt that their browsing histories would be subject to scrutiny, they would use non-business computers to do browsing that they didn't want anyone else to know about.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
And if the employer denies both of them, which is likely, if there are many other applicants, what have you proven?
And how do you go about proving that the employer checked the person's social media account, when they deny it and no record exists of the employer having done it?
Yet another reason to not overshare (Score:4, Insightful)
I'm sure businesses will still look, but the rule means they'll have to find some other reason to not give people the job, offer a promotion, or fire them.
What surprises me is that there's ample evidence out there that companies search people's social network profiles -- some do it casually and others do it as a formal part of the HR process. Why hasn't it sunk in with average job seekers that oversharing on their public profiles is a bad idea? I've noticed that LinkedIn posts, comments, etc. are getting more controversial since they redesigned the site as a Facebook clone. Why would anyone risk taking themselves out of the running for a job by posting an opinion on something that their potential future employer doesn't like?
The truth is that your social media profiles, if they exist, have to be as boring as possible if you want to be the ultimate drop-in replacement employee these days. HR departments have hundreds of applicants for each job and every reason in the book to narrow the pool. If you post a million pictures of your kids, you might not be perceived as a workaholic team player. If you post rowdy drunk pictures, you might be perceived as a walking latent lawsuit. Political and religious opinions are huge red flags because you never know who you're going to upset. Your public social media profiles need to be totally clean, but they do need to exist -- because then you might be perceived as a hermit. :-)
Re: (Score:2)
Or maybe companies should stop acting like stalkers and that they own you and should have control over your personal life? Yeah, I know, that's just crazy. How dare employees expect to have a life outside the purview of their employer.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Getting fired is one thing - getting past the HR filter to get hired is another: ...But once you get to the human, that human will review your resume and possibly a bunch of other factors (like social media) to determine whether or not the resume makes it to the hiring manager's pile.
- Most big companies use resume keyword scanners like Taleo to do the first cut, so getting to a human HR person is the first hurdle...
-
If your resume makes it to Step 2, and you're equally matched with another candidate, the H
Re: (Score:2)
"they'll have to find some other reason to not give people the job"
And that reason would be that they picked somebody else. Done.
Re: (Score:2)
There is a great incentive not to look at employees' social media profiles because if discovered (browser history, social media companies reporting it to users etc) it could be extremely bad for them.
Re: (Score:2)
Looks like a dead letter (Score:3)
'The rules require employers to issue a disclaimer before they check applicants' online accounts, including Facebook, Instagram, Snapchat, Twitter and LinkedIn. If applicants don't see the warning, the company could be in breach of European Union data protection rules'.
That doesn't really change anything. The would-be employee is then in the position of a man in a secure cell awaiting execution in the morning. He knows what's going to happen, but he can't change it. If you could change your social media postings in retrospect, that might make some difference - but of course you can't.
'Employers are also barred from compiling social media data as part of the hiring process unless it is "necessary and relevant" for a particular job'.
As determined by the employer, of course. I have enough experience with corporations - big and small - to understand that this kind of clause is nothing more than window dressing. It makes things look better, but changes nothing in practice.
The key issue is not about reading a person's online profile - anyone can do that. It's about forming judgments about someone's suitability for employment based on the profile.
It seems to me that the US and European views of the matter differ very markedly. Americans, as far as I can gather, tend to think that the employer should have full discretion to hire and fire at will. Europeans, rightly or wrongly, look for some kind of standards of fairness. You shouldn't be turned down for employment because someone disliked the way you look, or speak, or the colour of your skin or your religion. Or because you wrote something online that the employer found annoying.
It all depends on whether you believe people should have a right to employment on decent terms. If not, all this legislation should be repealed.
Europe demonstrates why it's a far better place... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
European nations have their faults as well, so I'd dial that back a bit. That said, it seems pretty clear the the US is currently in decline (and that decline is accelerating), and many European nations are advancing.
Much ado about nothing... (Score:2)
FTA: "The rules require employers to issue a disclaimer before they check applicants' online accounts"
So part of the application process will be a statement that "by submitting your application you agree that the company may view your public account on social media sites."
Why is this a big deal? I always do light research candidates online, it's a way of validating what is on their resume. I've even had co-workers with spouses/friends who work at the places where the candidates are, and I've gotten feedb
Um, LinkedIn (Score:2)
LinkedIn is on the list of online accounts you aren't allowed to check.
I had one recent applicant put a link to their LinkedIn profile on their resume.
funny how that works (Score:2)
By the way, this is incredibly dumb. It's out in public on the public internet. You don't need to warn them that you're viewing public info.
Where is the source on this? (Score:2)
I went to the CNN page, but they didn't give us a source on this either. Anyone have a link to the source on this?
Easy way around all of that (Score:2)
Don't use social media, or at the very least, don't use social media in a way that can be connected to you. It works for me.
In isolation it sounds weird.... (Score:2)
Without context and in isolation this will probably sound weird for most people, but what it really represents is that employers should judge job applicants only on stuff that applicants are aware of and in control.
It's a single thing that composes a set of laws on fair and equal opportunity for employment... which will probably get into a far more comprehensive set of discussions, but just so people know.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:My my (Score:4, Interesting)
I mean, I do believe, that pretty much anything you do outside of work that doesn't directly affect the business...should be off limits.
I also believe that companies should be banned from asking for credentials to log into social media, etc accounts.
However, I'm not sure I have a problem with the business' HR searching through publicly available data a person self publishes for the world.
I mean, if someone is stupid enough to post a bunch of party pictures with him sucking a skull bong in areas where this behavior is still illegal....well, that says more than a persons habit, that they are not smart enough that they should know this should be kept private, a lack of common sense you might say.
I think weed should be legalized in all the US...I don't believe in drug tests....but if you're job depends on not doing that activity, and you self "incriminate" online...well, that says you're kinda stupid and maybe not the type of employee someone would want.
As I've mentioned before, I personally take it even further, in that I have no social media accounts, and have never signed up for any to date.
I've always been concerned about this from decades back that it could impact my bottom line $$...and my livelyhood vs someones cat pics, just isn't worth it to me.
Besides, all the people that I want to converse with, know how to reach me...and we try as often as possible to get together in meatspace. We only use texting/email...and yes, even voice calls to arrange the more important face to face times.
Re:My my (Score:4, Insightful)
It's not about legal versus illegal.
When a business hires me, they hire my expertise and business behavior. They don't own the whole lot of me.
Here's an example: I'm a metalhead. Let's assume I publicly post on Facebook a picture of my face looking angry at the camera, with my hair loose, partially covering my face and a black background. Nothing else. Let's say this is my profile picture.
Then this picture of me in a specific posture (say, an imitation of whichever metal singer I like) is being looked at by my company XYZ prospective boss, who's a Michael Bolton fan who despises metalheads. He's going to reject my application for absolutely no business reason. Of course, nobody's going to even hint to the true reason, they'll say "your skills are not exactly what we need" or whatever bullshit they have to say to make the rejection look legal.
This expands to vegans rejecting meat eaters, non-smokers rejecting smokers, abstinents rejecting drinkers, leftists rejecting rightists, this type of sexual minority rejecting that type of sexual minority and everything in between.
If any of us go ahead and browse our colleagues' public social media information, we're bound to find numerous images, posts, videos which we dislike, and mutter "I wouldn't have hired this person". The difference being that while you don't have that power, others do, and shit can roll both ways. Today you're on one end of the stick, tomorrow you can be on the other.
"Don't post publicly", you say? Social media is all about making connections. Maybe you want to find people who think alike, and you want them to find you too. Posting publicly "I like this black metal band" doesn't make you a satanist... unless your overly-religious prospective manager thinks so and rejects your application because it doesn't fit his winged angels wet dream.
Re: (Score:2)
I hear this all the time...and frankly I"m stumped.
Like I mentioned, I don't do social media, yet I have NO shortage of friends or ability to find people interested in things I like.
I just go out and MEET them. I like some metal too, I go to shows and meet people when I'm there. I like photography, I found a photography group in town....etc.
I find that friends I meet by doing
Re: (Score:2)
My Facebook account is private, has no picture and is mainly used for me to look at pictures of family members who are living abroad.
That doesn't mean Facebook is NOT for finding other people or letting other people find someone.
The fact you or me aren't using it or are using it for limited, specific interaction doesn't change the role of social media as a whole.
That's one aspect.
Another one is that if you want to meet people from around the world, with similar interests as you have, social media is the fas
Re: (Score:2)
I agree the term "friend" is VERY loosely used on Facebook, to the extent it lost any sort of meaningful value, however "social media" includes any online community. Forums, discussion boards, hell even Slashdot fits the bill.
Re: (Score:2)
I've been using the Net to meet and converse with strangers I'll never meet for over 25 years now. I find the ability to build a virtual community fascinating.
Re: (Score:2)
In Europe even access to public data is regulated. For example, a credit reference agency can't bypass limits on reporting things like bankruptcy by pointing to publicly available news reports. Banks can't use such information, even if they have it, to make decisions (although it can be hard to prove).
Re: (Score:2)
I also believe that companies should be banned from asking for credentials to log into social media, etc accounts.
They aren't? Where I live, this would be illegal.
Re: (Score:2)
Really?
Why?
Do people not know some people value privacy still these days?
I know it isn't a problem when applying for jobs that require a clearance......it is actually a big PLUS.
Re: My my (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Two reasons. 1) For the same reason people find it suspicious if you exercise your 5th Amendment rights... only criminals have something to hide. False, of course, but plenty of people who have never been charged with a crime or had their privacy invaded think it is an easy thing to give up.
Privacy is a funny thing. Because so many people don't understand where it starts and ends. And it doesn't exist on the internet. I don't post anything on line that I wouldn't say in person. So it's all good. Anything I feel is not for sharing is not there.
Re: (Score:2)
Then you are an idiot.
99% of my friends have none. Unless you consider soundcloud a social media site.
We are all to old.
I use facebook to be in a big Aikido community. 90% of my facebook connections are Aikidoka like I am. Except for the occasional party picture after an Aikido event, most posts are about seminars of teachers we find interesting.
If I would not practice Aikido, and Sailing, i would not be on facebook.
There is no single photo of me on FB that I have posted myself. I'm only posted and tagged b
Re: (Score:2)
If I am an HR department and fund that you don't have a social media account I may actually find it highly suspicious.
Great, you'll save me from making the mistake of working for your business.
Any chance you could also require applications in Word format, or better yet via some obscure and awkward online form that only your organisation uses, so I can also avoid wasting any time accidentally applying?
Re: (Score:2)
That means that in the US, you would consider 20% of the population "highly suspicious".
Re: (Score:2)
I don't really count /. as a social media forum.
Its just a bulletin board you can spout off on....not a place you make connections.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:My my (Score:5, Insightful)
It actually makes perfect sense. Would you like to be disqualified from a job for something that you do on your free time that is perfectly legal, and in no way related to your job, but your employer finds objectionable?
For instance, I am a biker. I go to biker bars. I go to various bike week events. I take pictures. I post them on Facebook so that my biker friends can enjoy them, and am not ashamed of any of them even a little bit. All of which is perfectly legal and in no way related to my job or performance as an IT person. What if my employer is a prude and doesn't like the fact that I have pictures of bikini clad women on my Facebook and decides not to hire me, or even worse, fire me, solely based on their prudishness? How I choose to spent my free time is none of my employer's business as long as it does not impact my work.
For me, personally, that won't be an issue because I keep my account on private and I would never agree to give my credentials to any potential employer. I also do not "friend" people from work. For others, that might not be the case.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It actually makes perfect sense. Would you like to be disqualified from a job for something that you do on your free time that is perfectly legal, and in no way related to your job, but your employer finds objectionable?
As a non-private thing, I don't post anything on social media that I think would be an issue. I'm a biker as well, but aside from photos of my ride, my Social media pages have my photography, which is mostly flowers. And all that is available for the world. It's just that I figure that people are trying to bend th einternet into something that it never was.
Re: (Score:2)
That *does* have an impact on your performance as a restaurant to me.
What I do in my spare time does not have an impact on how I do my job.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: My my (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: My my (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Seriously, spring for some remedial reading courses at your local community college. Well worth the investment for you. Also look up the meaning for "precious snowflake" in the context of an online forum.
But back to your train wreck of an argument: I'm not saying there isn't a server monkey who hasn't snorted cocaine with his boss and kept his job, I'm saying there is none who has done that and posted a picture of it on Facebook. Or if there was and he did, I can pretty much guarantee he was fired -- and
Re: My my (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
What are you talking about? [A] What has this to do with social media, and [B] I've never been laid and always left a job of my own accord and on great terms.
And why are you posting as an AC if being "cowardly" is such a big negative for you?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Because both have nothing to do with each other?
Re: (Score:2)
Do you really think that how a person chooses to handle their own personal information has any bearing whatsoever on how they would handle company information?
Because that's ludicrous.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Anti-homosexual discrimination in employment is perfectly legal in most places, including most of the USA. So, no, it isn't different.
No.
Re: (Score:3)
That's not even close to being true.
And even if it is illegal, you'd have to prove that's why you were passed over. That's a tough nut to crack.
Re: My my (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
For me, personally, that won't be an issue because I keep my account on private ...
I use the services of a private investigator to check into the background of potential new hires.
Did you hire another PI to investigate the background of the first private investigator?
Re: (Score:2)
Bottom line, trusting anything to remain private on this planet is foolhardy.
You don't need a Facebook account to be on Facebook. In many cases you can find photos of a person by just knowing their spouse, family members or close friends. I recently found a picture of myself on Yelp because a friend posted a photo of us in a bar. I was marginally involved with my 20 year high school reunion planning and many people were tracked down through family members who were on Facebook or LinkedIn.
Re: (Score:2)
Fortunately, it's not as simple as that. Try that attitude in a tribunal/court on someone who is older but perfectly well qualified for the job as advertised if you like, but bring your company cheque book.
Re: (Score:2)
In my experience, it is as simple as that. As long as you have some half-assed excuse for not hiring, you're probably in the clear.
Re: (Score:2)
The problem is that jobs are not always available. I've had to work places I would rather not have before, between jobs I like.
Re: (Score:2)
Wife worked for a county DA's office at one time.
Had a case of a drive-by shooting where one of the defendants claimed she was not involved with any gang/gang-like activity. Investigator for DA's office found her FB/MySpace account that had pictures of the defendant pointing/handling firearms and wearing gang colors.
People put stupid shit on social media. I am not saying that businesses shouldn't be able to check, just saying that it isn't that weird that people post shit on social media.
Re: (Score:2)
Wife worked for a county DA's office at one time.
Had a case of a drive-by shooting where one of the defendants claimed she was not involved with any gang/gang-like activity. Investigator for DA's office found her FB/MySpace account that had pictures of the defendant pointing/handling firearms and wearing gang colors.
People put stupid shit on social media. I am not saying that businesses shouldn't be able to check, just saying that it isn't that weird that people post shit on social media.
People who are likely to be criminals, share a trait called criminal stupidity. So it isn't surprising that they would incriminate themselves. Certainly someone being charged with a crime should expect to be looked at.
Re: (Score:2)
'People who are likely to be criminals, share a trait called criminal stupidity. '
Indeed. Like Donald Jr. 'Fredo' Trump, stupid, weak and traitorous.
That's a Roger!
Re: (Score:3)
It happens all the time that the role you play with respect to someone changes what you can do with or to them. For example by default you can have sex with anyone who is willing, but if you're their psychotherapist that's grounds for malpractice and having your licensed revoked.
You can by default gossip about people; any information that came into your hands legally is fair game for passing on. Unless you are that person's lawyer.
Saying that as an employer or prospective employer you're restricted in the
Re: (Score:2)
So even though any of us can check out anyone else's pages on say, Facebook a business cannot?
There's also a lot of questions that an individual can ask you that a business is not allowed to ask you during an interview. This is already established certainly in the US and I would expect most likely in Europe.
They're not allowed to ask if you're married for example, or how old you are (facebook normally has that information so perhaps a lawyer could argue they are breaking the law by going to facebook in the first place).
Re: (Score:2)
Really?
I seem to recall on job applications there being a place to fill in your marital status, and your DOB....?
It's been awhile since I last filled one out (I'm self employed 1099 contractor now)....but I know I've seen this on applications in the past...?
The DOB for sure.
Re: (Score:2)
Really?
I seem to recall on job applications there being a place to fill in your marital status, and your DOB....?
It's been awhile since I last filled one out (I'm self employed 1099 contractor now)....but I know I've seen this on applications in the past...?
The DOB for sure.
Age, Children, Marital status... whether you drink socially or smoke. I think there are a few other questions they're not supposed to ask you before hiring you.
It may not be technically illegal to ask the question but might as well be; you can be sued if you ask those questions and don't give the person a job. As it is legal precedent that denying someone a job after asking those questions breaks other hiring rules. You can't refuse to hire someone on any of those grounds.
Re: (Score:2)
Age, Children, Marital status... whether you drink socially or smoke. I think there are a few other questions they're not supposed to ask you before hiring you.
It may not be technically illegal to ask the question but might as well be; you can be sued if you ask those questions and don't give the person a job. As it is legal precedent that denying someone a job after asking those questions breaks other hiring rules. You can't refuse to hire someone on any of those grounds.
Kowing that those questions have a certain importance, I always put that sort of thing right on a resume. Marital status, children, number of years married.Also that I was not averse to travel, and highly focused on job completion. And if I was female, I'd let them know my plans for a family, which they are not allowed to ask. But can be a real plus at hiring time.
I think that not being allowed to ask questions like those make hiring of women much more complex - like the woman at work who was hired, then
Re: (Score:2)
[quote]And being replaced during her time off by wage payroll women, three other women lost their jobs every time she came back.[/quote]
So you mean that your one fecund coworker was doing the work of three other people when she was working? Sounds like she was well worth keeping, then.
No, what happened was that each time she became pregnant, and left work a bit before the child was due, then took a year off, the work she was doing still needed done, so some ladies were hired to do that work while she was away. But she had to get her job back by policy when she wanted to return. So in each case, a woman lost her job every time this woman came back to work. It's one example of the law of unintended consequence. Certainly on the face of it, it makes sense that a woman would be eligible to
Re: (Score:2)
I seem to recall on job applications there being a place to fill in your marital status, and your DOB....?
Not on any of the applications I've filled out in the last couple of decades. That information is asked for after the hire is made, but not before.
Re: (Score:3)
Those crazy Europeans, trying to restrict the ability of their immortal intangible uber-wealthy corporation citizens to pry into the lives of mere mortals!
Re: (Score:2)
People behave like Facebook and Twitter is only read by their family and friends. The EU is acknowledging this behavior. You imply that people are rational. The are not and we in the EU take this illogical and emotional behavior into account. And no disagreement is not a hate crime, as we also have free speech.
Re: (Score:2)
People behave like Facebook and Twitter is only read by their family and friends. The EU is acknowledging this behavior. You imply that people are rational. The are not and we in the EU take this illogical and emotional behavior into account. And no disagreement is not a hate crime, as we also have free speech.
No you don't have free speech. Look into the german hate speech laws. You don't have to threaten anyone, you are simply writing forbidden words, and can be arrested and punished for it.
As for your first point, are you saying that Europe must protect the posting freedom of something inherently not private by pretending it is private because stupid people think it is private?
Darn Europe - you weird.
Re: (Score:2)
My facebook posts only my friends see or members of the group in which I post.
You must have a weird idea how facebook works.
OTOH plenty of facebook users have "wrong privacy settings".
Re: (Score:2)
My facebook posts only my friends see or members of the group in which I post. You must have a weird idea how facebook works.
Perhaps it isn't me with the weird idea how Facebook "works". But hey, it's all perfectly private as long as they tell ya it is, yes no?
Re: (Score:2)
No idea what you are talking about?
'Friends' making screenshots and distributing tem to 'non friends'?
My privacy settings make you not see anything from me, except that I have an account ... go figure.
Re: (Score:2)
No idea what you are talking about?
True enough.
It's essentially illegal in the U.S. except... (Score:2)
There are a variety of personal questions that employers are barred from asking a candidate:
* How old are you?
* Are you married?
* Are you LGBTQ?
* Do you have kids?
* Do you own a car? (unless the job requires a personal vehicle)
That's just the tip of the iceberg. Yet the employer is free to look you up on social media and find the answers to many of those questions without your knowing. They can find even more personal details and possibly see who your friends are. This is way more invasive than the
Re: (Score:2)
So lets obliterate the moon, ban cooking, and only allow electricity in government buildings.
So the end game is North Korea?
Re: (Score:2)
You beat the system by being unemployable.
Or you create your own job, as employers don't have to jump through the same hoops as employees.
Re: (Score:2)
Is that you John McAfee?
That's a bit of a silly question. Of course he isn't John McAfee! Do you think John McAfee would be on Slashdot with a bunch of losers?
No, he's always too drunk to log in,
Re: (Score:2)
The whole argument of "what I do in my private time is my business, as long as it doesn't affect my work" is preposterous.
How so? If it doesn't affect my work, why would it be any business of my employer?
Let's say that you have a perfect employee who likes frequenting bars right after work, and one day get his laptop stolen from their car...wouldn't you like to know how much "work" goes with them.
If you are taking company materials or communications off premises without adequate security, then you are not a "perfect employee" and the problem isn't that you enjoy going to bars.
What about someone who is wearing a jacket with the company logo on it while harassing women somewhere...
In what way would that reflect on the company? Do you mean that when someone behaves despicably while wearing Pepsi-branded clothing you think less of Pepsi?