Hey Paul, surely the same brilliant mind that crafted the original message and it's asinine assumptions can come-up with something more relevant to share than your flippant and arrogant 'good night'.
Speaking of "off the cuff assumptions and speculative what-ifs", lets look at your post.
"For example, I would give a blog on myspace chastising my lunch hour shenanigans with the receptionist about as much weight as I would the same article on the National Enquirer." - YOUR OPINION. When AAA fired 27 employees for their myspace.com activity, they seem to be taking it seriously.
"Just because someone posts something on cyberspace and ten more clowns join in on the relatively anonymous and safe bandwagon at the expense of someone else doesn't make it valid nor does it make it something worth spending time on." - Again, YOUR OPINION. In 2005, a court compelled an ISP to reveal the identities of four posters who were making defamatory statements about the plaintiff in their blogs. Here is the link: [url]http://www.phillipsnizer.com/library/cases/lib_case395.cfm[/url] Anonymous? Not any more.
"Just because a behemoth like Google accepts the risk (I beg anyone to tell me there's no more inherent risk in this move than a traditional at-will termination) and fires an employee for trashing them on a blog does NOT translate into carte blanche for us to follow suit." - HUH? Who is saying that we should follow Googles example. We are just discussing a developing issue.
Ok, myspace continues to roll on. Business Week and others have now coined the term "Generation Myspace" to refer to the teens and early 20 somethings who communicate online, buy online, and pretty much live out their lives online.
Note in the article how ee's who don't even have computer terminals would jump on to the terminals of co-workers to check their myspace page whenever the co-worker stepped out of the office.
A couple friends I know who hire staff for summer youth camps have added myspace questions to their applications.
Would you want to see an applicant's personal blog before hiring them?
"Would you want to see an applicant's personal blog before hiring them?"
Not unless it was somehow relevant to the job. Perhaps if it was a self-designed, self-hosted piece of work and I was considering them for some sort of technical or even artistic type of position. Even then, surely they could provide a portfolio that did not include a personal blog. I would imagine this would open doors that we'd rather not open.
I guess I'll break the rules here (sorry Paul x;-)) and answer a question with a question. Why would we want to look at an applicant's personal blog prior to hiring them?
Its a good question Gene. I am not totally comfortable with looking at applicant's blogs or myspace pages. Even though they are publicly posted, I still feel like its intrusive.
Companies that hire for positions where the person's character is an important consideration would be one example I could think of.
Let's say your church was hiring a youth pastor. Would you want to check the applicant's myspace page if you could?
Yes, and you might also want to know what's in the glove box of his VW, the year and circumstances under which he lost his virginity and especially his personal views on masturbation. You can never be too careful when you're prying into people's private lives.
Sarcasm aside, you raise good points Paul, however, I would honestly have to draw the line somewhere. I think checking personal blogs is no more or less intrusive than asking them to share their sexual turn-ons.
The dilema you raise does have its merits, however, I am not convinced it rises to the level of intruding on someone's private life.
Privacy issues are always a tough call as it is always hard to know where to draw the line.
I probably will never be put in a position of feeling like I need to check out someone's blog before I hire them. But if I were hiring a youth pastor, I might want to. In that case, I would probably mention my curiousity to the applicant. Since applicants sign off all the time on us doing background checks, and since a blog is very public (not like reading their diary) their reaction could be very telling. If they don't want me to see it, that will tell me a lot. If they don't mind, then I can feel ok about checking it out. And any checking I did would be of the briefest kind. Of course, they might not want me to but feel that they have to say ok. I wouldn't like that either, but...
As I said, I will probably never be in that position. I like HR, but if I ever leave here it will probably be back to an accounting job.
[font size="1" color="#FF0000"]LAST EDITED ON 01-30-06 AT 03:07PM (CST)[/font][br][br]>"I think checking personal blogs is no more or less intrusive than asking them to share their sexual turn-ons."
You can't be serious. Someone that posts a blog on public domain is, by definition, granting access to anyone, including prospective employers, to read the material and draw conclusions about the writer. Asking someone about their sexual turn-ons is just this side of wierd and irrelevant. But if you hand me your portfolio of writings, or I read your blog, it's fair game as to how much of an issue I want to make of your writings and rantings.
It's ironic that people are posting so much info about themselves at a time when privacy is such a huge concern.
I think some people have mistaken the idea of free speech to mean "speech without consequences".
Attitude is a huge part of an ee's ability to succeed and work with others. Isn't a blog or myspace page a great way to get a sense of what kind of attitude the person has? Is the person a whiner? Is the person thoughtful and well spoken? Is the person petty and mean spirited?
Isn't that called "good recruiting and screening practices"? If someone posts a bunch of on-line lunatic, wild-ass rantings about.... anything, I'm thinking twice about their suitability to work at our company.
As someone who participates regularly on several blogs, I can attest that there are lunatics out there, people I would not want to work with. It is so easy to hide behind the keyboard and computer screen and say absolutely anything you want with no fear of reprisal, so people will say the most outrageous things, but they are public records. We ask on applications if an applicant has been convicted of any crimes. Realistically, if I see an applicant has been convicted of a violent crime I steer clear. Likewise, if I know someone is posting on a blog in support of violence, I would want to know that too.
There is a distinct difference between information that we may have about a candidate which would lead us to base a hiring decision on and blatantly encroaching upon someone's private life. The original question/comment was about specifically asking about mysapce blogs and then looking at them as part of the selection criteria.
Would I hire a guy that I regularly see at violent skin head rallies? Of course not. Now, if I knew nothing of him, would I demand he answer questions regarding his private blogs and how I may access them before making a hiring decision? NO!
What legal basis do I have to read someone's blogs? Furthermore, what are the ramifications if suppose the blogs reveal a major physical handicap, age, nationality, etc which were not obvious during the interview process? Now what? How do you protect your hiring decisions based on having had access to this information?
Furthermore, where do you draw the line? At what point do you stop demanding that the person divulge information?
I hope you can see where I'm going with this. When we, as HR professionals, start deviating from standard and accepted practices we end-up making headlines for our companies and settling major lawsuits.
Good points, Gene, concerning how far we can go. I certainly would not advocate that we request a listing of all an applicant's blogs so we can disect them. But, I do not see blogs as private, once a person posts on the internet he/she is publicly revealing information about themselves. When we interview candidates, we can make judgments about them, race, height, weight, age. They may even reveal specific information that could effect our decision, information such as previous work comp claims, or the fact they hated all their previous bosses. When one posts personal information on the internet where literally all the world is capable of seeing it, their privacy is destroyed. And especially if they post personal information on a place like myspace that is very well known and accessible. Maybe the rules are changing and we have to figure out how they fit in with our requirements. About like George Bush is doing with his wiretapping.
We agree in that once private information is posted online it is no longer private. No arguments there. However, and this is the big however, this does not translate into HR practitioners demanding that blog information be revealed so that we may review them and make hiring decisions based on the information, or lack thereof, contained within.
Let's set all of the ancillary nonsense aside and look at this from a reasonable standpoint. Do we as HR professionals have any business demanding that blog locations be revealed and do we have any business reviewing them as part of the hiring process? Let's not mince words here. I'm not talking about "stumbling" onto a candidate's blog. I am talking about specifically asking about it on an application and as part of the interview process.
Specifiacally demand the disclosure of blogosphere writings? No. But if voluntarily disclosed, either in the interview, or on the application under some "Other Info You'ld Like Us To Condsider" section, then it's fair game to review and consider the contents of the blog as it relates to the decision to hire/not hire. Your point about handicaps, worker comp injuries, etc. is valid and you do have to be prudent about what information you wish to consider and whether a "no hire" decision can be justified. I also think the blog content should never be the only criteria used to make a hiring decision, but viewed as just another piece of the evaluation pie.
No, Ray, it could not be equated to doing a background search. You're totally convoluting the issue here. First of all, background searches are accepted practice, governed by the FCRA amongst other laws. Second, the information you are receiving has been stripped of potential mine-fields (see my posts above about handicaps, age, nationality, etc).
It is amazing to me how computers have changed our lives in ways we never considered. In the past, pb (pre-blog), what an applicant and/or employee thought and/or said wasn't a major concern-meaning we did not follow them around to see if they went to, for example, political rallies in order to find out what they would say. We really did not worry about who they hung around with outside the job. We didn't follow them into bar to hear what that had to say. But, now, because of blogs, we have all these new concerns. I wonder if we are starting to cross a line that shouldn't be crossed.
I seem to be hearing from a few folks that use of "public" information may be okay to consider when screening applicants. It is public information that I have been married and divorced. My divorce transcripts, custody hearings and appeal are all public information that is available to anyone who either walks in the courthouse, or pulls it off the internet. It is public information - are you telling me that just because it's out there in cyber space that it's okay for a hiring manager to ask if he can read it before deciding to hire me, or reading anything that I've had published in the past? That's a load of crap. I use this illustration because it should be obvious that although my marital staus is part of the public record - it is illegal to use that status as a point of consideration when determining if I am suitable for employment. Aside from the martial status aspect, if you read my transcripts, you would see that during the hearing I testified that I had called my ex a lying, stealing son of a b!tch and suggested he be neutered to keep from propagating with the neighbors. Does that mean that I am too violent to hire? Please. He's expecting child #2 with said former neighbor, so it appears that my published statement was not really something to be feared after all.
Keep your employment decisions related to business needs. Skills, abilities, education, experience, references...the usual tools - if you can't do your job without resorting to reading someone's blog to determine if they're a good fit, then pass on them - or get a different line of work.
Criminal records are public as well - are you advocating that employers should ignore such things as well when making a decison because it doesn't fit your definition of "skills, abilities, experience and references"? Why do some of you feel like there should be this shroud of secrecy and privacy concerns over someones writings or blogs? I'm not saying it is relevant in all hiring decisions, but it certainly might play some roll in certain hiring decisions. If you knew someone had some bizzare content on their blog, with undertones of violent, racist, or other extreme views, are you really telling me that such content ought to be totally ignored? To use your terminology "what a load of crap"
If you knew someone had some bizzare >content on their blog, with undertones of >violent, racist, or other extreme views, are you >really telling me that such content ought to be >totally ignored? To use your terminology "what >a load of crap" Here's the problem -what is bizarre, with undertones of violent, racist or other extreme views to you may not be to someone else. If you went into this site or any other hr site and saw comments that you considered bizarre with undertones of etc etc, would not hire that person for a hr job even if they are otherwise perfect the job? If someone does not and has not let their personal prejudices influence the way they do their job, why should they be disqualified for something they wrote in a blog. And, I haven't even raised freedom of speech issues--yet.
And to answer your question, yes I would even if they are ideologically at the opposite end of the pole (and dead wrong in their views x;-))
How can you possibly separate someone's views, opinions and beliefs from their potnetial fit for a job? If you hire employees by ignoring things that point to such things as character, integrity, honesty, tolerance of others, etc, you are doing your company an extreme diservice. And to make the comment that "what some view as extreme and bizarre, others may not" is ludicrous. You are in essence saying there is no standard of normal or acceptable, it's just whatever you want to belive is just fine, as long as you can perform the duties of the job - even if you subscribe to KKK philosophies, anarchy, child porography, whatever. In case you haven't noticed yet, an individuals viewpoint is constantly played out in the workplace. Differences of opinion, alternative approaches to solving problems and divergent political philosophies are certainly accepted and should be embraced. But if someone spews venemous hate-filled views that advocate violence, destruction, ethnic cleansing, white supremacy, etc. will eventually voice these opinions (and maybe actions) at work. But, to you, I guess that's ok because everyones entitled to their opinions.....
[font size="1" color="#FF0000"]LAST EDITED ON 01-31-06 AT 02:35PM (CST)[/font][br][br]By the same token, if the applicant has never posted on a blog (maybe is still sort of computer illiterate), am I suppose to refuse to hire them because I don't know if in their heart of hearts they are politically correct and I can't find out because they don't have a blog site. Furthermore, I still don't know much about blogs. Until recently, no one in HR worried about what a person's philosophy was (we are not talking deeds, we are talking words only). HR did not ask if you believed in ethnic cleansing, anti-semitism, book burning etc. etc. The only exception might have been if you knew any communists. And, with all this lack of knowledge, I recall only one time when some one was terminated for spewing hatred. The questions is how obsessive should we be when hiring someone, how far should we be going into some one else's private life. If I want a job, do I have to give up my constitutional rights in order to apply. We are on a slippery slope and this discussion is about whether or not we should be on it. I don't believe so.
I agree that we should not require disclosure of bloging, or necessarily ask about a person's philosophy regarding social issues. I'm merely taking the position that if the applicant disclosed he/she writes a blog, there is no prohibition against the employer reviewing the content, and if there is disturbing material, make an appropriate decision as to whether the content should or shouldn't be a factor in the decision to hire. I am not aware of any constitutional right to have your prospective or current employer prohibitied from reading your blog. Employers retain the right to make hiring decisions based on a host of different criteria, and published comments made by the applicant which the employer deems offensive is something many companies will and do consider.
>Keep your employment decisions related to >business needs. Skills, abilities, education, >experience, references...the usual tools - if >you can't do your job without resorting to >reading someone's blog to determine if they're a >good fit, then pass on them - or get a different >line of work.
Zen, I don't think anybody is advocating anything here related to how to use blogs or even if they should be used. This world is changing, society is changing, the HR world has changed dramatically over the years and maybe there will be other changes surrounding the use of information that is available. The use of the internet has made it so much easier to get information, some of that is good and some of it is bad. Personally, I have never even considered reading blogs as a source of information on a candidate. But, how blogs can fit into our hiring/employment practices or even if it should is worthy of discussion.
I agree that the topic is worthy of discussion - that's why I chimed in with my opinion.
Opinions aside, there are facts to be considered: The collection and storage of the vast amount of information available on individuals is staggering today and will continue to grow. There have been constraints placed on employers by both Federal and State entities in the determination of what information is and is not appropriate to access or consider in making hiring decisions. Without a precedent or current ruling or judgment on the access of internet blogs and the information contained therein and the effect of that information on hiring decisions, it is up to employers to decide if accessing this information is worth the potential liability.
My opinion is that it's NOT worth it and that when precedent and judgement IS set, it will indicate that accessing this information will fall under the same category as asking if an applicant goes to temple or church or if they have childcare available or intend on getting married and having kids.
As another poster pointed out, criminal background checks and financial background checks are regulated. Voyeurism is not a regulated activity.
Voyeurism is a strong word. A voyeur observes someone's private behavior without permission. Its interesting that there is a percieved sense of privacy even for information that is posted on the internet publicly.
If you want to blog anonymously, it can be done. Bloggers who reveal their identity do so voluntarily for their own reasons.
That said, Gene makes a good point that looking at a blog or myspace page is likely to reveal information that we should not consider when making hiring decisions i.e. marital status, ethnicity, age, etc.
Another problem I see is that a blog or myspace page is not necessarily an accurate portrayal of an individual. Myspace pages, for example, are similar to applications in that its an individual's portrayal of themselves as they WANT to be seen.
Blogs are often unfiltered thoughts and even though they are posted publicly, I think they are in a sense private thoughts that don't represent what a person might express otherwise.
So, I would not ask an applicant to see thier blog or myspace page. Its a tempting source of information but one we should resist (in my opinion at this time).
Comments
Speaking of "off the cuff assumptions and speculative what-ifs", lets look at your post.
"For example, I would give a blog on myspace chastising my lunch hour shenanigans with the receptionist about as much weight as I would the same article on the National Enquirer." - YOUR OPINION. When AAA fired 27 employees for their myspace.com activity, they seem to be taking it seriously.
"Just because someone posts something on cyberspace and ten more clowns join in on the relatively anonymous and safe bandwagon at the expense of someone else doesn't make it valid nor does it make it something worth spending time on." - Again, YOUR OPINION. In 2005, a court compelled an ISP to reveal the identities of four posters who were making defamatory statements about the plaintiff in their blogs. Here is the link: [url]http://www.phillipsnizer.com/library/cases/lib_case395.cfm[/url] Anonymous? Not any more.
"Just because a behemoth like Google accepts the risk (I beg anyone to tell me there's no more inherent risk in this move than a traditional at-will termination) and fires an employee for trashing them on a blog does NOT translate into carte blanche for us to follow suit." - HUH? Who is saying that we should follow Googles example. We are just discussing a developing issue.
That's what we do here.
Here's a link to an article that is a pretty good primer on the website: [url]http://www.getoutaz.com/arts/101305space.shtml[/url]
Note in the article how ee's who don't even have computer terminals would jump on to the terminals of co-workers to check their myspace page whenever the co-worker stepped out of the office.
A couple friends I know who hire staff for summer youth camps have added myspace questions to their applications.
Would you want to see an applicant's personal blog before hiring them?
Not unless it was somehow relevant to the job. Perhaps if it was a self-designed, self-hosted piece of work and I was considering them for some sort of technical or even artistic type of position. Even then, surely they could provide a portfolio that did not include a personal blog. I would imagine this would open doors that we'd rather not open.
I guess I'll break the rules here (sorry Paul x;-)) and answer a question with a question. Why would we want to look at an applicant's personal blog prior to hiring them?
Companies that hire for positions where the person's character is an important consideration would be one example I could think of.
Let's say your church was hiring a youth pastor. Would you want to check the applicant's myspace page if you could?
I might.
Sarcasm aside, you raise good points Paul, however, I would honestly have to draw the line somewhere. I think checking personal blogs is no more or less intrusive than asking them to share their sexual turn-ons.
The dilema you raise does have its merits, however, I am not convinced it rises to the level of intruding on someone's private life.
Gene
I probably will never be put in a position of feeling like I need to check out someone's blog before I hire them. But if I were hiring a youth pastor, I might want to. In that case, I would probably mention my curiousity to the applicant. Since applicants sign off all the time on us doing background checks, and since a blog is very public (not like reading their diary) their reaction could be very telling. If they don't want me to see it, that will tell me a lot. If they don't mind, then I can feel ok about checking it out. And any checking I did would be of the briefest kind. Of course, they might not want me to but feel that they have to say ok. I wouldn't like that either, but...
As I said, I will probably never be in that position. I like HR, but if I ever leave here it will probably be back to an accounting job.
Nae
You can't be serious. Someone that posts a blog on public domain is, by definition, granting access to anyone, including prospective employers, to read the material and draw conclusions about the writer. Asking someone about their sexual turn-ons is just this side of wierd and irrelevant. But if you hand me your portfolio of writings, or I read your blog, it's fair game as to how much of an issue I want to make of your writings and rantings.
I think some people have mistaken the idea of free speech to mean "speech without consequences".
Attitude is a huge part of an ee's ability to succeed and work with others. Isn't a blog or myspace page a great way to get a sense of what kind of attitude the person has? Is the person a whiner? Is the person thoughtful and well spoken? Is the person petty and mean spirited?
Would I hire a guy that I regularly see at violent skin head rallies? Of course not. Now, if I knew nothing of him, would I demand he answer questions regarding his private blogs and how I may access them before making a hiring decision? NO!
What legal basis do I have to read someone's blogs? Furthermore, what are the ramifications if suppose the blogs reveal a major physical handicap, age, nationality, etc which were not obvious during the interview process? Now what? How do you protect your hiring decisions based on having had access to this information?
Furthermore, where do you draw the line? At what point do you stop demanding that the person divulge information?
I hope you can see where I'm going with this. When we, as HR professionals, start deviating from standard and accepted practices we end-up making headlines for our companies and settling major lawsuits.
Let's set all of the ancillary nonsense aside and look at this from a reasonable standpoint. Do we as HR professionals have any business demanding that blog locations be revealed and do we have any business reviewing them as part of the hiring process? Let's not mince words here. I'm not talking about "stumbling" onto a candidate's blog. I am talking about specifically asking about it on an application and as part of the interview process.
Keep your employment decisions related to business needs. Skills, abilities, education, experience, references...the usual tools - if you can't do your job without resorting to reading someone's blog to determine if they're a good fit, then pass on them - or get a different line of work.
>content on their blog, with undertones of
>violent, racist, or other extreme views, are you
>really telling me that such content ought to be
>totally ignored? To use your terminology "what
>a load of crap"
Here's the problem -what is bizarre, with undertones of violent, racist or other extreme views to you may not be to someone else. If you went into this site or any other hr site and saw comments that you considered bizarre with undertones of etc etc, would not hire that person for a hr job even if they are otherwise perfect the job? If someone does not and has not let their personal prejudices influence the way they do their job, why should they be disqualified for something they wrote in a blog. And, I haven't even raised freedom of speech issues--yet.
And to answer your question, yes I would even if they are ideologically at the opposite end of the pole (and dead wrong in their views x;-))
Yep vphr, post modern philosophy.
>Keep your employment decisions related to
>business needs. Skills, abilities, education,
>experience, references...the usual tools - if
>you can't do your job without resorting to
>reading someone's blog to determine if they're a
>good fit, then pass on them - or get a different
>line of work.
xclap xclap xclap
You said it much better than I.
Opinions aside, there are facts to be considered: The collection and storage of the vast amount of information available on individuals is staggering today and will continue to grow. There have been constraints placed on employers by both Federal and State entities in the determination of what information is and is not appropriate to access or consider in making hiring decisions. Without a precedent or current ruling or judgment on the access of internet blogs and the information contained therein and the effect of that information on hiring decisions, it is up to employers to decide if accessing this information is worth the potential liability.
My opinion is that it's NOT worth it and that when precedent and judgement IS set, it will indicate that accessing this information will fall under the same category as asking if an applicant goes to temple or church or if they have childcare available or intend on getting married and having kids.
As another poster pointed out, criminal background checks and financial background checks are regulated. Voyeurism is not a regulated activity.
If you want to blog anonymously, it can be done. Bloggers who reveal their identity do so voluntarily for their own reasons.
That said, Gene makes a good point that looking at a blog or myspace page is likely to reveal information that we should not consider when making hiring decisions i.e. marital status, ethnicity, age, etc.
Another problem I see is that a blog or myspace page is not necessarily an accurate portrayal of an individual. Myspace pages, for example, are similar to applications in that its an individual's portrayal of themselves as they WANT to be seen.
Blogs are often unfiltered thoughts and even though they are posted publicly, I think they are in a sense private thoughts that don't represent what a person might express otherwise.
So, I would not ask an applicant to see thier blog or myspace page. Its a tempting source of information but one we should resist (in my opinion at this time).