Opinion on checking social media presences for job applicants

The fact that as part of a background check for some jobs someone's social media presence can be looked at as part of the recruitment processes.

Agree or disagree with that?

Leaving aside the chancer who is going to come on here and say their online support for the Irish nazi party( if such a party exists ) is well hidden no one would find it.

Should someone with a mental illness going through a bad time who lashed out with some hate-filled rant be given a second or third chance? should teenage trolling get a pass?

Or could it be a tool for curbing online abuse as the online world is going to come crashing into the real world and might lose them a job?

Gatling

It's been happening for years ,hence why people seriously need to watch what they say on social media

What you volunteer to post on social media is you providing that information to the world.

You are the product. It's fair game and becoming commonplace as HR people build a picture of the character they are hiring to size the fit for the role.

If you have ambitions, be very careful what you post.

Colonel Claptrap

Any time I hire somebody I will do a quick google of their name before pulling the trigger.

This is standard surely?

Colonel Claptrap

Colonel Claptrap wrote: »

Any time I hire somebody I will do a quick google of their name before pulling the trigger.

This is standard surely?

No, the MNC hires outside companies to do a background check now it's not just social media presence it's everything, checking qualifications are valid financial checks, perhaps not for every job but it's surprising the jobs it is done for.

The amount who think it's only done for the high faluting executives is surprising as well, jobs very low down the chain get a background check in a lot of MNC's

ShyMets

Dont be on social media. Problem solved

MrStuffins

The "FrEeDoM Ovv SpEeChH" crowd are gas. They think you should be able to go around being a c*nt to everyone and still be treated like you're not a c*nt.

If I was up for a job, I'm not sure i'd get the job if I walked in, called the interviewer a fat pr*ck, his wife a mongoose and his kids ugly little bast*rds.

No matter how many times I said "FrEeDoM Ovv SpEeChH"

HermioneJean

Peregrinus wrote: »

Here in the real world, Sneed, that's not the problem. The problem is people posting evidence of their own immaturity, poor judgment, etc. It's not the things they haven't posted about that jeopardise their employment prospects; it's the things they have posted about.

And we're not talking only, or even mainly, about political opinions; that ill-judged post about a drunken prank that seemed funny at the time, or the lightning bolt that you shaved into your pubes and posted on FB for the world to see — that's the kind of thing that doesn't necessarily impress an employer.

Obviously, if you've posted racist, sexist rants, that's going to be a problem, but most people, most of the time, have more wit that to post that stuff under their own names. And if they do, and are denied jobs as a result, it's only partly because they have vile opinions - it's mainly because they are obviously a bit dim, lacking in foresight, and prone to making poor judgments.

Sorry I don't see any relevance of this at all to an employer. An employer couldn't sack me for making a poor judgement in my own time like getting drunk and breaking a heel in college, so why should they bother looking for it when hiring me. That's actually just quite sad, and sounds like the type of micromanager who just ends up destroying their work force.

Fair enough a quick google to see if they are on the Irish Times for murder. After that, I find it stalkery and obsessive and I'm sure a breach of some privacy law if you are taking names from application forms and trying to find their social medias.

Grow up and treat people on their candidacy for a job.

MrStuffins

HermioneJean wrote: »

Sorry I don't see any relevance of this at all to an employer. An employer couldn't sack me for making a poor judgement in my own time like getting drunk and breaking a heel in college, so why should they bother looking for it when hiring me. That's actually just quite sad, and sounds like the type of micromanager who just ends up destroying their work force.

Fair enough a quick google to see if they are on the Irish Times for murder. After that, I find it stalkery and obsessive and I'm sure a breach of some privacy law if you are taking names from application forms and trying to find their social medias.

Grow up and treat people on their candidacy for a job.

Part of the process for hiring someone for a job is to see if they will be a good fit with the company. For example, the company I work for has some basic standards around treating people equally. My company has employees form all different backgrounds, people of all ages and different ethnicities.

If HR have a look at your Facebook and see that you've been racially abusing people on there and calling for the heads of particular groups of people based on their sexual orientation or religion, then it should be taken into account.

Not just "Oh, you haven't murdered anyone? Welcome aboard!"

Smee_Again

HermioneJean wrote: »

Sorry I don't see any relevance of this at all to an employer. An employer couldn't sack me for making a poor judgement in my own time like getting drunk and breaking a heel in college, so why should they bother looking for it when hiring me. That's actually just quite sad, and sounds like the type of micromanager who just ends up destroying their work force.

Fair enough a quick google to see if they are on the Irish Times for murder. After that, I find it stalkery and obsessive and I'm sure a breach of some privacy law if you are taking names from application forms and trying to find their social medias.

Grow up and treat people on their candidacy for a job.

Culture is very important and becoming even more important when hiring people. Often 2 or 3 candidates might have similar skills and what sets them apart is an opinion on how well they will settle in and add to the team.

Someone who reveals themselves to be an arsehole on social media will be viewed as more of a risk than someone who hasn't.

Hire for attitude, train for skill.

timmyntc

Tacitus Kilgore wrote: »

Sneed.... formerly chuck by chance?



You need a mug of tea and a break from the internet aul see.

Formerly employed

Tacitus Kilgore

timmyntc wrote: »

Formerly employed

Voluntarily unemployed, Involuntarily celibate

Peregrinus

HermioneJean wrote: »

Sorry I don't see any relevance of this at all to an employer. An employer couldn't sack me for making a poor judgement in my own time like getting drunk and breaking a heel in college, so why should they bother looking for it when hiring me.

Because they don't want to hire people with poor judgment? The harder it is to fire people who turn out to have poor judgment, the greater the incentive not to hire them in the first place. And, faced with a choice between the candidate of whose poor judgment you have evidence and the candidate for whom there is no such evidence, the evidence of poor judgment may count for something.

HermioneJean wrote: »

Fair enough a quick google to see if they are on the Irish Times for murder. After that, I find it stalkery and obsessive and I'm sure a breach of some privacy law if you are taking names from application forms and trying to find their social medias.

Definitely not a breach of privacy law. What you voluntarily publish to the world by posting to your social media accounts is the opposite of private information. It's public information because you made it public - which is, of course, evidence of poor judgment.

HermioneJean wrote: »

Grow up and treat people on their candidacy for a job.

Sure. People should only be judged by reference to criteria which are relevant to the job for which they are applying. The thing is, there's a awful lot of jobs for which good judgment, common sense, etc are highly relevant qualities, so evidence of lack of same can be a relevant factor.

I think, though, we are dependent on employers also to have good judgment and common sense. Most people do stupid things when they are teenagers, and/or they hold shallow but vehement views which they express with dogmatic certainty. If you excluded everybody who had ever erred in this way, you'd have a very small pool of candidates left to you. But it's only in recent times that we can, through social media, so readily identify people who have done these stupid things. So employers need to develop the skill and judgment to disregard idiocies committed by applicants when they were young and stupid and trust that, now that they are not so young, they are also hopefully not so stupid. Recent evidence of stupidity or worse on your social media accounts will always be a problem, but I think we should fairly soon get to stage - if we're not there already - where what you posted when you were 19 is largely ignored when you are 25.

ShyMets

ShyMets wrote: »

Dont be on social media. Problem solved

Boards are social media.

Gatling

mariaalice wrote: »

Boards are social media.

More anonymous than Fb ,twit and insta more safer to post opinions ,it would be hard enough to link someone to a boards post

HermioneJean

HermioneJean wrote: »

Sorry I don't see any relevance of this at all to an employer. An employer couldn't sack me for making a poor judgement in my own time like getting drunk and breaking a heel in college, so why should they bother looking for it when hiring me. That's actually just quite sad, and sounds like the type of micromanager who just ends up destroying their work force.

Fair enough a quick google to see if they are on the Irish Times for murder. After that, I find it stalkery and obsessive and I'm sure a breach of some privacy law if you are taking names from application forms and trying to find their social medias.

Grow up and treat people on their candidacy for a job.

Very naive viewpoint I must say. FWIW I don't agree with the checking either from an ethical standpoint but I can see the reasons why organisations do it.

It's actually very simple the MNC regard employees as representing the company, they are there to make money for the shareholders.

Anything that could bring the company into disrepute even by association is a risk.

It not about being in any mainstream political party that is not an issue for anyone, however things like a threat of violence to a politician or violent rants about ethnic minorities or immigrants are an issue.

Note, evidence-based opinions on any subject are not an issue.

Think about it logically, a lot of the large MNC's would have a large percentage of the workforce make up of various ethnicities.

doublejobbing 2

Given the type of moron that uses it in Ireland, I don't think any sane employer would employ an active Twitter user.

In saying that I don't think any of that hodgepodge of gender confused, preferred pronoun wielding wasters would know what a job is anyway so the situation wouldn't arise. Utterly foul, bitter people for the most part.

mfceiling

Hypothetical situation.

I'm not on Facebook at all (8 years off it i'd say).

My Instagram profile is pretty low key...a few holiday pics, few pics of beers and a few pics of the kids. Very few followers and it's staying like that (private profile).

If I was asked for Facebook details, answer "not on it"

Surely they couldn't ask request for friendship on Instagram? I'm not friending anyone so they can have a nosey at my pictures.

Again all hypothetical as I'm in construction and won't be interviewed by an MNC.

MrStuffins

doublejobbing 2 wrote: »

Given the type of moron that uses it in Ireland, I don't think any sane employer would employ an active Twitter user.

In saying that I don't think any of that hodgepodge of gender confused, preferred pronoun wielding wasters would know what a job is anyway so the situation wouldn't arise. Utterly foul, bitter people for the most part.

Nah, they all have jobs.

Tacitus Kilgore

doublejobbing 2 wrote: »

Given the type of moron that uses it in Ireland, I don't think any sane employer would employ an active Twitter user.

In saying that I don't think any of that hodgepodge of gender confused, preferred pronoun wielding wasters would know what a job is anyway so the situation wouldn't arise. Utterly foul, bitter people for the most part.

Ya should have a read through your own posting history, it makes for a grim depressing story of a very angry person with a lot of time on their hands, and a lot of axes to grind.

Kinda like those twitter users you mention :pac:

DeanAustin

Smee_Again wrote: »

Culture is very important and becoming even more important when hiring people. Often 2 or 3 candidates might have similar skills and what sets them apart is an opinion on how well they will settle in and add to the team.

Someone who reveals themselves to be an arsehole on social media will be viewed as more of a risk than someone who hasn't.

Hire for attitude, train for skill.

"Culture" or "not the right fit" is also a useful way to dress up discrimination in some cases.

mfceiling

mfceiling wrote: »

Hypothetical situation.

I'm not on Facebook at all (8 years off it i'd say).

My Instagram profile is pretty low key...a few holiday pics, few pics of beers and a few pics of the kids. Very few followers and it's staying like that (private profile).

If I was asked for Facebook details, answer "not on it"

Surely they couldn't ask request for friendship on Instagram? I'm not friending anyone so they can have a nosey at my pictures.

Again all hypothetical as I'm in construction and won't be interviewed by an MNC.

They're not going into that detail.

Even in construction if someone was known to be a support of some racist ant immigration party and to espouse some very foul views, on the job, they are going for the resident engineer is a Nigerian person or QS involved in the project is a Malaysian Muslim would you say it'll be grand their views won't cause any issues?.

Smee_Again

DeanAustin wrote: »

"Culture" or "not the right fit" is also a useful way to dress up discrimination in some cases.

Sure, but that’s not what’s being discussed here.

doublejobbing 2

Tacitus Kilgore wrote: »

Ya should have a read through your own posting history, it makes for a grim depressing story of a very angry person with a lot of time on their hands, and a lot of axes to grind.

Kinda like those twitter users you mention :pac:

I can assure you I, like most people, enjoyed life a lot more before your beloved lockdown came in.

Ask yourself about personal happiness and wealth. Then ask you why all left wingers love lockdown.

doublejobbing 2

MrStuffins wrote: »

Nah, they all have jobs.

They really do not. A mix of eternal students and people on disability mainly. A few who blame FG because they can't afford to buy a house working 12 hours a week in a craft pub/ hipster burger joint, but aside from that.

Tacitus Kilgore

doublejobbing 2 wrote: »

I can assure you I, like most people, enjoyed life a lot more before your beloved lockdown came in.

Ask yourself about personal happiness and wealth. Then ask you why all left wingers love lockdown.

Don't you think the people you're giving out about feel the same about their pre-lockdown happiness levels? or is it just you that's allowed be affected by it?


What's that about personal happiness and wealth?

Why do all left wingers love lockdown?


Edit - missed the "your beloved lockdown" part in first response - wtf - I don't 'love' lockdown, where the hell has that come from?

Tacitus Kilgore

doublejobbing 2 wrote: »

They really do not. A mix of eternal students and people on disability mainly. A few who blame FG because they can't afford to buy a house working 12 hours a week in a craft pub/ hipster burger joint, but aside from that.

Man hates the idea of social housing, but simultaneously thinks people shouldn't be able to afford a house.


"Pull up that aul ladder there behind ya" politics

AndrewJRenko

mariaalice wrote: »

It's actually very simple the MNC regard employees as representing the company, they are there to make money for the shareholders.

Anything that could bring the company into disrepute even by association is a risk.

It not about being in any mainstream political party that is not an issue for anyone, however things like a threat of violence to a politician or violent rants about ethnic minorities or immigrants are an issue.

Note, evidence-based opinions on any subject are not an issue.

Think about it logically, a lot of the large MNC's would have a large percentage of the workforce make up of various ethnicities.

Employers should set out their requirements in this area clearly in any job spec, to avoid all this surreptitious messing around.

AndrewJRenko

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Employers should set out their requirements in this area clearly in any job spec, to avoid all this surreptitious messing around.

They tell candidates that there will a background check as part of the recruitment processes it's all very polite and professional.

.anon.

ShyMets wrote: »

Dont be on social media. Problem solved

Alternatively, don't post anything that you wouldn't be happy to have your name and reputation attached to. It's not that difficult.

MrStuffins

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Employers should set out their requirements in this area clearly in any job spec, to avoid all this surreptitious messing around.

Or people could use common sense

For Forks Sake

.anon. wrote: »

Alternatively, don't post anything that you wouldn't be happy to have your name and reputation attached to. It's not that difficult.

Simple rule of social media, if you wouldn't want it put up on a billboard with your name attached to it, don't post it online

kildare lad

I know a fella that went for job , the job wasn't anything special so he reckoned after the interview he should have got it. Anyway he gets a phonecall a few days later telling him he didn't get the job. He asked a friend who worked for the same company did he hear anything why he didn't get the job. He said HR went through his Facebook pictures and seen pictures of him drinking cans along the canal so they went with someone else for the job. I'd say you'd nearly be better off deleting all your social media if your looking for work , you'd forget what you wrote or stupid meme you posted and it'll come back to bite you in the ass

ASOT

We do adverse media checks on our customers and it includes social media checks so I'd imagine alot of companies would be doing it these days during the hiring process.

AndrewJRenko

MrStuffins wrote: »

Or people could use common sense

Sure, why bother with a job specification at all? Candidates should just use common sense to telepathically decide what employers want.

MrStuffins

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Sure, why bother with a job specification at all? Candidates should just use common sense to telepathically decide what employers want.

Because, and I can't believe I have to explain this, a job description is not the same as you not having you social media on private.

I really hope for your sake this doesn't come up during your next job interview!

MrStuffins

kildare lad wrote: »

I know a fella that went for job , the job wasn't anything special so he reckoned after the interview he should have got it. Anyway he gets a phonecall a few days later telling him he didn't get the job. He asked a friend who worked for the same company did he hear anything why he didn't get the job. He said HR went through his Facebook pictures and seen pictures of him drinking cans along the canal so they went with someone else for the job. I'd say you'd nearly be better off deleting all your social media if your looking for work , you'd forget what you wrote or stupid meme you posted and it'll come back to bite you in the ass

Was he going for a job on the internet tv show "Things That Definitely Happened"?

Smacruairi

Seems to be a way to profile people, could be used to discriminate against people based on age, race, Sexuality and far more.

Those saying "common sense" and "culture" , all you're doing is facilitating the old boys club mentality. Besides, unless the application form asks for your socials, I really don't think it's ethical for a business to go looking, especially hiring a company. You don't get the application form out, then Google map the address to see the house and car, surely?

I mean potentially a 50yr old manager going through a young girls Instagram to see does she fit the culture, it actually makes me vom.

MrStuffins

Smacruairi wrote: »

Seems to be a way to profile people, could be used to discriminate against people based on age, race, Sexuality and far more.

Sounds like you're projecting your way of thinking here.

JustAThought

I remember a particularly chilling seminar where it was explained to me that there was a formulae ( probably now an app) that if you out it into google with an email account it would throw up every post and image ever posted in social media with that address used in the account (eg your email for FB which may be a different name you use on FB) - it really was a frightener for me. I am reLly careful about what I post now & have all my permissions set to private/ friends only and win’t let anyone tag me in images.

I absolutely check everyone I deal professionally with on google before I meet them - I can’t imagine that others dont. Hilariously I cam across a bit of (v positive) info on someone I was seeing a lot of and I eventually asked them about it - they couldn’t understand how I knew - sure it was up on linkedIn and there was a newspaper article about in on you. They hadn’t ever know LI wasn’t private and they had never googled their own name!!! People!!!

I once told a stellar candidate I was going to interview for a job to check their FB account and delete any images of with or accociated with antisocial behaviour or socially accepted drugs. They were shocked. I had already checked their account out and seen them at a festival smoking before their application for a high profile family focused role. Suffice to say they copped on and it was gone before they came in for the panel interview & was never seen by the other interviewers or HR . Again - super qualified and experienced but seriously niaeve and clueless about brand and reputation and conservative values.

Smacruairi

MrStuffins wrote: »

Sounds like you're projecting your way of thinking here.

Or following it through to its natural conclusion. I'm surprised you didn't think that people would do that, or are you just really naive?

MrStuffins

Smacruairi wrote: »

Or following it through to its natural conclusion. I'm surprised you didn't think that people would do that, or are you just really naive?

But this isn't what we're talking about. We're not talking about whether it's ok for companies to check your social media to illegally discriminate against you. Obviously that's not ok. it's illegal.

If you think that this discrimination wouldn't happen if they didn't check your social media, then you're the one who is naive!

JustAThought

MrStuffins wrote: »

But this isn't what we're talking about. We're not talking about whether it's ok for companies to check your social media to illegally discriminate against you. Obviously that's not ok. it's illegal.

If you think that this discrimination wouldn't happen if they didn't check your social media, then you're the one who is naive!

Its not illegally discriminating based on your social media - its a fact gathering exercise based on information you present about yourself on public & searchable sites.

MrStuffins

JustAThought wrote: »

Its not illegally discriminating based on your social media - its fact gathering based on information you present about yourself on public & searchable sites.

Smacruairi wrote: »

Seems to be a way to profile people, could be used to discriminate against people based on age, race, Sexuality and far more.

He was talking about illegal discrimination, which is not what the topic of conversation is.

Smacruairi

MrStuffins wrote: »

But this isn't what we're talking about. We're not talking about whether it's ok for companies to check your social media to illegally discriminate against you. Obviously that's not ok. it's illegal.

If you think that this discrimination wouldn't happen if they didn't check your social media, then you're the one who is naive!

No, far from it. But we have people on this thread saying they hire companies to scour social media looking for "culture" issues, and examples of "bad judgement". This is being viewed favorably by some people which is odious to say the least. You understand my point when I say that it is morally wrong, but also a waste of time when you literally are legally allowed ask for verified references which would be of far more benefit to you than some middle class manager with an axe to grind looking for one particular viewpoint in his company.

It's actually rather petty, and smacks of a total insecurity that they couldn't judge the calibre of a candidate by an interview or other form of assessment.

JustAThought

mariaalice wrote: »

The fact that as part of a background check for some jobs someone's social media presence can be looked at as part of the recruitment processes.

Agree or disagree with that?

Leaving aside the chancer who is going to come on here and say their online support for the Irish nazi party( if such a party exists ) is well hidden no one would find it.

Should someone with a mental illness going through a bad time who lashed out with some hate-filled rant be given a second or third chance? should teenage trolling get a pass?

Or could it be a tool for curbing online abuse as the online world is going to come crashing into the real world and might lose them a job?

I think it is about something entirely different - as the OP outlined. Not one of the seven deadly sins or cash cows depending on whether you use and how your pronounce the word boss.

MrStuffins

Smacruairi wrote: »

No, far from it.....

Grand so!

Ficheall

What about someone else who has the same name as you? I'm not on social media but if you google my name, the some other guy with the same name's Twitter is one of the first results. It's harmless "retweet to win" and football stuff, but he could have been tweeting about kicking puppies or something.. My name is uncommon enough that you'd definitely be forgiven for assuming it was my account.

if i see list of pronouns/"activist" on twitter or prone to being "outraged" or looking to cancel/block things, id be staying well clear of that person

Edit and anime/or childish posts (e.g. i see a lot of mates late twenties saying they've to get their parents to do things for them)

MrStuffins

Ficheall wrote: »

What about someone else who has the same name as you? I'm not on social media but if you google my name, the some other guy with the same name's Twitter is one of the first results. It's harmless "retweet to win" and football stuff, but he could have been tweeting about kicking puppies or something.. My name is uncommon enough that you'd definitely be forgiven for assuming it was my account.

Well, since we're talking about Social Media the guy would have to have the same name and the same face as you.

That would be a hell of a coincidence!