The very idea of checking someone’s social media for employment purposes is subjective, and is open to abuse by ideologues and socio-political zealots. The really bad part of it all is that it can be done covertly, like the comment-trolling of faceless social media avatars. Often, the company big wigs that weaponize social media screening are the very same faceless troll avatars engaging i. Their own brand of the very thing they turn down applicants for from social media screening.
Social media screening for pre employment purposes done by a background screening company should follow FCRA protocols to avoid detecting fake accounts. There is also an emphasis in on verifying the people behind the profiles and even asking applicants to provide their social media handles/usernames.
Well stated - I don't think it could be said better especially about the covert part. I have had jobs ranging from high level executive to entry level, private and government and the one thing that always rings true is that social media, google search results, online complaints, are nothing but so-called "user generated" content. Simply reading a search result that someone has been arrested or convicted of something is a far cry from the actual official court record of such incident. Yeah, we all know that employers can discriminate and/or hire anyone they want but that can't say it in most cases (i.e. they can't say they don't want to hire someone because they are gay, have a red dot on their forehead, etc.). Its even harder with government jobs. Once, I had a panelist say that he googled the applicant only to find out that he supposedly had a DUI, but the rest said "so what" he's not driving for us why did you go outside the procedure." Yeah its great you want to say the company money on a "failed" background check but that doesn't disqualify. The bottom line is that can the applicant do your job and are they "eligible" for hire. My favorite example is an Amazon DSP delivery driver that is expected to perform 180 "stops" everyday (yeah a big bullet) - too bad there is no standard that says someone with a non disqualifying criminal record can't do that much less than someone who "didn't do anything" can do anymore that 43 stops (real case). I also realize that in many entry level jobs that require no experience where 100 percent of 100 percent of candidates are 100 percent qualified to do 100 percent of a mindless bonehead job it is tempting to do this to eliminate someone who has anything negative, hell a slight spot on their clothing in their picture, you get the picture. I will say if the you can't see the applicant's picture and they have a common name, "googling" them is worth less than a used paper plate . . ..
Great video Tim
The very idea of checking someone’s social media for employment purposes is subjective, and is open to abuse by ideologues and socio-political zealots.
The really bad part of it all is that it can be done covertly, like the comment-trolling of faceless social media avatars.
Often, the company big wigs that weaponize social media screening are the very same faceless troll avatars engaging i. Their own brand of the very thing they turn down applicants for from social media screening.
Social media screening for pre employment purposes done by a background screening company should follow FCRA protocols to avoid detecting fake accounts. There is also an emphasis in on verifying the people behind the profiles and even asking applicants to provide their social media handles/usernames.
Well stated - I don't think it could be said better especially about the covert part. I have had jobs ranging from high level executive to entry level, private and government and the one thing that always rings true is that social media, google search results, online complaints, are nothing but so-called "user generated" content. Simply reading a search result that someone has been arrested or convicted of something is a far cry from the actual official court record of such incident. Yeah, we all know that employers can discriminate and/or hire anyone they want but that can't say it in most cases (i.e. they can't say they don't want to hire someone because they are gay, have a red dot on their forehead, etc.). Its even harder with government jobs. Once, I had a panelist say that he googled the applicant only to find out that he supposedly had a DUI, but the rest said "so what" he's not driving for us why did you go outside the procedure." Yeah its great you want to say the company money on a "failed" background check but that doesn't disqualify. The bottom line is that can the applicant do your job and are they "eligible" for hire. My favorite example is an Amazon DSP delivery driver that is expected to perform 180 "stops" everyday (yeah a big bullet) - too bad there is no standard that says someone with a non disqualifying criminal record can't do that much less than someone who "didn't do anything" can do anymore that 43 stops (real case). I also realize that in many entry level jobs that require no experience where 100 percent of 100 percent of candidates are 100 percent qualified to do 100 percent of a mindless bonehead job it is tempting to do this to eliminate someone who has anything negative, hell a slight spot on their clothing in their picture, you get the picture. I will say if the you can't see the applicant's picture and they have a common name, "googling" them is worth less than a used paper plate . . ..
The best practice for job seekers is to lock down their social media accounts.