August 1, 2008 at 6:43 am
blandry (8/1/2008)
A few months after the reunion I heard from three class members asking that I pull their pages. Two were in the financial industry and one in healthcare - but all three said they were asking to have pages pulled because "compliance officers" at their jobs required it.Naturally I pulled their pages, but being curious I spoke to one of them (financial industry) and asked why they had been asked by compliance departments to pull the pages?
I was somewhat surprised to find that this is becoming the norm in the financial industry for mid and upper level managers. Their employers see a number of problems with not only sites like our reunion site, but LinkedIn, Facebook and other social networking sites.
First, security: anyone in the financial industry exposing personal information puts the company "at risk" (so I was told). Second, competition: companies do not want headhunters and recruiters phishing social sites for details on people that might be used to lure them away from their current jobs. Third, risk management: companies do not want employees posting even the slightest hint of what they might be doing at work - you know, as though someone might say they just finished this big project or something.
Indeed, I learned that at this particular large financial services company in question, compliance officers troll the web regularly to check on any links to mid and upper level managers. If found, the employee is notified to remove whatever is posted - as policy!
I have to say I would have an issue with this level of intrusion in my life. What I do with my time after I leave the office is up to me and if I have a blog or web site about my personal interests then being required to remove it is wrong. Now, I don't have a problem with being asked to remove information about the company or specifically about my work.
I know that when I worked for a large international services company, our email was regularly snooped and a couple employees were diciplined for mentioning ill opinions of some company execs. Now learning that some companies have people whose job it is to regularly phish for any posts anywhere by managers... Phew, kind of creepy, but I guess not totally shocking.
Hey, if I am using the business email, it BELONGS to the business, so I have no right to be upset that someone is checking it. Now being disciplined for having a negative opinion about a boss is another matter.
Also put me in the group where, if you are exposing yourself on the web via a blog, web site, or social networking then you need to be prepared for questions about your outside activities.
I'll be honest, I have outside interests and if an employer expects me to sacrifice family time for work on a regular basis, they need to hire someone else.
Last comment. If you google my name the first result is The Jack Corbett Guide to Topless Clubs, which is NOT me. You get me as the 5th result because I wrote an article for this site.
Jack Corbett
Consultant - Straight Path Solutions
Check out these links on how to get faster and more accurate answers:
Forum Etiquette: How to post data/code on a forum to get the best help
Need an Answer? Actually, No ... You Need a Question
August 1, 2008 at 6:54 am
When I started at one job the first thing my new boss did was google me - and found my interests, which weren't "controversial" here in Connecticut but might be in another part of the country
the Boy Scouts support discrimination and were willing to go all the way to the Surpeme Court to protect that "right"
If I were ever a hiring manager and found out a prospective employee was active in the Boy Scouts I would think twice about hiring him
August 1, 2008 at 6:54 am
I join Linkedin to expand my network. I was able to re-connect some of my old co-workers. As a matter of fact, I got my new job because a recruiter spot my profile in Linkedin and asked me if I was interested in this job.
If HR or anyone wanted to spy on me, that was fine. Anyhow many companies already keep track of what web page the employees go to and spot track if any recruiter sent any information to the employees. When I worked for one company, I was asked why I went to monster.com!!!
If the company wanted to know if the employees went to any pron site, I could understand but if the company even keeps track of facebook, myspace and all other websites, the people in HR must have too much free time.
My previous manager kept track of how many response or question and articles I submitted to SQLServerCentral.com and told me I had to stop it!!!!!
So to my manager SQLServerCentral is another social website and he was not allowed me to join in. I sent out my resume the next day.
August 1, 2008 at 6:55 am
I may be a touch simple and naive - but I thought if you were applying for a job then you would pass over a copy of your CV (or resume) which would contain a section 'Personal Interests' where you would list all the activities you do outside of work that you are proud of and want the employer to know.
If you had a personal life that you want kept private (like Max Mosley) then you shouldn't have to declare that to all of your friends let alone prospective/current employers.
Checking up on people by 'Googling' them is just a simple and cheaper alternative to hiring a private detective to check up on people. Banks check your financial history when you apply for loans/mortgages etc because it is pertinent information. When taking on coaching/leadership roles you are CRB checked to make sure you don't have something illegal in your past. I would be very concerned if a company I had applied for a position at employed a private detective to rifle through my bins and follow me about.
Why should peoples activities outside of work that have no influence on how they work during the office hours you are contracting them for matter?
August 1, 2008 at 6:58 am
When you post something on the internet, you put it there for people to see. To complain that your company is invading your privacy because they look for that is nonsense. In fact, I believe that searching the internet for information about prospective employees is a valuable tool to find out if the person you are hiring really is the same as the person they may have pretended to be at the interview.
There are some legitimate reasons why companies need to monitor emails at work and control what their employees post on the internet to prevent sensitive information leaks, but punishing ill opinions of executives and preventing recruiters from finding them are not among them. On the other hand, any company that does that probably needs to worry about ill opinions of executives and losing employees.
August 1, 2008 at 7:01 am
It used to be that personal information was private. The employer didn't care what you did in your off time as long as you did the job well.
Employers are increasingly looking into employees' personal lives. They want to know if you smoke, the kinds of food you eat, and the types of activities you engage in.
In the 1960's, people in the U.S. were worried about losing their freedoms by being taken over by the iron hand of the Soviet Union. Today we are being taken over by the iron hand of corporations. In the U.S., "Big Brother" is not the government; it is the business community.
August 1, 2008 at 7:08 am
I think alot depends, and I also think this practice has gone on longer when you stop and think about it. In the days before the internet many companies did investigation on potential employees.
Some jobs in financial institutions had pretty thorough background checks. As it stands most do an FBI background check and credit report check as a matter of standard practice... I've worked for a couple and they did that, they did an 'investigation into your background' and fingerprints as well.
I've also worked for police departments, and thier background checks were pretty thorough as well.
August 1, 2008 at 7:10 am
Most corporations are not trying to control you, they are trying to control risk. If you smoke, health costs for the company will be higher. If you skydive, they have a higher risk of needing to replace you because that is a risky pastime.
If the company tries to prevent you from doing something that you have every right to do in your spare time, then you have to ask yourself, is that the right company for me.
August 1, 2008 at 7:15 am
Last comment. If you google my name the first result is The Jack Corbett Guide to Topless Clubs, which is NOT me. You get me as the 5th result because I wrote an article for this site.
Oh yes, a likely story...
:w00t:
"The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood"
- Theodore Roosevelt
Author of:
SQL Server Execution Plans
SQL Server Query Performance Tuning
August 1, 2008 at 7:15 am
While I am of the opinion that what I do in my non-work time is none of my employer's business, I am not so naive as to think the world actually works that way. My professional persona is a different beastie than my non-work self, and many of my co-workers would probably be floored by many aspects of my outside life. While I make a fair effort to keep those portions of my life separate, crossovers do occur, and I deal with the reactions as they come up.
August 1, 2008 at 7:21 am
Great topic, Steve.
I feel like all of this "checking up" is a reflection of where our society is, especially here in the US: We are afraid of so much more than we ever were before. And we believe that access to information can solve or prevent all of our problems. (We have the same belief that access to legal measures help us too, but once when I would have unhesitatingly stopped to help an injured person, I now must consider whether I will get sued for helping. We should we be afraid to help?)
Instead, I would submit that in many cases, access to information also gives us access to more reasons to be worried (watched the news lately?).
It's up to us to "check" ourselves once and a while and remember that the purpose of information is to help us make better choices. Fear, however, is paralyzing and hinders decision making. We should not use information to catalyze our fear.
If HR and hiring managers feel the need to do more than a background/credit check and perform a good interview, then something is severely lacking in their hiring process; people have been getting jobs for thousands of years, and HR never had to use LinkedIn then.
My 02.
---------------------------
|Ted Pin >>
August 1, 2008 at 7:21 am
LinkedIn is one of those services I want to like/use effectively, just don't see how yet. I have a few friends that find it useful in the consulting business; if you're about to visit XYZ Co, you look to see if maybe you have or can build some connections prior to the visit to smooth the way. I'm in the training business though, should I be pinging the connections of everyone I link to asking 'hey, want some training?'. Probably not! I think the practice of accepting all links just screws up the value of LinkedIn, but we all do it because it seems rude not to. How many people on your list would you write a recommendation for?
Just because privacy is harder to come by doesn't mean you shouldn't give thought to it. I typically only research someone online if they mention an online presence (article, forum, blog, etc) and at that point, whatever they have there becomes part of their resume/portfolio. That's why my blog contains no political opinions, nothing about pets, rarely about anything besides SQL, .net, and related items. I don't mind them seeing or making decisions based on my professional persona, but I'm not going to encourage them to see which hobbies I enjoy or who I voted for.
As far as the finance guy, I agree wouldn't appreciate an employer telling me what I can't do at home. But if you're a C-level person, or highly visible, work and life at home get a little gray. For example, would you want Secret Service guys blogging about their day at the office? In the case of the finance guy I think worrying about head hunters is dumb, you can't stop them, what you can do is take care of your people so they don't want to leave. I think the alternative is to blog under another name, or to take out the references to your employer so that 'bad guys' can't easily match them up.
August 1, 2008 at 7:23 am
It seems to me that the issue is not the lack of privacy, but of the scruples of the people you work for. It should not matter how someone in HR (or the rest of your company) finds this information that you feel might be sensitive. The point is that you shouldn't be harassed or fired because you like certain hobbies, hold certain beliefs, etc.[p]Now, I don't know about the rest of the world, but the USA has an At-Will Employment rule, which states that either the employer or the employee can terminate the employment without liability. There are some exceptions to this rule, but an employee can legally be fired because he or she owns guns, or votes republican, or is an atheist for example. This means that you can either freely post whatever you want and worry about an HR witch hunt; or you can keep your private life, your beliefs, your actions, your thoughts, and your ideas to yourself, and worry a little bit less about getting laid off for no good reason.[/p][p]On the other hand, you could just put this all out of your mind and concentrate on the more important things in life.[/p]
August 1, 2008 at 7:35 am
I think the information available on the web should be used and is a valuable tool in helping someone determine if you are a good fit. I have seen it used against a person as well but I don't feel bad for that person after seeing what they had on their myspace page. I certainly would not have wanted to work with that person in a professional environment.
If you don't want people to see it, don't post it! Personally, I setup a myspace page just to make sure someone could not set one up for me and post something potentially damaging.
August 1, 2008 at 7:39 am
I tend to use a pseudo-name whenever I post on the Internet because my real name is unique, and to my knowledge, I am the only one in the world. So Googling my real name will bring back a limited amount of hits, but they are all me (but nothing detrimental, at least to me).
As far as HR searching the Internet for information on people, that is scary. We all know that HR tends to be a serious 'gatekeeper' when it comes to getting a job in a company, which is why everyone always says you need to get your resume to the hiring manager, or at least someone else that is 'technical' so you get a fair consideration. The problem with HR is that those people will read some article or study that says if a person possesses some trait or partakes in some activity, or has certain tendencies, or whatever, that person will not be a good employee or will not be successful in a certain role, etc. I think a lot of that is rubbish, and is published by people trying to make a name (and money) for their consulting company or sell books, and a lot of these 'findings' are not based on scientifically-correct studies, and often on the authors professional opinion (and we all know what they say about opinions).
So we have HR, armed with their latest 'study' of what makes a good employee, weeding out perfectly qualified people because they don't fit what they consider the profile for that position or for an employee in general. I'm sure in some cases it is justified, but I bet there are a lot of people who don't get a fair consideration because of it, and this is a loss to both the candidate and the company. Or worse, you have an HR person who is weeding people out based on their own prejudices, legal or not.
So I guess the guideline should be don't publish anything that can be linked to you that you wouldn't want published in the newspaper on the frontpage with your name and picture next to it.
If it was easy, everybody would be doing it!;)
Viewing 15 posts - 16 through 30 (of 67 total)
You must be logged in to reply to this topic. Login to reply