5 ms·

A central premise of this article is not correct. If an employer, for example, is using tens of thousands of background data points to deny employment to a per

A central premise of this article is not correct. If an employer, for example, is using tens of thousands of background data points to deny employment to a person, the employer would need to disclose that to the applicant.[1]. If the things in this article are secret then the law may well be violated. Also, not really the best idea to apply secret proprietary algorithms to these kinds of decisions because you're eventually going to have to disprove improper bias, which can easily and "systemically" be baked into a background screening tool. [1] https://www.eeoc.gov/laws/guidance/background-checks-what-employers-need-know https://www.eeoc.gov/laws/guidance/background-checks-what-em...

gmantg 6y ago
No need to disclose anything: plausible deniability is enough. And "bias" can be fixed by ad-hoc quotas.
- vorpalhex 6y ago
  Why wouldn't an HR person or hiring staffer immediately out the company or even sue them?
  - gmantg 6y ago
    What do you mean? Why wouldn't an HR sue his own employer? Because binding arbitration and the employer will make sure to destroy the reputation of that HR.
    - trustmeimdrunk 6y ago
      We can answer that question by rephrasing, "why haven't HR employees sued their employers, time and time again?" then if it interests you personally pursue precedents. Or better yet "Why dont employees commit career suicide for relatively minor offences that dont affect them personally and inflict no direct harm?"
  - FalconSensei 6y ago
    they wouldn't be employed anywhere else?
  - dragonwriter 6y ago
    > Why wouldn't an HR person or hiring staffer immediately out the company or even sue them? They wouldn't out the company because hurting the company for no private gain doesn't help them, and they wouldn't sue the company because they’d be a beneficiary, not an injured party, and so would have no damages to claim. And also because both acts would destroy their future employability in the field.
  - goatinaboat 6y ago
    Why wouldn't an HR person or hiring staffer immediately out the company or even sue them? Why would they? HR is not your friend.
dragonwriter 6y ago
> Also, not really the best idea to apply secret proprietary algorithms to these kinds of decisions because you're eventually going to have to disprove improper bias You only have to disprove that if the applicant can first show the existence of bias, which with a secret proprietary algo that they don't have access to either the inputs or outputs of or know exists, is pretty hard to do.
zoomablemind 6y ago
It seems that such close attention to detail and blind trust to third-party scores will decrease chances of filling the positions and get the needed job done, which is supposedly the main business objective. This again will reduce the hiring succes to the good old chance or buddy-referred chance.
trustmeimdrunk 6y ago
Ya large corps with the tools and resources are beholden to the most rigid of ethical standards and furthermore wholly unable to commit crimes systematically for very long due precisely because of their scale, amiriteamirite?! Yukyuk where my high fives at, guys? Yukyukyuk

gmantg 6y ago

No need to disclose anything: plausible deniability is enough. And "bias" can be fixed by ad-hoc quotas.

vorpalhex 6y ago
Why wouldn't an HR person or hiring staffer immediately out the company or even sue them?
- gmantg 6y ago
  What do you mean? Why wouldn't an HR sue his own employer? Because binding arbitration and the employer will make sure to destroy the reputation of that HR.
  - trustmeimdrunk 6y ago
    We can answer that question by rephrasing, "why haven't HR employees sued their employers, time and time again?" then if it interests you personally pursue precedents. Or better yet "Why dont employees commit career suicide for relatively minor offences that dont affect them personally and inflict no direct harm?"
- FalconSensei 6y ago
  they wouldn't be employed anywhere else?
- dragonwriter 6y ago
  > Why wouldn't an HR person or hiring staffer immediately out the company or even sue them? They wouldn't out the company because hurting the company for no private gain doesn't help them, and they wouldn't sue the company because they’d be a beneficiary, not an injured party, and so would have no damages to claim. And also because both acts would destroy their future employability in the field.
- goatinaboat 6y ago
  Why wouldn't an HR person or hiring staffer immediately out the company or even sue them? Why would they? HR is not your friend.

dragonwriter 6y ago

> Also, not really the best idea to apply secret proprietary algorithms to these kinds of decisions because you're eventually going to have to disprove improper bias You only have to disprove that if the applicant can first show the existence of bias, which with a secret proprietary algo that they don't have access to either the inputs or outputs of or know exists, is pretty hard to do.

zoomablemind 6y ago

It seems that such close attention to detail and blind trust to third-party scores will decrease chances of filling the positions and get the needed job done, which is supposedly the main business objective. This again will reduce the hiring succes to the good old chance or buddy-referred chance.

trustmeimdrunk 6y ago

Ya large corps with the tools and resources are beholden to the most rigid of ethical standards and furthermore wholly unable to commit crimes systematically for very long due precisely because of their scale, amiriteamirite?! Yukyuk where my high fives at, guys? Yukyukyuk