5 ms·

I think you would have been justified saying "This requirement is ethically suspect, I will not be a party to it, and if the business requires otherwise then ou

by patio11 15y ago

I think you would have been justified saying "This requirement is ethically suspect, I will not be a party to it, and if the business requires otherwise then our time together is at an end.", even if semi-coercively browsing folks' Facebooks was demonstrably a wonderful idea for the business. That said, bully for you, and if it takes more than thirty seconds to line up a new position in this market I'm sure many of us would be willing to assist.

raganwald 15y ago
I am not now, nor will I ever be, an employee of a company that compels a Director of Development to follow HR edicts about hiring practices without mutually respectful consultation.
- wdewind 15y ago
  So this is more of a "expect this type of stuff to happen if this becomes the norm" deal? Either way, interesting read and gave me some stuff to think about, as usual. Thanks.
  - eshrews 15y ago
    Yes, he confirms further down in the comments that this is a fictional story.
    - doktrin 15y ago
      I wish he had made this more clear in the actual original post. Unless I'm missing something, there was no indication of this being a parable. As it stands, I had already scanned his resume to mentally blacklist his most recent employer. The massive google flamewar that occupies the top 1/3rd of this page notwithstanding, burying the true nature the article deep in the HN comments isn't really the best practice.
      - unreal37 15y ago
        I had figured out about half way through that the story was fictional. It wasn't explicit, but it was subtle. Who's going to write a resignation letter like that? No one.
    - seanp2k2 15y ago
      Boo. Should be disclosed in bold at the top of his article.
- mark_integerdsv 15y ago
  Oh, this is where the on-topic discussion is. I had to wade through a pretty meaty Google flamewar to get here... I have a question about this Facebook fiasco: what exactly does HR hope to discover and how would they plan to use such intelligence? The reason I ask is that here in South Africa, when applying to a position (from my experience as a business intelligence consultant) I must release HR to check both my credit history as well as submit to having my fingerprints taken by an electronic device which connects to a governmental database and checks my criminal record for any misconduct. Are these checks common place in your part of the world? Can you see anything that HR in South Africa might gain by snooping through Facebook that wouldn't be outweighed by the information already available to them?
  - nbm 15y ago
    Wow, I've never heard of anyone in South Africa with a non-government job being asked to have their fingerprints taken. Admittedly, my background is mostly tech startups, but even friends who worked at big-ish companies (Didata, CS Holdings, &c.) have never mentioned it. Credit history is a mostly used as a poor indication that you won't be tempted to sell company or user private information. It might also be an indicator of poor judgement or other bad traits, I guess. I think only one company ever asked this of me, and they were certainly the most backward of those I interviewed at. Basically, companies are trying to avoid hiring bad people. Whether it's because they've bought into the "it is impossible to fire anyone" story or not, it is costly in terms of time and wasted effort and disruption. And, generalising from an admittedly small sample size, I'd say they're not as good or as introspective about how they hire as the few (admittedly really good) US companies I'm familiar with.
    - instakill 15y ago
      As another South African, I've actually heard of cases where people have taken companies to task for being passed over based on certain characteristics (like sexual orientation etc.) The acronym CCMA is thrown around a lot depending on whose conversations you listen to.
    - lancewiggs 15y ago
- seanp2k2 15y ago
  Mad respect for you, sir. I really feel like you did the right thing, and I hope the HR people there (and in the rest of our industry) get straightened out quick. P.S. I would have done the exact same thing as the two hires. I probably would have recorded it on video and remained silent until you were done. EDIT: boo for not disclosing clearly, in bold, at the top of your article that this is a fictional piece. Orig. comment left intact above.
  - jeremyarussell 15y ago
    You didn't send him an email saying thanks. Edit: (I did, to my embarrassment)
celoyd 15y ago
I read the ethical objection as a pretty clear subtext. There’s a powerfully condescending tone here – “Since you clearly can’t make the right choice out of basic decency, let me put this in words you might understand”.
- ryguytilidie 15y ago
  Which is absolutely correct for someone who makes as insanely stupid business decisions as this COO. Was recently at a company where the same thing happened and everyone hated it. You'd think some blame would fall on the COO for not understanding how a business operates, but instead, people who criticized his stupid work were lectured. Real surprisingly, they quickly started leaving in droves.
jiry 15y ago
The #1 job of HR is to make sure they don't get their asses sued or fined for violating hiring and employment law. The #2 job is to help hire and retain good people. What raganwald's fictional letter shows is that inspecting private Facebook posts means that both job functions are compromised far more than helped. It's the kind of argument that gets the attention of people who may not be moved by ethical arguments.
- fleitz 15y ago
  If they focused on #2, #1 wouldn't be so much of an issue. Instead they hire on meaningless metrics and utter BS like what you have on your Facebook profile instead of your ability to do the job. One of my friends who is an awesome salesman and was recommended by the person hiring for the job was not hired for the position by HR because he doesn't have his GED. The guy is super smart and doesn't have his GED because of some unfortunate circumstances regarding his classes being on the 2nd floor of the school and having broken both legs. Now he's going and finishing up his GED in a couple weeks and will continue the search.
  - dfc 15y ago
    "If they focused on #2, #1 wouldn't be so much of an issue." You do not really believe this do you? I am very sorry for your friend. Rigid interpretation of the rules can lead to some terrible decisions. However I do not think that requiring a GED increases the likelihood that the employee is going to be the cause of a lawsuit. Humans nature is an odd beast and the list of lawsuit inducing character flaws goes on for miles. If people were able to easily screen for these character flaws during the recruiting process elections would be so much easier...
    - fleitz 15y ago
      I do agree with you that it's an over simplification, there is certainly a balance to be struck but I don't think the one that's currently struck is the best one.
      - 15y ago

by patio11 15y ago

raganwald 15y ago

I am not now, nor will I ever be, an employee of a company that compels a Director of Development to follow HR edicts about hiring practices without mutually respectful consultation.

wdewind 15y ago
So this is more of a "expect this type of stuff to happen if this becomes the norm" deal? Either way, interesting read and gave me some stuff to think about, as usual. Thanks.
- eshrews 15y ago
  Yes, he confirms further down in the comments that this is a fictional story.
  - doktrin 15y ago
    I wish he had made this more clear in the actual original post. Unless I'm missing something, there was no indication of this being a parable. As it stands, I had already scanned his resume to mentally blacklist his most recent employer. The massive google flamewar that occupies the top 1/3rd of this page notwithstanding, burying the true nature the article deep in the HN comments isn't really the best practice.
    - unreal37 15y ago
      I had figured out about half way through that the story was fictional. It wasn't explicit, but it was subtle. Who's going to write a resignation letter like that? No one.
  - seanp2k2 15y ago
    Boo. Should be disclosed in bold at the top of his article.
mark_integerdsv 15y ago
Oh, this is where the on-topic discussion is. I had to wade through a pretty meaty Google flamewar to get here... I have a question about this Facebook fiasco: what exactly does HR hope to discover and how would they plan to use such intelligence? The reason I ask is that here in South Africa, when applying to a position (from my experience as a business intelligence consultant) I must release HR to check both my credit history as well as submit to having my fingerprints taken by an electronic device which connects to a governmental database and checks my criminal record for any misconduct. Are these checks common place in your part of the world? Can you see anything that HR in South Africa might gain by snooping through Facebook that wouldn't be outweighed by the information already available to them?
- nbm 15y ago
  Wow, I've never heard of anyone in South Africa with a non-government job being asked to have their fingerprints taken. Admittedly, my background is mostly tech startups, but even friends who worked at big-ish companies (Didata, CS Holdings, &c.) have never mentioned it. Credit history is a mostly used as a poor indication that you won't be tempted to sell company or user private information. It might also be an indicator of poor judgement or other bad traits, I guess. I think only one company ever asked this of me, and they were certainly the most backward of those I interviewed at. Basically, companies are trying to avoid hiring bad people. Whether it's because they've bought into the "it is impossible to fire anyone" story or not, it is costly in terms of time and wasted effort and disruption. And, generalising from an admittedly small sample size, I'd say they're not as good or as introspective about how they hire as the few (admittedly really good) US companies I'm familiar with.
  - instakill 15y ago
    As another South African, I've actually heard of cases where people have taken companies to task for being passed over based on certain characteristics (like sexual orientation etc.) The acronym CCMA is thrown around a lot depending on whose conversations you listen to.
  - lancewiggs 15y ago
seanp2k2 15y ago
Mad respect for you, sir. I really feel like you did the right thing, and I hope the HR people there (and in the rest of our industry) get straightened out quick. P.S. I would have done the exact same thing as the two hires. I probably would have recorded it on video and remained silent until you were done. EDIT: boo for not disclosing clearly, in bold, at the top of your article that this is a fictional piece. Orig. comment left intact above.
- jeremyarussell 15y ago
  You didn't send him an email saying thanks. Edit: (I did, to my embarrassment)

celoyd 15y ago

I read the ethical objection as a pretty clear subtext. There’s a powerfully condescending tone here – “Since you clearly can’t make the right choice out of basic decency, let me put this in words you might understand”.

ryguytilidie 15y ago
Which is absolutely correct for someone who makes as insanely stupid business decisions as this COO. Was recently at a company where the same thing happened and everyone hated it. You'd think some blame would fall on the COO for not understanding how a business operates, but instead, people who criticized his stupid work were lectured. Real surprisingly, they quickly started leaving in droves.

jiry 15y ago

The #1 job of HR is to make sure they don't get their asses sued or fined for violating hiring and employment law. The #2 job is to help hire and retain good people. What raganwald's fictional letter shows is that inspecting private Facebook posts means that both job functions are compromised far more than helped. It's the kind of argument that gets the attention of people who may not be moved by ethical arguments.

fleitz 15y ago
If they focused on #2, #1 wouldn't be so much of an issue. Instead they hire on meaningless metrics and utter BS like what you have on your Facebook profile instead of your ability to do the job. One of my friends who is an awesome salesman and was recommended by the person hiring for the job was not hired for the position by HR because he doesn't have his GED. The guy is super smart and doesn't have his GED because of some unfortunate circumstances regarding his classes being on the 2nd floor of the school and having broken both legs. Now he's going and finishing up his GED in a couple weeks and will continue the search.
- dfc 15y ago
  "If they focused on #2, #1 wouldn't be so much of an issue." You do not really believe this do you? I am very sorry for your friend. Rigid interpretation of the rules can lead to some terrible decisions. However I do not think that requiring a GED increases the likelihood that the employee is going to be the cause of a lawsuit. Humans nature is an odd beast and the list of lawsuit inducing character flaws goes on for miles. If people were able to easily screen for these character flaws during the recruiting process elections would be so much easier...
  - fleitz 15y ago
    I do agree with you that it's an over simplification, there is certainly a balance to be struck but I don't think the one that's currently struck is the best one.
    - 15y ago