Hacker News Reader

Comment by patio11 | Hacker News Reader

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.

View on HN

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.

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.

Yes, he confirms further down in the comments that this is a fictional story.

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.

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.

Boo. Should be disclosed in bold at the top of his article.

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?

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.

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.

I, like anyone else wanting a work visa at the time, had to provide a clear HIV certificate to South African immigration.

Once I had the permit I spent 10 months in KwaZulu-Natal - an area with 40% HIV incidence, and at an employer with (anonymously tested) 20-25% incidence.

I'm in SA also. I thought that we are not legally obliged to disclose our HIV status to employers

I'm based in SA too. I looked for and found a job recently, as a web developer, and had to consent to a credit check, fingerprints and criminal record check at the employment agency. I declined the criminal record check (whether they listened or not is another story). Many of the positions had employers asking for those things. Very odd. I don't know when this started since the last time I went looking for work before this was about 2003.

Howzit!

My assumption has been that they'd attempt to infer by marrying the two pieces of info whether it bit you'd pose a risk. So say you have a fraud charge laid against you some years back and you're currently in heaps of bad debt... It might be a bad idea to let you at my financials database, for instance.

I do think though that some of the more stringent assessment procedures also serve a secondary purpose when it comes to offer time. If you've run the gauntlet to get this offer the person offering you the position has considerable leverage in terms of negotiating a remuneration package. May it's not the main reason they do that stuff but it is a side effect of it.

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.

You didn't send him an email saying thanks.

Edit: (I did, to my embarrassment)

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.

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.

"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...

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.

I definitely think that there is significant room for improvement when it comes to hiring. However I think that significant progress towards #1 through preventative screening is next to impossible.

If they focused first on #2 - finding the right people for the job - where "right" meant the proper skill set for the job, that would go a long way to solving #1 - following the law on hiring practices. For if they are truly hiring on skill alone then they have already passed the biggest hurdle HR has in #1 - discriminatory hiring practices - because skill set does not look at sex or gender or race or age or any of that.

> 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.

His school is exempt from the Americans with Disabilities Act?

Like a guy giving career advice for engineers in Germany always says (I'm citing indirectly here, so there maybe is a certain spin to it): Nobody is blamed for following the "rules",so if HR doesn't get good people or any people at all they won't be blamed as long as they followed the rules. On the other they WILL get blamed if they hire the wrong or too troublesome people.

Maybe they think stalking prospective employees via facebook helps them somehow there...

This guy isn't based in Nuremberg, by any chance?

It Heiko Mell from the VDI (Verband deutscher Ingenieure). And it's possible I completely got him wrong.

frobozz is likely referring to this: http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Nuremberg_defense in response to this: 'Nobody is blamed for following the "rules"'

Yeah well, that took me some time some time to get, I mean like in "I needed you comment to get it".

:-)

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”.

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.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com