Hacker News Reader

Comment by neilv | Hacker News Reader

> Key Elements for Job Search Microsite

> * Have a professional profile picture

I don't do this, for two reasons:

1. Being a photographer taught me that I'm much better on the buttons side of the camera, not the lens side.

2. Photos really don't belong in hiring in the US. Due to the long history of unfair prejudices, which are still ongoing in some ways. Even better would be if we could remove names, for being cues as to gender, racial/ethnic background, caste, and other socioeconomic status. But photos are easy to eliminate from hiring processes, and in fact we were rid of them in the US, until "social media"-like sites like LinkedIn reintroduced photos to resumes.

View on HN

> 2. Photos really don't belong in hiring in the US.

The author of the post is in Sweden, not the US.

As weird as it sounds, profile photos are prominent features of resumes in many European countries. It shocked me when I first started hiring in our EU offices, but that's just the way it is. I was surprised because we've often been told so many different ways that Europe is ahead of the US in matters of discrimination, but then I got there and resumes were full of profile pictures and even discussion about their marital status. I had our recruiter over there start erasing these things from resumes and they thought I was crazy.

The discrimination in Europe works slightly differently than in the US, as having a native sounding name is just as, or even more, important than having a "right" skin color.

So to be certain you'll avoid discrimination, you'd need to omit both the photo and the name from the CV, and that's not common at all.

Should we also hide the names of the universities we went to and the names of former employers we worked at?

You do for the UK Civil Service

> Please ensure you remove references to your: ... educational institutions

https://www.civil-service-careers.gov.uk/ipo-recruitment-sup...

Sure! Why not? Especially if we all know that that is the main determining factor of the recruiter, and the recruiter is completely protected from any discrimination. You can simply lie, regardless.

If the employer won't digitally sign their denial of my resume,or even acknowledge the reason for my denial, I'm not digitally signing mine; which means it's a theatre of discrimination disguised as "filtering" from BOTH sides.

I'm surprised so many prolific firms beyond FAANG still treat hiring like the big accounting firms of yore did/do.

Confused, what are you implying?

There's bias towards certain big name institutions. Perhaps we should prevent discrimination on this basis by omitting those references.

Also, because those big name institutions have bias towards certain types of students - and train them to think/act in certain ways.

It often works, which is why they do it.

how is that discrimination other than signaling you know the language, have a job permit and so on.

Because you’re assuming just from the name or photo thay someone knows the language and have job permit.

This means children from immigrant families growing up in Europe would be discriminated against simply because of how they look and what their last name is.

That’s classic discrimination.

this you will see on their education history though, but sure thats the same for europeans in china too and so on

Okay, so if I put down that education history, then what? I can lie.

My points are that hiring should be more based on applied challenges and gauging recruit success in context. The heavy cost of vetting should be part of the onboarding, not recruiting; which would put the onus on the employer and away from the often discriminated employee.

Because then employers will treat the absence of that signal as a potential concern?

yes, because it is

Look, "potential concerns" shouldn't matter unless they're real concerns. Judging someone based on "potential concerns" is discrimination. Judge someone based on who they are, not who you think they might be.

in theory yes but people judge you for school or whatever on a CV anyway

Which is why discrimination laws exist. The fact that people do it doesn't make it right.

Reminds me of the story of someone with the first name "Kim" who had to put "Mr." in front of it on his résumé to get any interviews. Depressing.

> I was surprised because we've often been told so many different ways that Europe is ahead of the US in matters of discrimination

Maybe it's possible to have profile photos in resumes and to be "ahead of the US in matters of discrimination"

> Maybe it's possible to have profile photos in resumes and to be "ahead of the US in matters of discrimination"

Nope, discrimination is immense here. In US, people at least acknowledge that there is discrimination and something has to be done. Here in EU, we simply deny its existence and accuse the victim of malice and dividing the nation. I actually had this realisation of the issue/difference after a medium stay at US and coming back.

‘Culture fit’ interviews in Europe don’t beat around the bush - they mean right down to the frat/sorority/school, hobbies, and if you like the right beer everyone else does.

In the Netherlands, the hiring managers would even ask the women exactly when they were planning on having kids - and the men what their plans were for wife/kids. Down to the year.

Once you were in, you were golden though.

Yeah I was shocked by this as well moving from Australia to Germany, it's a euro thing.

Some will even put "single" or "married" on their cv, though I'm told that's dying out

What about LinkedIn? That substitutes resumes for a lot of people. It has photos and it's not a euro thing.

Yeah this is always something that has bothered me. Profile image bias is 100% a thing. But if you don't have an image on LinkedIn or put a generic image (of your dog or something) then it hurts you in job searches.

People will deny that it hurts you, but I guarantee it does. I've been in many meetings where people make comments about weird photos like that which portray you negatively.

So I have accepted it as a necessary evil. If you have to have a profile image and its going to represent you, then make it as professional as possible. Don't go for goofy or silly, just be professional and boring and its the best look.

From germany here. I removed the photo from my CV a few years ago. Never got asked about it during hiring. Obviously I don't have any numbers whether/how often I got sorted out due to that.

But I hope the expectation to have a photo on your CV also dies out here.

I also hope that this dies out. While I used to put my photo as usual for years because this is how we do Lebenslauf, then one of my immigrant friend got severely discriminated(with clear evidence, guess the HR lady was new hire), so I started leaving my photo out in protest.

While I got some issues for a while about “better knowing our colleague and avoid hiring scam(?)”, eventually this stopped after I got some experience.

Now, if someone asks me for a photo or is concerned(one of my parents is immigrant background so I have a slightly hybrid name), I just tell them to know me better in person when I am in Office and they can take a photo with me when I meet them.

That all being said, the photo was more of a cultural thing in the past, it was useful for identification and filing purposes as well. However, in modern times the practice stuck and gave ways to discrimination.

HR being openly discriminatory is only an issue if someone actually penalizes them for it. The DOL is openly requiring companies to discriminate (affirmative action), and ignoring 'desirable' discrimination claims (which is required for affirmative action to work in a down economy), so why should they care?

And to be frank - did you sue them? Or try to sue them? Seems to be working no?

It used to be common to put in occupation of the parents as well.

> it's a euro thing

Yep. The Europass CV standard still uses photos on the CV.

Examples: https://duckduckgo.com/?q=europass+cv+example&t=lm&iax=image...

I don't think tech people add photos though. (I don't.)

I am puzzled. I read the article and I don't see that. Did the article get updated, maybe?

My mistake; I was quoting a different document, "An Engineering Leader’s Job Search Algorithm", linked from an HN comment: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39338314

I went through interview training and one of the reasons why they’re so adamant that résumés go into an automated parser was to strip photos and other info like that.

Yeah, on my end reviewing resume or when we did take-homes things like names and photos were always erased to prevent 'bias'

We did interview and hire a lot more women and PoC than other firms I've worked with so I guess it works to some degree

Should you conduct the interview without camera and with a voicechanger?

We can't eliminate all unfair biases, but if we can reduce unfair biases preventing people from even getting to the interview, that's a win.

Some US employers no longer conduct interviews at all for some positions.

That sounds entertaining for the hiring managers.

I imagine firing someone incompetent must be super fun too in that situation.

This starts to sound a little kooky - if there's that much bias going around that we need to play games with hiding info from the interviewers, then how can they work effectively with this person if they can't be trusted?

You can’t.

> Photos really don't belong in hiring in the US.

Sounds like someone needs to reread Don Burleson's professional dress code tips: https://www.dba-oracle.com/dress_code.htm

Presenting a polished, professional appearance makes a real difference to employers. They can and will legally fire you (or choose not to hire you) for failure to do so.

I think it's more a problem of visible disabilities or just not looking attractive, than of a dress code.

You're thinking of it from the 'should' (aka I wish) and employee perspective, not the competitive 'what do employers actually want' perspective.

If employers want their numbers to match some stat, then of course they're going to optimize for that. Which if your picture doesn't match, that's a problem. For you.

If employers have some pre-baked idea of what type of worker works for them, and getting things actually done matters to them (as compared to some diversity stat), then of course they're going to optimize for that. If your picture doesn't match, that's a problem. For you.

And maybe them if they can't actually find what they want because of their own pre-conceptions, but I guarantee they'll be the last ones they blame. It takes a very open minded individual to look past their own preconceptions. Sometimes too open minded. In times of stress, people default to what they are most comfortable with.

Now, if workers want that or not is up to them - most of the labor code is all about forcing employers to do things they don't want to do to protect themselves.

Most of contract and penal code is employers/owners trying to protect themselves from things they don't want others to do to them.

At this point, having a realistic picture is more about weeding out the fake AI/ML generated users. It's crazy how many fake profiles and applicants there are out there, but luckily most use the same type of professional headshots made by some generative model.

> Photos really don't belong in hiring in the US.

They don't legally or consciously belong in hiring in the US. Doesn't mean it may not be to your advantage to have one.

Yes it is a fair take to say they shouldn’t have a role. It is a naive one to suggest they don’t.

Unless you want to make hiring harder on yourself, put up a professional photo. You’re not going to change the world by not doing so, you’re only going to waste your own time.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com