Malice wrote:But they don't. At least not an unlimited right. Businesses have the discretion to hire whomever they like, until it comes out that all they hire are white men.
We're not talking about an 'unlimited' right, we're talking about the discretion to hire whomever you like, outside certain protected criteria. We've been doing that for awhile.
Malice wrote:All I'm suggesting is that this be another set of information they can't use. It's not radically different from the limitations they have now.
Yes, it is. You're not blocking off a criterion, you're blocking off an entire source of publicly available information. It's the difference between not allowing gender-bias in hiring, and not allowing you to look at the applicant.
Malice wrote:I'm making the assumption that the ability to find out information about people will only increase. Right now it may be checking somebody's Facebook, browsing through a few of their friends, and doing a Google search (which is bad enough). I think betting against the Internet getting more open and easier to search is a fool's wager. This is not even acknowledging that somebody out there is going to start coming out with search tools just for businesses, if they haven't already.
Except you still failed to show that employers will collectively use this information, even if available, in a counter-productive manner.
The internet's increasing capabilities also make it more possible for the whole world to coordinate a focused campaign on not ever talking to you. That doesn't mean we should be blocking off the internet any time soon.
Malice wrote:First off, you're stacking the deck by making it about beating women. It could certainly be a lot of other things--your sexual orientation, your political opinions, your love of tentacle porn or Lord of the Rings fan-fiction, or just the fact that you use your FB profile for nothing but finding and talking about weekend parties. The point is that all or any of these things may tip the scales between you and Joe Competition, whose profile says nothing but "I enjoy managing my action items and utilizing the award-winning sales experience I earned in nine record breaking years at my last job." And all of those things, which may be the reason not to ask for an interview or not to hire me, are things that are none of their fucking business. Up to and including violence against women.
Um, yeah. They're the ones making an investment in you? That makes it their business. If there is reason to believe you're prone to beating women, you become a liability for that business.
Again, you've failed to show that companies overall would collectively and instantaneously suddenly become too incompetent to be able to differentiate irrelevant from relevant data, just because they're using facebook.
Malice wrote:"Man, you probably shouldn't have done that. ...welp, good luck being homeless for the rest of your life." Jokes aside, you are arguing for a society where it is impossible to get past your mistakes, because they're there indelibly on the internet. You're arguing for a society where it's impossible to get a second chance.
It's possible to get a second chance -- it's just up to the employer to give it to you. If you did something *so* egregious that it makes you virtually unemployable, then really -- that's unfortunate but no one's fault but your own.
Malice wrote:But Facebook is not going to help them determine that.
You haven't shown that, and there's been plenty of instances cited to show that Facebook *could* aid in determining it. See example above of status updates regarding overly violent behavior being indicative of a potential liability for the company.
PM wrote:Yeah, and a lot of companies are fully aware of this and have a probationary period for just that reason. You're not a full employee for 90 days or some such. Sometimes this means fewer benefits for that time, but usually it's just "Look, we THINK you can swing this. But we can't know 'til you try. If you can't do it, you're out."
Ah yes, it's totally a great idea to invest what's over $10 000 in salary, the company's resources which would very possibly include another (likely more expensive) employee's time, and the loss of productivity, on absolutely nothing more than what a person provides you with to get himself hired.