I hereby resign

http://raganwald.posterous.com/i-hereby-resign

by llambda • 14 years ago

1175 366 14 years ago

raganwald.posterous.com

endianswap• 14 years ago

Even though the content of the letter wasn't anything new (the same thing we've been reading about frequently on HN and other tech sites in the last couple of weeks) I found that it was well written (and chilling!) to the point where if I needed to explain to someone why it is so bad for employers to request Facebook access, this is the page I would send them to.

Great read, thanks for taking the time to write it :)

unimpressive4• 14 years ago

As the first person to upvote, I started writing this comment, then realized I had nothing to say beyond "The best post I've read on the subject. That it's a letter of resignation is a bonus.". You sir get a hat tip from me for writing the comment I wanted to write but couldn't articulate.

Bravo.

grandalf• 14 years ago

I'm going to create my own employment law honeypot Facebook account today!

samstave3• 14 years ago

I am a gay fundie transgender black jewish pregnant woman with narcolepsy who has beat cancer, here is my FB passwd.

JohnHaugeland• 14 years ago

Sorry, we don't hire people who wear blue belts.

Best of luck to you.

orenmazor• 14 years ago

I'm adding this to my about me on facebook now. thanks for the copy!

EwanG5• 14 years ago

You don't even have to go to that extent. For the longest time my Klout profile claimed I was a 45 year old woman who lived in California because it misread a couple of my initial Facebook and Twitter posts. For the record I'm a male who currently resides in Texas...

mark_integerdsv3• 14 years ago

Are you insinuatIng that only black people can suffer from beat cancer?

As a white boy who has the funk, I take exception to that as I have lost a friend to beat cancer and let me tell you: it ain't no joke.

Watching your homie lose his beat step by step is a terrible thing and it leaves you with the worst feeling that maybe... just maybe, the rhythm really is going to get you.

bconway• 14 years ago

For anyone curious what this is in reference to, it's the news from a couple weeks ago regarding potential employers asking for Facebook logins as a part of interviews: http://www.usatoday.com/tech/news/story/2012-03-20/job-appli...

jbrichter3• 14 years ago

I find it infuriating that his argument against facebook spying isn't "this is wrong", but "we will have to hire dead weight, and could be exposed to legal liability." I of course don't mean to criticize the author personally; it's just sad how far culture has slid that this is the go-to argument.

fishtoaster• 14 years ago

Well, to be fair, I think the author is trying to provide newer arguments, as the "this is stupid, a huge invasion of privacy, and against Facebook's TOS" cases have already been made pretty heavily on the front page of Hacker News.

Further, if it's not plainly obvious that the practice is wrong to someone, it seems like stating the fact probably won't do much to convince them, so maybe alternative arguments might be more productive.

raganwald5• 14 years ago

Speaking as the author, this is not my go-to argument, nor do I suggest it be anyone’s go-to argument. I assure you that in “real life,” I would never agree to such an edict.

But it’s like this: I felt that this particular argument hasn’t received much notice, and I thought people would find it interesting to think about.

mikeash2• 14 years ago

It certainly got me interested. After reading your post, I find myself wondering why any employer would tolerate the potential liability.

jbrichter3• 14 years ago

Well, at least I'm not the only one who took your post literally. The argument is interesting. I feel like the reason it's overlooked might be a realization that once you have to make such an argument, all is lost, evil has won, everything decent will come to an end, &c.

guyzero2• 14 years ago

If you're going to interview & hire people in Canada understanding human rights law is mandatory. And it doesn't require you to hire dead weight; it's to stop people from saying that being black, or gay, or a woman is a valid reason to not hire someone.

It actually puts a legal requirement to do the opposite - to hire the best candidate regardless of their race, national origin or their interest in yiffing at FurrCon.

dspeyer2• 14 years ago

That's the theory. Enforcement makes things harder.

At least in the US, (and I strongly suspect in Canada as well) it's up to a jury to decide if the given rationale is genuine or an excuse to cover bigotry. Anyone who knows anything about how to do the job is likely to get blocked at jury-selection. Imagine explaining to 12 literature majors why cubic-time lookup is bad, while opposing council wants to know how often you use key-value stores in your day-to-day work.

orangecat4• 14 years ago

It actually puts a legal requirement to do the opposite - to hire the best candidate regardless of their race, national origin or their interest in yiffing at FurrCon.

Not always. For example if you somehow learn that a candidate plans to take several months parental leave in the near future, they can't possibly be the best candidate, but you're forbidden from taking that into account.

mirkules• 14 years ago

What you describe is politics in a capitalist society. An argument can't be won on morality alone anymore - there must be strong financial incentive at play. Personally, I am at least glad that there is an "out" of this mess, however low the argument is.

roguecoder2• 14 years ago

Corporations demand all employees abandon their morals and focus on maximizing profit. The easiest way to convince them not to do something blatantly and devastatingly immoral is to point out how it costs them money.

Or to take the approach advocated by Milton Friedman and pass a law to constrain their behavior. The infinite loop is introduced when corporations can influence which laws are passed...

excuse-me6• 14 years ago

"this is wrong" is a personal opinion. He might also think the company's logo is silly or it's sponsorship of a golf tournament is immoral.

The point he makes is - "this policy stops us writing quality software ". Now assuming writing quality software is a benefit to the company and it's shareholders this point has a lot more weight than his persona moral scruples.

jbrichter3• 14 years ago

Which is exactly the unfuriating thing.

samstave3• 14 years ago

"This is wrong" is completely valid and reasoned. Unfortunately "puts the business at risk, so much so I cannot hire in good faith and must resign" is FAR better understood by businesses - especially businesses do stuff that is wrong ALL the time.

potatolicious2• 14 years ago

It's the same reason why we have to codify "thou shalt not murder" into our laws - because some people are selfish, greedy, opportunistic assholes, and you have to twist their arms to get them to behave like civilized human beings.

In an industry (and this includes ours too, techies, don't be deluded into thinking otherwise) that's driven by the bottom line, practically without morality, perhaps the best argument you can make is something like this.

meaydinli• 14 years ago

I don't have a facebook account. I used to, but stopped using it about 4 years ago. I am looking forward to the day someone asks me that question. I wonder what their reaction is going to be. Possible scenarios:

- They will believe me, drop the subject. - They will ask to see my twitter/linkedin/etc. account instead. - They will think that I am lying and stop the interview process, which is the most dangerous one.

vaksel2• 14 years ago

100% it'll be the later...it's expected that you have a facebook account..if you don't they'll just think you are lying...and it must be REALLY bad for you to lie about it...you are probably a drug user, or worse

stray• 14 years ago

I really don't have a facebook account (we children of the cold war are sometimes a bit wary of any system that looks too much like a KGB wet dream).

Or twitter.

And on reddit I remove all my messages and delete my accounts whenever I pass 3000 karma.

Tangurena• 14 years ago

> or worse

Well, I'm running for election this November, so I suppose I could show them my campaign site.

jschuur• 14 years ago

Then that's a sign that the company doesn't understand the kind of anti-Facebook backlash that's come up in recent years. What else about the realities of today's world might they not grasp?

Every job interview is just as much an opportunity for you to get to know a prospective employer as vice versa.

oskarth• 14 years ago

Is this a common thing in US? I can't think of any good reason for an employer to get access to a prospective employees account. Sounds like the equivalent of asking to access a person's home to make sure it is well kept and that they have good taste.

unimpressive4• 14 years ago

It's slowly becoming one. I suspect this will stop the moment someone sues. Because I have total confidence that person will win.

EDIT:

Let me go ahead and put emphasis on "slowly".

As waterlesscloud points out, right now it's very uncommon.

The only reason it's on the agenda at all is because there's been headlines about insane employers asking to see employees Facebook profiles.

revscat• 14 years ago

What is infuriating is that there is no political will to put a legal stop to this practice. I suspect that this means that as businesses learn how to alleviate the OP's concerns that they will do it more and more as time goes on, until it becomes the new normal.

Libertarianism being the dominant political philosophy of the moment such encroachments seem inevitable.

waterlesscloud2• 14 years ago

No. It's very uncommon.

vaksel2• 14 years ago

why do employers expect access to your facebook?

do they expect access to your email account? no...because that'd be invasion of privacy...so why is facebook different?

you are free to snoop on the public facebook page(even though thats not 100% ethical either, since you should be judging people for the way they perform at work)...but in no way should you even think of asking about getting access to private information

minsight3• 14 years ago

There are many employers who feel that they're entitled to your salary history. Some see this as a sensible request, but it always struck me as a spectacular invasion of privacy.

logic• 14 years ago

They feel they're entitled to ask for your salary history, which is a subtle, bur very real, distinction. (Much like some employers feel they're entitled to rummage through your Facebook account, apparently.)

By the same token, you should feel entitled to tell them your prior salary data is a personal matter, if you're uncomfortable sharing it during salary negotiations.

billybob• 14 years ago

If a company asks for salary history, I tell them its irrelevant because I've learned a lot since my last negotiation (which is always true).

michaelochurch14• 14 years ago

There are many employers who feel that they're entitled to your salary history.

Ooh, lesson time! First, never give in on this one, unless compensation is relevant to your story (it's why you're leaving). It's best to say, "I believe that I was fairly compensated for the work I was doing, and I also believe I'm capable of doing more." It's a non-answer. You want to bring the discussion back to what you can do, not what you cost. Let them figure that out and give the first number. Leave the "salary" field on a job application blank. If they like you, they're not going to care.

Why do companies ask for this information? It doesn't have much of an influence on what they'll pay you. It might swing their number by 10 or 15 percent at most. Mainly, they want you to scout against the competition for them. The information you are volunteering has nothing to do with you but it's extremely valuable for their HR departments.

Moreover, that practice has to do with executives and the way they're compensated. Executives usually get severance packages baked in to the employment contract, but when companies fire people, they want to see if there's a way to get rid of them without paying these packages. Usually, any falsification in the job application process is cause to strike a package. So before a company is going to write a 3-year severance check, they want to do their research and see if they have leverage to negotiate it down or away.

You know those stories that you hear about where an executive is fired for falsifying a college degree, even if it was on some technicality like a $35 library fine that blocked his graduation (and that he had completely forgot about, 20 years later)? Those are cases where the company had already decided to fire him, and started to scout around to see if it could do so more cheaply. Depending on the structure of the arrangement, they either (a) struck the severance on account of what they found, or (b) threatened to disclose it if the employee didn't take a reduced package. The latter of these is illegal (extortion) but it happens all the time in severance negotiations with scummy companies.

Moreover, executive pay is complicated. Does one count stock options at the price then, or at the price now? How are projected bonuses, in a job the person hasn't yet left, handled? It is legit to change $100k base and $30k performance bonus to $80k and $50k? Representing salary as too high is construed as "misrepresentation", but salaries that are too low (trend improvement) can be taken the same way. It's like the fast-lane paradox: if you follow the law to the letter, you can't legally drive in the left-hand lane in most states, because it's illegal to drive below the speed limit and (of course) it's illegal to drive above it. So this is a very murky area.

Why do companies ask for salary information on non-executive employees as well? Because people will give it up. It's that simple. It costs nothing to ask, and people will usually volunteer the information.

I generally don't offer those numbers. If I do, I give the total package (counting equity at valuation) for the last job and omit the rest of the numbers, and I never put it in writing. (My salary history has always been good and with upward trend, so it's not exactly a problem, but I don't like giving it out.) What I made in 2006 is not relevant to anything.

Oh, and if a company ever asks for a W-2 form as a condition of employment, to verify salary or bonus, run like the fucking wind. You don't want to work with people like that. Trust me.

patio11• 14 years 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.

raganwald5• 14 years 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• 14 years 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.

mark_integerdsv3• 14 years 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?

seanp2k22• 14 years 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.

celoyd• 14 years 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”.

ryguytilidie6• 14 years 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• 14 years 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.

_3u10• 14 years 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.

hef198984• 14 years ago

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...

poppysan• 14 years ago

Not only does this give companies a glimpse on how invasion of privacy is potentially bad for both parties, it also arms potential employees with a way to fight against policies that invade your privacy. Well done.

minsight3• 14 years ago

I was expecting to see far more feedback from incredulous Americans in "at-will" states undergoing employment culture shock. It's nice to see that the Canadian point of view translates so well.

wmf2• 14 years ago

At-will employment doesn't overrule anti-discrimination laws, does it?

minsight3• 14 years ago

I'd expect that employees working in "at-will" states would be less likely to take a stand against their employers, even if the law were in their favour.

ps. I'd love to be wrong about this...

ahi• 14 years ago

There are far fewer protected classes in most US jurisdictions than in canada. E.g You can be fired for being gay in most states.

roguecoder2• 14 years ago

Even at will states are subject to federal employment laws. We may get no parental leave, but the ADA has been quite enforceable.

johngalt2• 14 years ago

I'd expect the converse. The harder it is to fire someone; the more paranoid you get about the hiring process.

jaylevitt3• 14 years ago

FYI, all American states are at-will states, though different states have different exceptions to it.

postfuturist• 14 years ago

I would never coerce anyone to look through their Facebook account (or email, or personal photo album, or their journal, etc) under any circumstance, especially a job interview where the candidate feels pressured to be obliging. What a shameful act!

drivebyacct22• 14 years ago

Called this a week and a half ago. Anyone who's LGBT (or anyone period really) knows that there are reasons to keep things on FB private from friends, family, employers selectively, etc. I had mentioned this was likely illegal for this very reason. Numerous states in the US have similar anti-discrimination laws. When I was interviewed at Microsoft they basically told me I couldn't talk about certain things and they were specifically trained to not ask questions that could reveal information that could lead to these sorts of suits.

I don't understand the downvotes? I've seen at least 4 people downvote this. Do you not believe me? And to edit for the people below, I was more or less hint-hint told that this was at least including not wanting to force someone to reveal that they were LGBT. I know that at least the group I was with, they were forbid from asking if "you have a girlfriend" and it wasn't for fear of an interviewer hitting on someone.

excuse-me6• 14 years ago

> Anyone who's LGBT knows that there are reasons to keep >things on FB private from friends, family, ...

See now if only people could keep it secret that they were; black, female, Jewish, etc as well there would be no problem of discrimination in the world!

burgerbrain2• 14 years ago

I know that you're not serious, but I just feel the need to reinforce that having to hide a portion of your identity does not in fact shield you from discrimination. The simple fact that you have to do so is discrimination itself.

Of course the idea is to eliminate a subset of discrimination, which arguably it does well, but to do so it introduces another sort.

ShabbyDoo• 14 years ago

"When I was interviewed at Microsoft"....Interesting given that MSFT has a long history of being a LGBT-friendly company.

sukuriant• 14 years ago

the "certain things" might have had nothing to do with LGBT

drivebyacct22• 14 years ago

Oh I wasn't worried about them being antigay or anything at all, much more so that HR forces them to be that careful and tip-toey about HR practices during recruiting.

edit: to be clear, they were specifically about being LGBT. And I don't necessarily think that sort of PC-ness should be absolutely required, but I'm unhappy to tell you that there are still plenty of discriminatory people out there.

vidarh2• 14 years ago

Is not having a policy that reduces the risk of interviewers intentionally or subconsciously discriminating against someone who is LGBT exactly the type of thing you would expect from an LGBT-friendly company?

tallanvor2• 14 years ago

Microsoft itself is very LGBT friendly, but that doesn't mean every employee is. Because of this, HR puts policies into place to try and prevent employees from making employment decisions based on that type of criteria.

groby_b• 14 years ago

Welcome to the club:)

My general thoughts on this, plus the "called it" comment are here: https://plus.google.com/107226275692313566931/posts/L69x1jz8...

I was focusing more on how to deal with it in a world where employers will do this, though, and less on the "here's how to hack it". After all, for many of us both saying "no" and "hacking" the process is not necessarily a valid option. Mortgages and kids need to be figured in occasionally. (I hope I'd still have the conviction to say "no", but I understand it's a sticky situation for many)

paganel2• 14 years ago

> "you have a girlfriend"

Why would anyone ask that in an interview totally beats me.

mseebach• 14 years ago

It might accidentally come up in the course of normal conversion. Which is why interviewers are trained to avoid the patterns leading to there.

chao-2• 14 years ago

I am not planning on being interviewed for a new job any time soon. Despite that, when the whole "Facebook disclosure during interview/hire" topic broke, I began preparing my short list of ways to act indignant/offended or to lay on some thick sarcasm that gets across just how horrible they should feel for even suggesting something of the sort.

This blows everything I had out of the water. Props for the creativity and execution.

saryant• 14 years ago

As someone about to graduate college and interviewing at a number of firms I'm sort of hoping one of them asks for my Facebook password so I can laugh in their face while I accept one of the other several offers I've received.

burningion2• 14 years ago

This exact same process is what kept me from applying to ycombinator this year. Asking for my Facebook url is the same considering everyone at ycombinator has whatever access they need.

Raised $20k in two weeks on my own instead, for a much less percentage than ycombinator would have.

davorak• 14 years ago

Non-optional field?

Did they ask for a blog url as well? Was it optional?

Facebook can be used as promotional tool for a business, hence why a Facebook url could be relevant.

emmett2• 14 years ago

You do know that anyone can already look up your Facebook page anyway right?

Y-Combinator isn't asking for you to give them access to log in as you on Facebook, they're asking for a link to your public page.

eternalban2• 14 years ago

Is it "public" knowledge that HN user eternalban is actually Mr. X in real life?

Btw, if that is not age discrimination -- "your facebook coordinates, please" -- I don't know what is .. /tongue/cheek

driverdan2• 14 years ago

Asking for a URL is nothing like demanding access to the account. Anything available to the public under your profile could be found with a name search, providing it just simplifies the process.

delinka2• 14 years ago

Asking for a URL is exactly like being too lazy to find it on your own. You want to know? Find it yourself. I'm under no obligation to assist you.

ryguytilidie6• 14 years ago

Kinda worried that you run your own business and dont understand the difference between a link to your public fb profile and the login information to your fb profile. I guess it can be explained by the fact that you came here to diss YC, why do it in any sort of logical manner when you can say something moronic instead?

burningion2• 14 years ago

No, what worries me is that ycombinator is very tight with Facebook, and that they may access non-public information. Facebook logs a whole lot more info than most people know. Not trying to diss ycombinator at all, just stating how I felt, I apologize.

staunch• 14 years ago

Seriously doubt they'll mind at all if you leave out info you're not comfortable sharing.

fleitz3• 14 years ago

I think a lawsuit of epic proportions would be the perfect thing to staunch the tide of this kind of fascist invasion of privacy.

If someone gets $5 million for this it would stop it pretty quick.

hndude• 14 years ago

Final sentence of the third-to-last paragraph: initiatng should be initiating

johngalt2• 14 years ago

This post points more to the absurdly litigious nature of hiring/firing. It's an interesting exploration of the matter. Approaching the problem of employee privacy at an oblique angle. It won't scare any HR departments though. Most have systems in place to create reasons for not hiring or firing. All that you've guaranteed is that the HR person will be making all hiring decisions.

Fundamentally your best defense against discrimination is being too good to ignore.

mikeash2• 14 years ago

That may be the best defense against discrimination, but many people are discriminated against who simply aren't that good, yet are still good enough to deserve to make some kind of living at some kind of job.

cpeterso• 14 years ago

Is there a list of companies that admit to or have been accused of asking for Facebook passwords?

GFischer• 14 years ago

Orangecat linked to an investigation on the subject:

http://courantblogs.com/investigative-reporting/claim-check-...

Original post:

http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3791357

jberryman4• 14 years ago

Sorry to be dense, but is this fiction or an actual open resignation letter? I don't know anything about raganwald.

raganwald5• 14 years ago

Fictional. raganwald is too much of a slacker to be hired as a Director of Software Development

jberryman4• 14 years ago

heh :) thanks

morestuff• 14 years ago

Captain of Undirected Development

chubot• 14 years ago

Eh, you might want to clarify that somewhere... I thought it was real, and my reaction was "Wow this guy's kind of a dick, I wouldn't even have the balls to ask someone to open their facebook account in the first place".

wildmXranat2• 14 years ago

Hehe, and I just commented how un-Ontarian the whole story was.

DevX101• 14 years ago

It wasn't quite clear to me. I know you write in metaphors sometimes, but it was hard to tell if this was real or not.

dmoy• 14 years ago

Fictional on April 2nd, my mind cannot handle the stress!

A very good piece though, thank you for composing it :)

Corvus• 14 years ago

That the illustration is Nixon's resignation letter should be a clue.

nirvdrum• 14 years ago

People use all sorts of tangentially related images for their blog posts. I guess I'm just really gullible, but I thought the post was non-fictional.

noonespecial• 14 years ago

Its as simple as "There are certain questions you can't ask during job interviews". Its been illegal to ask these questions for 20 years, and nearly no one disputes this. A peak at the prospect's Facebook page answers all of them. This should be the biggest no-brainer in HR history.

Daniel_Newby• 14 years ago

All questions are legal to ask. What's illegal is discriminating on the basis of certain answers. The reason not to ask is to avoid being the target of a witch hunt.

This is why competent background checks are conducted by a security officer who produces nothing but a list of disqualifications along with the factual evidence to back them up. ("The candidate appears to engage in the unlawful use of mind altering drugs. [Facebook photo of bong use attached.]")

ryanbrunner• 14 years ago

raganwald did specifically mention Ontario, where even asking the question is illegal. It's against the Ontario Human Rights code to ask any question on a written or oral application that classifies someone on a discriminatory ground.

(IANAL, and this is not legal advice.)

fleitz3• 14 years ago

You'd have to be a really shitty security officer to leap from bong to illegal drug use. There's a reason it's legal to sell bongs, because they have lots of other uses than illegal drugs. Also, many of the drugs used in bongs are legal to use in many different circumstances.

The laws in Ontario are written this way to prevent exactly this sort of idiocy. That's why you don't even ask these things because it's irrelevant to the job.

If illegal drug use doesn't disqualify the President of the United States from his job why should it exclude anyone else?

cdr• 14 years ago

A quick google search will tell you that's flat out wrong - there are interview questions that are illegal to ask in pretty much the entire first world, pretty much anything directly pertaining to legally protected statuses/classes.

bostonpete• 14 years ago

Well, I don't think that point alone is all that compelling. People put all sorts of "off-limit question" info on their personal blogs too. Does that mean it would somehow be unethical or illegal to look at a prospective candidate's personal blog that turned up in a web search?

While I would certainly not put up with a company asking for access to my private online content, it's not clear that it's illegal for them to do so just because it may contain information that can't legally be used to make a hiring decision.

darxius• 14 years ago

A private facebook profile is much different from a public blog. If you put something out there, you run the risk of someone stumbling over it.

Foy• 14 years ago

Blogs are published, and meant to be read by people. "Off limit" questions answered in a blog would be comparable to determing an applicant's race and gender in a face to face interview, unless I'm mistaken.

Facebook, as seen from a logged in user's POV, is meant to be private. I think there is definitely a line being crossed when asking to snoop through their private lives.

This is just my opinion.

quanticle• 14 years ago

The difference is that in this case the candidate knows you looked, and can testify under oath that you looked. To a court of law, that makes all the difference. You had the means and the opportunity, all that remains for the candidate to prove is motive.

InclinedPlane• 14 years ago

Precisely. I hope that there are some hungry lawyers out there smelling blood in the water 'cause this is easy stuff.

In an interview you can't ask how old someone is, where they were born, what religion they are, and a zillion other things, all of which are blatantly plastered all over the average person's facebook profile.

tzs• 14 years ago

NOTE: I don't think employers should be allowed to ask for special access to a candidate's Facebook page. I'm not arguing for Facebook access below, but rather I'm arguing that I don't necessary think current law can be construed to prevent it.

I'm not convinced that theory is correct. There's a difference between asking a prohibited question, and acquiring the answer to a prohibited question incidental to something else.

To give an obvious example, you can't ask about race and sex, but the employer is going to find out that information at the face to face interviewer by simply observing the candidate.

Or consider criminal background checks, which are allowed in some states. A criminal background check might turn up information that makes a candidate's sexual orientation, national origin, or religion apparent.

I don't think that an employer would find themselves in legal trouble for doing a criminal background check that turned up that information, because they weren't doing the background check to acquire the prohibited information.

As a practical matter, though, even if it is legal to look at Facebook, it is a bad idea. Suppose you do not hire a candidate, and the candidate sues claiming that you didn't hire them because of their marital status. During discover, the plaintiff finds some emails between employees containing disparaging remarks about people of his status.

If you have not looked at Facebook or otherwise snooped into their private life, you will offer as part of your defense that you did not know their marital status, and so could not possibly have discriminated on that basis. Even if you do have some managers who dislike people of the plaintiff's status, they could not have acted on that dislike in this case.

If you have snooped, then you no longer have that defense. You are in the much less desirable position of having to argue that your people (who have been caught disparaging people of plaintiff's status) did not use that information, even though they did have access to it.

I can easily see this being the difference between a plaintiff win and a defendant win.

jbri• 14 years ago

What's illegal is discriminating against a candidate based on protected information. Knowing that information isn't illegal, but it opens you up to a discrimination lawsuit, because it's very difficult to prove that your decision wasn't motivated by that information.

This is why background checks are usually done by third parties. A background check will inevitably find out information that you're not supposed to discriminate upon - having it done by a third party means that the people actually making the decision don't know that information. (And more important, you can prove that they didn't know it)

wisty• 14 years ago

The current law can't prevent it, but in a civil case, I'd hate to try to prove that I didn't discriminate based on information on a Facebook page.

You are not innocent until proven guilty, it's "balance of probability". And given that the focus of Facebook is person information, it's hard to argue that you weren't interested in it.

You don't just have the information, you have shown that it's the kind of information you are interested in. Unless you are looking for very specific things (in which case, why didn't you hand it off to a third party?), their lawyer will say you were interested in the general "look and feel" of the candidate. Stuff like age, marital status, religion, what their friends and family are like. All the stuff you shouldn't ask.

fmoralesc• 14 years ago

> To give an obvious example, you can't ask about race and sex, but the employer is going to find out that information at the face to face interviewer by simply observing the candidate.

Even on those cases, it is not obvious. A person that looks like a man might consider himself a woman, for example. I'm currently working on the Chilean Census, and, even though we are supposed to ask for the person's sex, we can't make any judgment about it. If we enquire further than what the person says, we are in for a lot of trouble.

reductionist• 14 years ago

> Its as simple as "There are certain questions you can't ask during job interviews". Its been illegal to ask these questions for 20 years, and nearly no one disputes this.

It's not that simple. Facebook is not the only way a prospective employer could find out those details. For example, some jobs do thorough background checks (imagine, for a security position) that no one doubts the legality of, and you could answer many of those same questions that way too. If the prospective employer learns that info, they're simply expected to disregard it while making their hiring decision, the same as they'd be expected to if they learned that info from your PUBLIC facebook page (which again no one can doubt is legal to check).

Stealing facebook login details does expose the company to greater liability claims in this regard, but merely uncovering those protected questions is not illegal.

Instead I suggest approaching Facebook login theft as a case of tortious interference, and an invasion of privacy both for the stolen account owner and anyone on their friends list. Employment discrimination will both be hard to prove, and should be settled on a case by case basis rather than legislated out of existence.

jtchang• 14 years ago

Do you know why small startups/companies don't have an HR person right off the bat? It is because the damn concept is demeaning at the very least.

Who wants to be thought of as a "resource"? Above all else I feel like culture fit is the #1 priority in hiring someone. And if a company's culture encourages peeking into peoples' private lives that is disgraceful.

The modern corporation is a vestige of the 1900s where factory workers all had to show up to a central location and toil for hours on end.

Is it possible to create a future where a "company" has thousands of employees but still retain all the benefits of a small group? Already we see it happening. Perhaps the 21st century will bring about this dynamic shift.

skybrian2• 14 years ago

The reason you'd want an HR person would be to keep the company from accidentally doing illegal stuff like what happens in this story. Startups can get away with it because they're small with few assets and their legal risks around hiring are smallish compared to their many other risks. As companies get larger, statistically rare events become more likely and at the same time they have more to lose.

So I'd say no, it's not possible in a large company to get by without HR, but there's still a lot of ways to improve the process.

potatolicious2• 14 years ago

I don't expect to ever be rid of HR, but can we as an industry at least collectively stop pretending that HR is on the side of the employees? This is a pervasive, explicit lie that's told by HR departments everywhere.

Sometimes I wonder how HR personnel sleep at night.

euphoria83• 14 years ago

So, is the resignation due to fear of litigation or because of the moral quandary ? Clearly, the author was okay with looking at the FB profiles of the candidates and would have probably continued to do so, had he not been threatened twice on the same day. I wonder why he could not refuse to indulge the HR, especially since he held a pretty important position in the company.

hub_2• 14 years ago

To me, the resignation was linked to thinking of the consequences. At first the (fictional) manager just did what he was told, then quickly thought of it, and instead of fighting it, put a stop on it. Moral grounds, economic grounds (the fear of discrimination lawsuit is economic), etc.

This is all fiction, but while I always thought snooping on a (potential) employee via any way (including FB) was morally wrong, this fictional story just opened the eye wider why it is wrong.

michaelochurch14• 14 years ago

Holy shit. Except for a few details, I could have written that.

I recently had a job I was "promoted" into a pseudo-managerial role and immediately asked to disparage people I actually really liked, in order to put a "unified front" about our history and our people before new management. Told it would be "insubordination" not to sign this "official version of events", even though it was full of factual inaccuracies. I was shocked and disgusted. (The company's engineers are great; this is a managerial ethics problem.) Resigned on the spot. No two weeks' notice, just walked the fuck out.

Half my friends think I'm a hero for not selling my soul. Half think I'm an idiot for firing myself to avoid harming others who were in someone's crosshairs already. I don't think I'm either. Hero and idiot both imply a choice. I had none. I am not going to do the wrong thing. Ever. Not for more equity in a company whose executives are okay with this kind of shit, not to keep a job. Just not fucking happening.

temphn2• 14 years ago

Just from the interwebs looks like you've had problems at two employers now including Google:

http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3783114

Maybe the problem is you, not the employer?

csallen3• 14 years ago

Unless you're going to present some solid evidence, it's out of place to make that suggestion based on only two data points.

michaelochurch14• 14 years ago

I left Google voluntarily but, since you asked, I did blow the whistle on unethical management practices, and I was chagrined when absolutely nothing changed. That wasn't why I left. I left because I wanted to do functional programming and that wasn't going to happen where I was. I don't mind using C++ but I'd rather it not be my full-time job.

For my part, I don't like the creeping laxity of ethics that I've seen in technology startups (including Google) for the past few years. I really think that some of the slimiest actors are coming into our industry because they think engineers are easier to take advantage of (since we just want to code and a lot of us put our heads in the sand about office nastiness).

I'm glad that programmer salaries are finally starting to converge to what we're worth, but a lot of the worst elements are coming into VC-istan because of the money that's in it.

mattdeboard• 14 years ago

It's called moral courage because it requires hard decisions and sacrifice, and leaves you open to suffer barbs from fools who seek to make themselves look and feel better.

It's not called "moral no-shit-sherlock-easy-choice." It's called moral courage because of people like you.

(full disclosure: I don't know the grandparent poster, I don't know his situation. But I do know how bad you can be made to look when making the right choice, usually by callow jackanapes.)

fudged3• 14 years ago

Do you think the idea of searching for this information perhaps a bit ironic in this context?

ryguytilidie6• 14 years ago

Yeah because if you have beef with more than one company doing sketchy shit its probably your fault...?

suprgeek• 14 years ago

Indeed. Not only when the higher-ups ask you to pull unethical stuff, even when your close friends do.

Last week a close friend of mine who is out of a job right now, told me he was interviewing at a consulting firm and they had given him an Architectural Case study.

He called me up and explained the problem statement - having worked together he knew that it was complex system with multiple scalability & performance traps- and that I had spent a long time building exactly such systems. He nicely asked me to design a pseudo system for him....

I had to refuse as it was clearly an interview question he was meant to work on alone (the wording implied this). Felt bad as I know he really wanted the job...and it is going to put a big strain on our friendship.

I am still wondering if throwing him a few pointers might have been the better move...

johnbender• 14 years ago

I don't know you or your friend, but business dealings with friends often end poorly, even with small transactions like the one you've described here. More importantly, good friends _generally_ will avoid putting you on the spot like that, though I can understand if he's been out of work for a while.

chao-2• 14 years ago

I am still wondering if throwing him a few pointers might have been the better move...

I will agree up front that if the wording explicitly said it was a solo deal, then at minimum you made a safe choice/morally defensible choice, and you can at sleep well at night.

But I think you should have been allowed to give him pointers. And by "allowed" I mean to say that the general standards and expectations of our society should be that people's capabilities include their ability to locate, comprehend and apply new information. An important sub-case of "locate" should (and in practice often does) include maintaining a social graph of people with varied skill sets, and from whom you can get initial pointers in the right direction.

As of late people are more accepting of the general premise of "find and use new information" as a skill unto itself, especially with regards to the internet. Much of you find via Google is written by a human, but when you describe where you got initial direction from, and replace "Google" with "a friend", suddenly it's a different package entirely.

My suspicion is that it is because it does not conform to the "school exam" model that is ingrained into us all. What we are capable of is too often reduced to what we have memorized at any particular moment, and that can be a little misguided.

I obviously don't have full understanding of the prompt your friend was given, nor do I discount the utility of having a huge mental repository of information in many spheres of life (e.g. time sensitive or emergency scenarios). I just think that the "only what you know this very second" examination model is often extended in situations where it isn't a good measure of or doesn't reflect the actual circumstances you can expect to face.

cellularmitosis• 14 years ago

When trying to point out the inappropriateness of a touchy situation to someone, I try to lighten the mood with a joke. If you can target the joke to engage their "but that's ridiculous!" response, it will help them to realize that's how their question made you feel.

Something like "I tell you what, I'll give you half the answer to that question if you give me half of your salary after you get hired...". Of course, its entirely possible for someone to take that the wrong way, and just assume you are being a jerk.

mummer• 14 years ago

To be honest...I think this is one of the douchiest things you did. This is a friend trying to survive in this awful economy who asks for your help just to land the job and you couldnt help him? After that...he/whe was on their own. I hope this person never speaks to you again.

Simucal• 14 years ago

First off, I commend you for sticking to your ethical principles. I know a lot of people in your situation who would have folded and done what the company asked them to do.

I'm curious, how will you present this situation to prospective employers in the future? Will you mention that you left because you refused to do something unethical or will you skirt the subject? I'm trying to think what the best course of action would be.

christkv• 14 years ago

Be honest about it is my advice. If the person does not want to hire you because you are not willing to compromise your personal integrity you will probably not want to work there anyway.

guelo• 14 years ago

Way to hog attention with your drama away from the topic at hand about the legal liability of employers invading privacy via Facebook. The OP wasn't a generic "some companies suck" rant, it was a parable about a specific problem.

jsprinkles2• 14 years ago

It's fairly typical that the entire top half of this comments section is about michaelochurch and his honesty (which I'm not especially interested in) on a Hacker News item about a specific ethics debate regarding Facebook and hiring (that I'm especially interested in). This is the second day in a row that michaelochurch has specifically centered a popular item's discussion on him in a completely irrelevant manner:

http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3784685

He knew, writing it, that people would call him out on the relevance of the comment so he threw in that little flourish at the end of the comment to establish some kind of a weak link between the content of the submission and his comment. None of the same wording here, just a completely irrelevant comment that's not even loosely related to the submission.

Just look how far you have to scroll in this comments section to get to the discussion about the SUBMISSION ITSELF. Seriously. In all seriousness, I have no idea who michaelochurch is, nor do I really care about his escapades against Google or his honesty or quality as a person. I just want to read discussion about the topic at hand on Hacker News.

(edit: strongly edited)

spoiledtechie• 14 years ago

I ask you then, who are we if we don't have our experiences? What defines you as a person? Let the man speak. It might show that there are more cases to this dilemma than just one lonely person who experiences this.

kevinalexbrown• 14 years ago

I am not going to do the wrong thing. Ever.

That's a really strong statement. If you stood up and did the right thing, that's awesome. But if your opinion on every situation 'ever' is that you're not going to do the wrong thing, step back and ask whether things are so simple.

I'm not saying moral absolutes don't exist, but striving toward 'the right thing' is seldom so clear. For instance, you quit on the spot. What about the wonderful engineers who now have to pick up the slack? I'm not saying you made the wrong choice, but there are consequences to be weighed in every situation. If your method of decision-making rests on the idea that you don't have a choice, I think you're limiting yourself.

And finally - I thought a lot about writing this, because I generally hate comments about commenting - you responded to a really interesting post regarding privacy and hiring in an era of easily accessible sensitive personal information to point out how ethical you are - in your words 'not going to do the wrong thing. Ever.' It's not immediately clear why this applies to raganwald's post, except that both involve company bureaucracy and a protagonist resigning.

lloeki• 14 years ago

I won't go as far as to pretend to know what the parent means, but I'm quite sure he didn't mean to say he will know what's Wrong every single time, but that he just can't willfully commit himself to doing something that goes wildly against his morality.

michaelochurch14• 14 years ago

I meant that I won't willfully do the wrong thing.

Doing unskillful things is part of being human.

its_so_on• 14 years ago

a thousand years of Western Civilization thinks you're a hero. "Thou shalt not bear false witness against your neighbor". I would have told them that you're out on that one.

beza1e1• 14 years ago

kudos

squozzer• 14 years ago

Hooray. Seriously. Your situation was not just a moral trap but a legal one. It wouldn't surprise me if the whole exercise was an attempt to make you "dirty" for some future use.

jasonmcalacanis• 14 years ago

I read this an immediately thought 'this is an April 1st joke.'

Looks like it's science fiction :-) http://twitter.com/#!/raganwald/status/186940946015993856

dabent2• 14 years ago

I wonder what the employer's response would be to "I don't have a Facebook page?" Would I be required to get one in order to give them the password?

Also, it seems they would be selecting for people who were willing to trade passwords for money in the interview. The decision to trade sensitive data has already been made, it's now just a matter of negotiating price.

jakejake4• 14 years ago

They're response would probably depend on whether they already know you have a Facebook account. But assuming you got away with it - if it's the type of company that is asking for Facebook passwords, then it's type the company that's likely to fire you later when they find out that you lied during the interview.

I haven't had to experience this yet, but I would like to think I'd just decline and say they are free to look at whatever public information is available on my Facebook page.

dabent2• 14 years ago

I wouldn't lie about it, in fact I can't see ever consenting to such a thing (giving out a password to any service to someone it doesn't belong to). But there are actually people out there that don't have a FB account. I was wondering how an employer would deal with that. Other people would probably ghost their FB, give up the password or friend an overseer, but never use the account again.

blantonl2• 14 years ago

Can someone explain in reasonable terms, why an HR manager would would choose to enact a policy that requires perspective employees to surrender their Facebook activity as a condition of employment?

I am really trying to understand what logical motivation is directing this latest craze. Was it a recent HR conference session that sold HR managers on the idea? An article written in an HR trade journal that cited definitive stats that sealed the argument?

blantonl2• 14 years ago

I think this person answered this question perfectly:

http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3790563

Duff• 14 years ago

The published examples that I have seen were teachers and prison guards. Employers of these folks want evidence of fraternization with students and inmate families, respectively.

carguy1983• 14 years ago

> why an HR manager would would choose to enact a policy that requires perspective employees

Fear. Ignorance. Stupidity. Anachronism.

excuse-me6• 14 years ago

Asking at an interview is crazy - all it does is open you upto lawsuits.

I have worked at places that do Google tracking of your name/company email/company name.

I only discovered this when I posted on a tech support forum for a product we use, using my company email. Then got dragged before HR because "any corporate publication", including apparently my support request needs to be approved by legal!

I can see a short step to tracking FB/blog/twitter of employees to check they aren't saying anything about the company.

skybrian2• 14 years ago

This is great as a work of fiction that vividly gets across the issues. In practice, I would expect companies that are legally on the ball to work around it somehow. I'm not a lawyer or an HR person, but the obvious answer is to outsource background checks to an outside firm that only includes legally permissible information in a written report to the hiring committee. (Don't they do that already for background checks?)

mjwalshe• 14 years ago

yes if you "need" to vet people there are procedures (and quite expensive ones) to do that. However 99% of companies don't "need" to vet any employees.

tsantero• 14 years ago

Ethics aside, an employer asking for login access to your Facebook profile is a violation of Facebook's TOS.

That being said, I don't care how difficult the job market is--if a potential employer demonstrates that they have no regard for your personal privacy during the interview process, you should thank them for their time, smile and never look back.

phzbOx• 14 years ago

I know I'll probably get down-voted but.. isn't it unfair to take a new job and get away for 6 months for parenting purpose? And what about being lesbian.. why would a company not hire a women because of that?

I don't know, I somewhat believe that once you put something on the web, be it facebook or not, it's now public. Yeah, on my facebook I have pictures that I'd rather not show to any employers but if they choose not to hire me for that, I'd rather not work at a place like this.

But, while writing this, I kind of realised that not everyone is in my position.. and not everyone is as open minded to accept homosexuals.. so I guess I understand what it's unethical.

morsch• 14 years ago

Not everything you see when you log into your social media account is public information, and not everything you see was posted by you.

T-hawk• 14 years ago

> isn't it unfair to take a new job and get away for 6 months for parenting purpose?

There's a number of answers to that:

1) Biology is unfair. Birthing a child obviously takes much more effort and time from the mother than the father. We have societally chosen to make up for that a little bit by giving the mother a legally protected break from job demands.

2) It should come out in the wash on the back end. When it's time for reviews and raises, the new mother has three or six months less of productivity and accomplishments, so it's natural and not discriminatory for her to receive less reward here.

3) Maybe it IS unfair and that's why companies would seek to avoid hiring likely-to-become-pregnant women if they were not legally barred from doing so.

The truth is probably somewhere in the middle of all these, in different situations. Some women can bear a child and not miss a beat in productivity at a job. Some perhaps do use maternity leave as an excuse for a vacation.

orangecat4• 14 years ago

We have societally chosen to make up for that a little bit by giving the mother a legally protected break from job demands.

In which case we should collectively pay for it rather than dumping the burden on her employer, especially since as you note that creates a disincentive to hire any woman of childbearing age.

When it's time for reviews and raises, the new mother has three or six months less of productivity and accomplishments, so it's natural and not discriminatory for her to receive less reward here.

Her attorney might see things differently.

excuse-me6• 14 years ago

Yes it is unfair. And there are exceptions to discrimination laws for certain cases eg. for small companies, or time critical operations - similarly to exemptions for jury service.

If you make it clear in the interview that there is a deadline - we are working to a product launch in 6months and we need you to start immediately, and you took the job without telling them that you were immediately planning to take 6months off then the employer would have a pretty good case in most jurisdictions.

ChuckMcM• 14 years ago

Well played Raganwald, well played.

The Nixon resignation letter was a nice touch. Perhaps the most interesting of times arises when firmly entrenched control structures are threatened. The Facebook login fiasco, and it is a fiasco, is one such example.

wildmXranat2• 14 years ago

The whole trend of bending the rules and pushing what's acceptable is rather frightening. Living in Ontario, Canada, I haven't heard of instances where any friends of mine were compelled to open up their Facebook profile. Could it be that it's just a matter of time ? It used to be that we worried about getting three good job references and not having a clean social network slate. Not having a FB account is looking pretty good to me, not that it didn't before.

aneth2• 14 years ago

While I have complete respect for @raganwald, I find it somewhat disturbing that he would even begin to implement or go along with this policy. I can't imagine asking an interviewee to login to their private facebook account, any more than their private email or dating website.

The answer should have been no at the first suggestion and I hope he amends his blog to indicate that even the few times he did this was completely wrong, in addition to placing the company in a tenuous legal situation. As an interviewee, I would be outraged and walk out.

unimpressive4• 14 years ago

He didn't. The letter is fictional.

aneth2• 14 years ago

Hmm. While thought provoking, this should be identified some in some way as fictional.

Anyhow, even in theory, complying with the policy for a moment would be unethical.

ryanto• 14 years ago

I have a stupid question. Has anyone ever been asked this in an interview? Or knows anyone that has been asked/asked this question? I've been reading a lot about this situation over the last month, but have never heard anyone say it happened to them or someone they know. Just stories that seem like rumors/gossip.

I do not know many people who are right out of college and interviewing (and that's who I assume would be asked this sort of question), so maybe my network is too small to have heard of it happening.

Also, I realize many people will sign NDAs about the interview process, I am not looking for juicy details of when/where/how it happened. I'd just love to know if people actually had this happen at one point in the last few years.

driverdan2• 14 years ago

People are actually willing to do an NDA for an interview? Why would anyone want to work for a company like that?

hub_2• 14 years ago

I was actually surprised when for some position I was not asked to sign a NDA for the interview. I was actually expecting it.

ryguytilidie6• 14 years ago

former facebook employee here. Everyone who entered the campus signed NDAs, period.

ImprovedSilence• 14 years ago

I interviewed for a medical device company a few years back, I signed an NDA for it, they showed me some cool technology they were working on, I got to take a tour around the place, and actually see what was being developed, how their processes work, and how far along they are on certain things. How they design, and fab up their products. Companies that make you sign NDA's are really just protecting their back. How do they know I wasn't actually working for some rival company, and just got their interview to see what was going on. If that was the case, an NDA gives them a bit more leverage in court. If it was just some random joe like myself, no big deal. Corporate espionage probably does happen. (I say probably, as I can't say i've ever witnessed it though.)

dspeyer2• 14 years ago

Sometimes the company has a good reason for wanting an NDA. In that case, it doesn't indicate a company you wouldn't want to work for.

Google has NDAs on interviews mainly because we want the questions to be surprises. Coming up with good questions is hard, and we don't have a enormous pool of them. If every interviewee went home and blogged them, soon anyone who wanted to ace a Google interview would just need to read a bunch of relevant blogs.

wging• 14 years ago

Depends on the NDA I'm sure. Would many people really object to "I won't disclose the questions you ask me, or the written test you'll give me, or anything proprietary I might overhear while I'm there"?

SpiderX2• 14 years ago

Past two places I've worked, I was asked on a pre-employment form that I had to fill out, and I refused. I still got hired.

victoro• 14 years ago

Interesting that people are so up in arms about having prospective employers browse their facebook, but have no problem when asked if their employers can peruse their blood, hair, or urine under the guise of a drug test. Private, recreational drug use seems just as much nobody's business as private recreational drinking or sexual promiscuity that could be uncovered by facebook investigations...

mhartl3• 14 years ago

Now of course, you would never refuse to hire someone because they plan to exercise their legal right to parental leave, would you?

I'm sympathetic to the principal message of this post, but regarding the bit about parental leave: Has it really come to this? If someone takes a job intending to "exercise their legal right to parental leave" shortly after joining, it's the company that's the bad guy for wanting to stop it? To my eye, such behavior identifies the employee a special interest parasite, feeding at the public trough with a smug sense of entitlement.

It's effectively illegal to ask a job applicant, "Are you intending to take an extended paid vacation shortly after starting?" That's not progress—it's madness.

ryguytilidie6• 14 years ago

I actually think this is a great point. As much as I completely agree with the letter, the idea that the first thing job applicants do is threaten me with legal action for something they presume I will do doesn't really inspire much confidence in me that they are good people or that they will contribute much to the organization.

raganwald5• 14 years ago

I agree with you in principlr, but let's not over-think a fictional situation where a job applicant threatens a company that makes sharing FB information a condition of employment.

It's all made up and the points don't matter, but from where I sit, once a company behaves like this, you have to either walk away or play hardball. They might actually respect your cojones if you cut it rough, you're speaking their language.

ppereira• 14 years ago

... unless, of course, you happen to be in that narrow window in life where it is optimal for you or your partner to have children. A woman's biological clock waits for no job.

Here in Canada, parental leave is self-paid through Employment Insurance at a rate that is proportional to our income in the previous year. The employer does not pay directly---they do, however, need enough flexibility in staffing to accommodate new parents.

infinii• 14 years ago

Speaking from a management point of view, it's not about the financial cost. It's the fact that the company needs to get your job done still. Do you hire someone else? If you do, you need to deal with issues such as headcount, budget, what to do with them when you return.

Look at it from another perspective. If given the choice between 2 equal candidates and you choose the one that's not about to take "leave". It's not discrimination, it's purely you making the best choice for getting the job done. One person is going to start the job right away, one is basically say "hang on, I'll start that in x months".

officemonkey2• 14 years ago

>Are you intending to take an extended paid vacation shortly after starting?

If the employee earns the leave, he/she should be able to take it anytime they want.

furyg3• 14 years ago

I've thought about this a lot and I can't really come to any alternative solutions.

Three months ago you found out you're pregnant. Finally! you'd been trying for almost a year! Today you walk into work and find out the company is bankrupt, clean out your desk.

What are you supposed to to? Not look for a job for 6-7 months? Tell every prospective employer you're happy to start now, but in a few weeks you'll be out on prolonged leave?

The only possible thing that they can do with that information is discriminate.

mhartl3• 14 years ago

I suggest avoiding the word "discriminate"—its emotional overtones are too strong. Here we're merely differentiating between multiple candidates, and doing our best to be fair. Enshrined in law is the notion that it's unfair not to hire someone merely because she's planning to take maternity leave shortly after starting. I admit that calling this "unfair" confounds my intuition—forcing a company to subsidize a new mother strikes me as unfair, and neglecting to disclose a pregnancy borders on fraud—but perhaps I can trigger a sense of unfairness even without reference to the company's well-being.

Suppose Alice and Barbara both apply for a job for which they are equally qualified. Alice is newly pregnant, but (per the law) the prospective employer isn't allowed to inquire about this. If the company hires Alice, the company suffers—and so does Barbara. It's impossible to afford pregnant women special treatment without harming women who aren't (and perhaps don't plan to become) pregnant.

Life is full of choice and chance. When trying to legislate away the consequences, expect bad side-effects.

ckpwong4• 14 years ago

Happened (happening) to me -- I'm 7 months pregnant, out of work for months.

I haven't looked for new employment because it didn't feel "right" to apply to a new job knowing I'll be on maternity leave for a full year.

Legally I know I'm protected -- if any employer refuses to hire me, I have certain grounds to sue for discrimination. But it doesn't stop making me feeling like an a$$hole if I do so.

ckpwong4• 14 years ago

Yes, it is the company's fault. The law regarding parental/maternity leave varies by jurisdiction, but raganwald is in Canada, and parental leave, complete with job protection, is a legal right. It's not madness nor parasitic -- it just shows your moral compass is not entirely compatible with employment laws in Canada. ;)

Extended paid vacation is a different story -- employers are not obligated to approve your vacation request. Also, many companies have policies on how (paid) vacation days are incurred, especially during the first year. Having said that, most people I know would disclose any previously planned extended travel plans with the potential employer, both out of courtesy to the employer and as a condition of accepting the job.

orofino• 14 years ago

This got me thinking, does a friend request from your boss constitute an inquiry with possibly the same effects?

Personally, I try to avoid sending friend requests to subordinates, but it wasn't necessarily for this reason.

jakejake4• 14 years ago

Next thing you know they'll be asking for our 4chan passwords.

re_todd• 14 years ago

You just made me shit my pants!

dkrich• 14 years ago

I have been reading about this and it not only seems like an absurd invasion of privacy, but in violation of several federal employment laws. Being somewhat familiar with employment law, I would be nervous to ask a prospective employee ANYTHING that was not directly related to past work or the position in question. Employment law is one of the most murky and sensitive areas of the law, and I'm convinced that the only reason there aren't more lawsuits is that most people simply don't know their rights.

Let me cite a specific example. I once sat in on a lecture by a former attorney-turned successful media entrepreneur who owned a fairly successful magazine. During a routine interview for an art director position, one of her staff members who was conducting the interview noticed that the candidate was wearing a Yarmulke. She said something to the effect of "During certain seasonal spikes, we have a huge increase in workload that can extend into the weekends. I see that you're Jewish, and I am too. Do you think working on weekends is something you can do?"

The interview concluded, and they exchanged goodbyes. The interviewer expressed interest but asked the candidate to send over some work samples, but the samples never came. Instead, after a few weeks a letter arrived from the candidate's attorney informing the magazine that they were being sued. They settled out of court for nearly $50,000.

That seems pretty egregious and the woman was pretty naive to bring up such a sensitive matter in an interview, but I don't see how it's any worse than demanding to see somebody's protected Facebook account.

hessenwolf• 14 years ago

This whole demanding to see somebody's facebook account thing - do they want to read my old love letters too? The last letter from my dearly departed Father? My online dating profile? What about my now unused university email account?

roundfounder• 14 years ago

amazing. as a manager and someone who spends his time trying to make sure my actions and policies dont constrain our best people, this rings so true. Thank you for your thoughts on this issue and I wholly agree with you that these sorts of invasive practices will ultimately kill innovation and any real identity in a workplace.

delinka2• 14 years ago

Them: "I'll need to see your Facebook page."

Me: "OK, search Facebook for my name."

Them: "I'll need you to log in for me..."

Me: L.O.D. pause, walk out

bborud• 14 years ago

If you have to resign in order to have this HR policy changed the company you were working for was not worth working for anyway. I don't think it is right to work for companies that disrespect their employees on such a fundamental level. You did the right thing in resigning.

I am also somewhat surprised that you complied with the policy. Why would you comply when you knew it was wrong?

victorbstan• 14 years ago

You got what you asked for.

BillPosters• 14 years ago

Hang on a second, what if the interviewee doesn't have a Facebook account? Or just lies and says they don't have one? Would the next question be "why not" or "show us your email in-box"?

Don't tell me that not having a Facebook account now weighs against your eligibility in an interview? That would be sad. What next? Everyone must have a FB account by law?

And why didn't Braithwaite just not ask the candidates the FB question?

"Fired for refusing to invade interviewee privacy" is better than "resigns after invading interviewee privacy".

Edit... so apparently it's all fiction. Time wasted.

dinkumthinkum• 14 years ago

Anyone who actually does is this just scum. I want to invoke the obvious references but in order to avoid Godwin's Law, I will simply say being the one to actual "screen" the person's Facebook account is ... well I can't really come up with an accurate description without invoking the Law, just please infer for yourself. It violates just norms that it seems we should all have about decency. It's one thing to search for a prospective hire's social networking pages and if they have anything public, yes you use that against them to your heart's content. But to actively invade their privacy like this is just disgusting. Why not just ask for the cell phones and wallets so you can rifle through them, make sure you read every text message. It's extremely disgusting. It just crosses every line imaginable; I don't hyperbole is really possible for this sort practice.

evanwolf• 14 years ago

Wimp.

The proper behavior is to refuse to perform an immoral or illegal act and to decline to follow an immoral or illegal direction.

That leaves your superiors with choices of their own: change their behavior, ignore you, or fire you.

If they change their behavior, great; the company is better for your convictions.

If they ignore you (denial) and continue bad actions, you can always look for another job and/or continue to advocate change from within. You are not participating in the bad behavior and have performed your duty to communicate the problem.

If they fire you, you may have wrongful termination recourse that you definitely won't have if you resign.

The cold walkout, on the other hand, only affects management teams capable of shame (unlikely if the leadership has corrupted values) or susceptible to public pressure.

Your specific challenge is incompetence, not morality. You will always be surrounded by incompetence, if not occasionally sharing your own. While incompetence may be a moral failing, people with good intentions can improve things if sufficiently motivated. Your leaving is unlikely to do that.

Instead of having a knock down, drag out, face-to-face, serious reality-check conversation, risking strong and unpleasant emotions en route to a new consensus, you ran away.

You bailed when the company obviously needs someone of your experience, skill, insight and expressiveness.

You may have other reasons to quit, but the one you gave showed cowardice in the face of a leadership challenge.

Next time, don’t be a wimp.

Stand and hold your ground.

cheald• 14 years ago

Hint: It's a fictional parable.

zaidmo2• 14 years ago

I took it to be a real story, although I was confused by the image (which was another story)

jakejake4• 14 years ago

Last year we were looking for a new office manager. One girl applies & we found some public pictures she had posted on Facebook. One of them she was kissing the ass of a statue of a clown. We hired her immediately.

JasonVV• 14 years ago

I would think twice about hiring someone that makes their resignation letter public like this. That being said, kudos for taking a stand (albeit only AFTER invading peoples privacy by reading their facebook).

My guess is that you decided you wanted to leave when the COO forced you to do this, but rather than quit then and there, you decided to teach her a lesson as a parting gift... am I wrong? :)

7plusminus2• 14 years ago

Mad props to the guy!

brownbat• 14 years ago

Exactly. Anti-discrimination is why this shouldn't happen.

Token vanity plug for when I said this (far less artfully) a few days ago: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3747875

derleth• 14 years ago

OK, from the linked-to piece:

> If you are surfing my Facebook, you could reasonably be expected to discover that I am a Lesbian.

Obviously correct. However, they could also discover so much more about her that doesn't relate to any civil rights legislation, such as that she drinks jaegerbombs or uses the wrong kind of power saw. Now, those would be terrible reasons to not hire someone, but they're legal reasons, and can be brought up in court to dispute the claims they didn't hire her because of sexual orientation.

So, my point is, that's another reason the "Give us your Facebook password" is bad: It could easily undermine important civil rights legislation.

JohnnyFlash• 14 years ago

If someone viewed my Facebook profile, based on my lack of usage they could only come to the conclusion I am a person with few friends and no interests.

Seems like a silly way to learn more about people.

paganel2• 14 years ago

I had to double-check it wasn't an April Fools' joke. And then I realized it was for real, that this is a software company we're talking company, presumably employing "educated" and "smart" people.

"Background checks", "Facebook stalking" etc etc, this is as close to living in a totalitarian and dystopian world as we can get.

TazeTSchnitzel• 14 years ago

It's actually fictional.

jph• 14 years ago

I'm a longtime admirer of your work, and good for you for standing up. I deeply appreciate what you're doing.

jurre• 14 years ago

I wholeheartedly agree with your point and you make it very well, but I'm afraid your preaching to the choir. I don't think anyone that finds this article (either through hn or otherwise) disagrees with the fact that the practice of scanning (potential) employees' personal facebook accounts is wrong and that nothing good could come of it. How do we reach the people that do think it's a good idea?

jacquesm• 14 years ago

This would have packed a lot more punch if you actually resigned.

tomelders2• 14 years ago

So he goes along with it right up to the point where it affects him? He's outraged only when it makes his day worse?

Am I meant to applaud the protagonist in this this story? Because to me he sounds like a scumbag.

People are espousing some pretty weird morals these days.

raganwald5• 14 years ago

Thanks, this was one of the ideas I was trying to get across, that by shrugging and going along with stuff like this, we're condoning and supporting it.

michaelochurch14• 14 years ago

Thank you so much for writing it.

What is your interpretation of why this protagonist allowed unethical activity to continue for so long? Just to keep his job? Or is there something more to it?

I think people have accepted a certain fatalism about corporate scumbaggery: corporate entities are complex and bound to have some unethical people within them, so why fight it? Sure; it's true that unethical people will exist in any sufficiently large set. I wouldn't quit a job at a 10,000-person company because I found out that one employee was unethical. Let's fire him and get on with our lives. But when scumbags are getting promoted in spite of, or even because of, their ethical depravity, it's a really bad thing.

I think most Americans believe that "work" and "life" are separate and that it's perfectly acceptable to be a scumbag at work because "everyone is like that". People who wouldn't even think of shoplifting have no problem damaging careers, teams, and entire companies for ridiculously short-sighted reasons.

I'd like to open a Work Court in which people can "sue" employers over the low- and mid-grade scumbaggery of the sort that isn't worth a real lawsuit. Instead of a suit taking years and burning up half the award in legal fees, it can be settled in an afternoon. This Court has no authority to collect judgments (if there are awards, they come from ad revenue) but it can censure, and the effect of the censure is to bring public exposure to unethical activity.

tomelders2• 14 years ago

Good to know. For a while there I thought I was just be an grumpy spoil sport.

snappysucker• 14 years ago

Did anyone in turn ask to look at your facebook profile? Shouldn't they know who they are applying to work for?

cmsj• 14 years ago

Who the hell actually is this guy? Google search results for his name appear to be useless, misleading and contradictory because they're currently ruined by the firehose of bloggernaut bullshit.

bakhy• 14 years ago

"I was willing to go along with things and see how they panned out." - so much for the sincerity of your supposed indignation. at the end, all that drove you out is the fear of exposure of your own ass due to anti-discrimination laws. and even now, after leaving, you do not have the nerve to directly express any kind of stand regarding the invasion of privacy your COO requested you do. from your ambivalent "style" it is just as easily possible to conclude that you are "speaking out" against anti-discrimination laws. but, in the end, you are saying absolutely nothing. pathetic.

kanze• 14 years ago

This exact same process is what kept me from applying to ycombinator this year. Asking for my Facebook url is the same considering everyone at ycombinator has whatever access they need.

Raised $20k in two weeks on my own instead, for a much less percentage than ycombinator would have http://www.cloudromance.com

gerryLowry• 14 years ago

Really, Reginald, are you a fellow Ontarian?

That you might be living in Ontario was one of my surprises on first reading http://raganwald.posterous.com/i-hereby-resign ... i would not normally read you however i follow Martin Fowler and he wrote this today: https://twitter.com/#!/martinfowler/status/18715905169883545...

Did you really resign as Director of Software Development over this issue? Or, is that just you being a creative essayist? aside: when bloggers arrived, it seems essayists became extinct.

One thing is certain ... i now see at least one use for an iPad.

Also, apparently i made an error in judgement on removing the fact that i've been programming for 45+ years ... more if you let me count overtime. FWIW, i'm still learning to program ... it's nice to glean from your article that i might be better off to simply sue every prospect who fails to give me an interview. unfortunately, i, up to seconds ago, assumed that i could file a complaint with the Ontario Human Rights commission ... but as of a minute ago at http://www.ohrc.on.ca/en/issues/age, i learned:

"On June 30, 2008, the role of the Ontario Human Rights Commission changed. The Commission will no longer accept complaints of discrimination."

The same page in the link above does tell me that i'm protected from age discrimination. Hmmmm. Perhaps i could complain to Bashir al-Assad? Hmmmm, again, i just noticed there's an Ass in al-Assad.

In November 2009, i began working for a company where i had four managers ... but then let's not talk about "corporate transition" ... i'm tempted to name that company here but then this comment could be in the internet-verse for decades to centuries baring some galactic or man made calamity destroying planet earth.

I probably should not mention my April 28th birthday because Jay Leno and the late Saddam Hussein share my birth date ... imagine some HR Letterman fan seeing my name coming up with Leno's in a Google-ish search!

Dear Reginald ... if you really did resign your position over such a machiavellian HR policy, then you've dewservedly earned my utmost respect.

Regards, Gerry Lowry https://www.gerrylowryprogrammer.com/

dhimes• 14 years ago

It's fiction.

BobertK• 14 years ago

Orwell is laughing somewhere.

Prophasi2• 14 years ago

Bone-headed HR move, particularly in light of the prevailing laws but quite apart from them, too. It's invasive and uncomfortable, and probably not a place I'd feel welcome as an employee.

What it mostly reinforces to me, however, is just how terribly ignorant and wishful laws like that are. If I build a business and bottom out my bank account, kill myself with 100-hour weeks, and build my very life around making the company work, you better believe I have the right to know if the person I'm hiring plans to take off for 6 months right after being hired. And you better believe that weighs against them in the hiring process. I didn't set up the business as a facet of family planning services: I want to hire someone who's willing to work hard to build my business in exchange for pay. If a person knows they're going to take 6 months off immediately, then it's not time to apply for a job, because you're not going to be working; apply for something when you're ready to actually do it.

It continually amazes me how government largesse and layers of indirection break people's natural intuitions and allow them to condone forcing a third party to pay for their own life choices, in a vain attempt to mitigate the unfortunate trade-offs that accompany our constrained mortal existence.

Transparency is not a bad thing. There are people out there who want a solid job that pays well and fulfills their ambition while making good money; and there are employers willing to offer those things in exchange for solid performance, a reasonable salary, and reliability. Get out of our way with this red tape garbage and let us find each other and do great things.

Prophasi2• 14 years ago

Downvoting was expected, as my post runs counter to the prevailing view on social services and opposition to capitalism "red in tooth and claw," but some commentary on why would be appreciated.

My original post was relevant and not too inflammatory, I don't think. If you disagree with the substance of what I said, state your case instead of (or at least in addition to) downvoting.

A reaction of moral indignation without discussion on a logical basis is at the heart of virtually everything wrong in modern US society. Break that, at least here.

lizthegrey• 14 years ago

This has been rubbing me the wrong way for the past day.

It appears to state a false set of premises - that minorities have the bulletproof ability to threaten employers with being sued for discrimination unless they are hired, regardless of qualification. The focus on this ridiculous premise for rhetorical effect obscures the real danger of such requirements - that non-visible minority status leads to vulnerability to being discriminated against.

People in minorities are disempowered and denied equal consideration, not demanding special rights to be hired even if unqualified. It's frankly insulting to have an argument has been used completely seriously to argue against the existence of anti-discrimination laws by Republicans and Libertarians instead used for the purposes of satire.

bpyne• 14 years ago

Firstly, hats off to raganwald for another thought-provoking piece.

Whether or not the hypothetical interviewees in his letter could push the legal claims they threatened, companies may very well shy away from this violation of privacy simply to avoid the risk that they could be held liable later.

Andre_Saveit• 14 years ago

Very interesting! Thank you for a good point of view on this social media topic. And as far as I know, even Y Combinator want's to check out your facebook profile when you apply, right?

phear• 14 years ago

This is all incredibly ridiculous. How such a practice would become company policy is beyond me. Facebook has said they'd terminate a company's facebook page if it was found to be doing this. An interesting question though, would they fire an employee for not friending or liking the company page?.. Just ridiculous

I hereby resign

Related Stories