Geronimo was tired, but a NY Times piece on employers' use of info from social media was just annoying enough to provoke a response. The NY Times editors liked it, again. That's twice in about 72 hours. After hearing the long string of NY Times "hits," some reproduced here, Geronimo's spouse once asked, "Why don't they offer you a job?"
The rules of my "video game" with the New York Times are approximately this: Geronimo submits something that he 1) feels strongly about (including just plain intellectual annoyance); and 2) believes will be contradictory to the article's slant, or to the NY Times' editorial policies, or both. The object of the game is to write it well enough that even--even--the New York Times editorial staff will see its merit, and will make it an Editors' Choice and gray it out.
Geronimo was beginning to lose interest in the game, when a couple silly pieces in the last few days perked him up. Here's the second Editors' Choice grade in about 72 hours, on Geronimo's self-imposed writing tests.
And, Earl Wallace and Geronimo registered a completed feature-length screenplay yesterday. Not a bad week for the writing projects. Here's Earl's story:
http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0908620/
California
July 22nd, 2011
9:33 am
Privacy?
How can "privacy" be the objection, when social media are intrinsically public? That is a lame argument, suggesting that the person doesn't know how the Internet works, or doesn't care, or has magical beliefs.
As head of HR at an S&P 500 company for many years, I know that the employer is at an information disadvantage in comparison to the applicant, who is the only person on earth who knows the whole truth about herself / himself. We never wanted an artificially negative picture of a job candidate. But we knew that most candidates were seeking to give us an artificially positive one. All we wanted was some balance.
We did nothing extraordinary, other than near-100% follow up on things the candidate asserted. Candidates who lied about degrees always lost that bet, because we always checked with the educational institution. Candidates who flunked their scheduled drug test, or failed to show up got no second chances. We told you it was coming, we told you your job depended on in it, we told you the day and time. If you didn't show up clean that day, it's only because you couldn't stop using, or you wouldn't stop. Neither was ok with us.
Ever hear of "negligent hiring?" If an employer fails to get info that's in someplace as easy and obvious as facebook, and an employee goes on a shooting rampage one day, believe this: the plaintiffs attorney for the victims' family is going to come in with facebook pages of anything that remotely suggested that the person was violent, unstable, or likely to conceal weapons. When the employer says sanctimoniously, "Oh, we consider it insensitive to look on facebook," they're done. Verdict for the plaintiff.
The biggest reason, though, that I think this stuff should be admissible and is fair game, is the most obvious one: posting antisocial stuff on facebook is evidence of bad judgment. At our company, we had no jobs that didn't require judgment.
Recommended by 3 Readers
Give her a break. Nyad's a New Yorker by birth. She's not exactly attracting a bunch of copycats who'll be clogging up the ocean lanes, and she isn't using public money. What's on your bucket list?