Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

I had to get a background check for my job; the report is a 300 page pdf

twitter.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 323 posts

Re: I had to get a background check for my job; the report is a 300 page pdf

#101

Post by slg »

brenden2 wrote: post #4

Here's the company doing this: https://fama.io/ The idea that you can assess someone's workplace performance based on automated screening of their tweets is utterly absurd. If anyone works somewhere that uses this tool, or anything similar to it, you should run far, far away from that company. This is a terrible precedent, and much too much Orwellian for my taste. EDIT: somewhat related, but a while back I made a Twi…

I am curious if people here think there is a different standard for high profile hires. This happens all the time in the entertainment industry. There are plenty of examples of PR disasters that occur when someone's old offensive tweets are resurfaced. Knowing about those tweets beforehand allows a company to either advise that the tweets are deleted or that the potential for future PR problems means someone else should be hired.

https://deadline.com/2018/07/james-gunn-fired-guardians-of-t...

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/16/arts/television/shane-gil...

https://www.washingtonpost.com/arts-entertainment/2018/12/06...

Re: I had to get a background check for my job; the report is a 300 page pdf

#102

Post by werber »

I personally think background checks should just be like, hey are you a violent person, but before any in person interview I’ve been a part of the person has been internet stalked by the whole group and anyone who knows the candidate or someone who does has gotten the tea. I just don’t see any value in this

Re: I had to get a background check for my job; the report is a 300 page pdf

#103

Post by lightedman »

caconym_ wrote: post #30

I don't even know what to say about this. I'm speechless. This is so, so, so, so, stupid, yet it's presumably being used to curtail some people's job opportunities in a society where you basically need to be employed by a corporation to be a first-class citizen. There need to be laws against arbitrary background checks. If only our government had a real interest in protecting its citizens.

There need to be laws against background checks in their entirety. People who have supposedly paid their penitence for their crimes are still punished up to 7 years after the fact, or longer, and cannot obtain meaningful employment due to it, and are thus stuck committing crimes to survive. Absolutely abhorrent.

Re: I had to get a background check for my job; the report is a 300 page pdf

#104

Post by sneak »

ianai wrote: post #77
appleiigs wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

On a related note, I declined a job interview when a company wanted to do the interview process via HireVue. Has the Orwellian telescreen feel. The process includes candidate recording interview responses and uploading them for AI to evaluate. HR must not realize that as part of the interview, candidates are also evaluating whether the company is a good place to work at.

Oh, HR does and laughs at the thought. But we live in a political system where corporations have seemingly unalienable rights above their workers. “Want to afford things? Then succumb to the dictates of corporate America or else.” All the while, these same corporations benefit from unprecedented federal deficit spending at the cost of the individual citizens.

As long as there are other places to work, we can and should avail ourselves of them.

Re: I had to get a background check for my job; the report is a 300 page pdf

#105

Post by arbuge »

brenden2 wrote: post #4

Here's the company doing this: https://fama.io/ The idea that you can assess someone's workplace performance based on automated screening of their tweets is utterly absurd. If anyone works somewhere that uses this tool, or anything similar to it, you should run far, far away from that company. This is a terrible precedent, and much too much Orwellian for my taste. EDIT: somewhat related, but a while back I made a Twi…

> If anyone works somewhere that uses this tool, or anything similar to it, you should run far, far away from that company.

For sure. But their customers are equally suspect. If anyone's prospective or current employer is actually paying for and using this tool, that's a big red flag in my opinion.

At the least I think it betrays very poor judgement.

Re: I had to get a background check for my job; the report is a 300 page pdf

#106

Post by arpa »

matz1 wrote: post #70
Cofike wrote: post #23

I used a script to delete all my tweets on my twitter however many years ago. I'm not the one to say anything inflammatory/offensive but I just couldn't risk some errant like or retweet causing me grief in the future. It seems like that wasn't a bad move.

Having no online presence can also be viewed suspicious. Pick your poison.

Ah! He doesn't eat meat! Suspicious, suspiciuos. Perhaps a communist, or a homosexual?

Re: I had to get a background check for my job; the report is a 300 page pdf

#107

Post by BlueTemplar »

RijilV wrote: post #89

In fairness I don’t use social media (well, other than posting here from time to time), so it’s difficult for me to identify with folks who spend a considerable (IMHO) amount of time recording their activities and thoughts on third party systems which have dubious, at best, privacy policies. My naive understanding of these platforms is for you to make yourself discoverable. Can someone help me understand why after sp…

Not sure who the GP is (I'm not dirty myself by going on Twitter just for this), but I assume a lot of people didn't realize at the time (and maybe still don't), that this is the kind of public discourse that does NOT quickly vanish into thin air, and all of the implications that follow?

Re: I had to get a background check for my job; the report is a 300 page pdf

#108

Post by FilterSweep »

Aloha wrote: post #33
brenden2 wrote: post #4

Here's the company doing this: https://fama.io/ The idea that you can assess someone's workplace performance based on automated screening of their tweets is utterly absurd. If anyone works somewhere that uses this tool, or anything similar to it, you should run far, far away from that company. This is a terrible precedent, and much too much Orwellian for my taste. EDIT: somewhat related, but a while back I made a Twi…

I'm curious about something, would most of the people who are aghast at this be as aghast at it if this had flagged someone who was racist, sexist, transphobic, or homophobic? I would be, but I wonder if I'm in the minority or not. This pilfering of your digital history is on the order of what's needed to get a security clearance - where it's at least somewhat justified. There is no case where I can see this being ju…

I’d rather they check my tweets than my pee (unless visibly intoxicated at work)

But, it’s still Orwellian and presents a sinister forced blend of personal and professional life

Re: I had to get a background check for my job; the report is a 300 page pdf

#109

Post by zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC »

javagram wrote: post #61
komali2 wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Bad opinions" is a pretty remarkable simplification of the concept of someone that doesn't think you're fully human based on the color of your skin or your sexuality. Would you want to work with someone that didn't think you should be allowed to exist?

[flagged]

> For instance, a doctor who doesn't want to perform a sex change operation or administer hormones to young children, because they think it is harmful to them, would be considered transphobic by many advocates.

You are leaving out the important bit: The justification. The problem isn't a doctor refusing because they think it is harmful, the problem is a doctor refusing because they think it is harmful against established science with no science to back up their own position--i.e., where the actual motivation for the refusal is their personal dislike of giving trans people the opportunity to transition according to their own wishes rather than genuine concern for the patient.

Re: I had to get a background check for my job; the report is a 300 page pdf

#110

Post by coldtea »

komali2 wrote: post #49
coldtea wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, it's OK if it happens to "bad" people. People who have bad opinions should not of course have jobs. They should die on the streets, as untouchables... Of course this holds as long as "the good side" has the power to make companies fire people for their tweets. If and when conservatives get this power (like e.g. they did in the Hoover or McCarthy era), this practice would be wrong again, and it should all be about…

"Bad opinions" is a pretty remarkable simplification of the concept of someone that doesn't think you're fully human based on the color of your skin or your sexuality. Would you want to work with someone that didn't think you should be allowed to exist?

>"Bad opinions" is a pretty remarkable simplification of the concept of someone that doesn't think you're fully human based on the color of your skin or your sexuality.

And "someone that doesn't think you're fully human based on the color of your skin or your sexuality" is a pretty remarkable simplification of the concept that someone might have religious, moral, philosophical, practical, political, or other considerations about certain behaviours -- in an era when all nuance is often lost and they are bagged as bigots...

>Would you want to work with someone that didn't think you should be allowed to exist?

First, why would you use a huge strawman as an argument?

There are tons of ways to think X group should do something different, or do or not do something, or that they're not saints, or that they go about Y in the wrong way, without thinking "they should not be allowed to exist". But still people are called out for all kinds of tame stuff (e.g. saying only biological women should compete in women's sports, for example), called out to be fired, etc.

Second, yes, I might not want to work with people who don't think I should exist, but I also don't want to have them fired for not wanting me to exist.

There are many coworkers I had throughout my career I myself wished didn't existed (idiotic bosses), but I wouldn't want to get their fired, cause them pain etc.

And if they wish me not to exist, that's their thing. Even if they show it, e.g. with passive aggressiveness, etc (which happens all too often in the workplace just because two people don't like each other, compete for the same position, have different styles, one is jealous of the other, etc. - race/sex etc is hardly the most common cause of this).

Point being, I'm not some God to dictate who deserves to have work or not. Nor do their families, kids, etc deserve to suffer because I am "hurt" of their opinions. And even less so, their personal opinions, outside of work.

If they behave unprofessionally at work to me or anyone else, sure, have them fired.

Post reply on HN