Razing Ruth's niece adopted by same sex couple

[hathorlive]

But since Razing Ruth isn't her real name how would one connect her real identity with her blog? And even if she were writing under her real name why should someone be punished for who her parents are? I can see where a past that included a candidate drinking and driving, stealing, drug use, prostitution, or things along that line could hurt in getting a job but I don't see how Ruth's blog could be held against her. Maybe I'm missing something.

I spend at least part of my work week doing background checks for various reasons. I don't need to know a lot in order to crawl through your entire online existence and cull information. It's not just what you post, it's what your friends post about you. Especially the pictures that are posted where you are "tagged". I've had people tell me in shock that "We weren't supposed to see that". But we did. Ruth would be crazy to put anything about her identity online. Not only because of wackos that might want to harass her but because of any future she hopes to have.

I don't use my real name. I'm very careful not to use any email account with online accounts that might be tracked back to anything I do or any other bit of information that is out there. As is, I have a very segregated life, where my work half doesn't merge with my personal life. And that's the best way to go if you don't want your silly thoughts and comments of a moment publish when you are up for a Supreme Court seat.

I don't understand the desire to know her name. But then I feel like my entire life is sifting through other people's business, so your mileage may vary.

[polabear]

What part of Civil Rights don't you understand? Religion is protected in hiring. Hello?

I can hire only non-smokers if I want. Smoking is not a protected activity. It'd be smart to advertise the job for non-smokers only, so there would be no misunderstandings, and it wouldn't be fair to hire someone and then tell them to quit or they lose their job. But I could still have a non-smoking company if I wanted.

If that man had said to me in the interview what I read in his own words on his Facebook page, I would have told him the interview was over. I have to work very closely with my employees, and I am not going to work with someone I cannot stand.

I live in a right-to-work state, which means I can hire or fire for any reason except for those covered by protected classes. I reserve that right, as every employer should.

I can't believe that people aren't smart enough to make their facebooks' unlisted when they start applying for jobs. That's the first thing I did. Then I used the various services people use to hunt down social media on people to make sure there wasn't much out there on the email address I used for jobs. Then I did a background check on myself.

However, I am a crazy paranoid person. :)

[NurseNell]

What part of Civil Rights don't you understand? Religion is protected in hiring. Hello?

I can hire only non-smokers if I want. Smoking is not a protected activity. It'd be smart to advertise the job for non-smokers only, so there would be no misunderstandings, and it wouldn't be fair to hire someone and then tell them to quit or they lose their job. But I could still have a non-smoking company if I wanted.

If that man had said to me in the interview what I read in his own words on his Facebook page, I would have told him the interview was over. I have to work very closely with my employees, and I am not going to work with someone I cannot stand.

I live in a right-to-work state, which means I can hire or fire for any reason except for those covered by protected classes. I reserve that right, as every employer should.

Hello, I do know religion is protected, a damn good thing. But there are lots of people who might try to find another reason to not hire someone of a certain religion. Maybe even check their Facebook page to look for a reason.

A quick google search shows that there are some states in which political affliation cannot be held against a potential employee. In Canada one's political party is indeed protected. http://www.linkedin.com/answers/law-leg ... 14-9356514

The Human Rights legislation in every jurisdiction include political affiliation as a protected right for all people. Employers, renters, service providers ... no one can discriminate on the ground of political affiliation.

[NurseNell]

I can't believe that people aren't smart enough to make their facebooks' unlisted when they start applying for jobs. That's the first thing I did. Then I used the various services people use to hunt down social media on people to make sure there wasn't much out there on the email address I used for jobs. Then I did a background check on myself.

However, I am a crazy paranoid person. :)

Very smart.

[Boogalou]

And this is why personal information should never, ever be posted online. It's also why people go Firstname Middlename on facebook when they are applying to jobs and grad school. To all those people checking Facebook and Google for potential employees, are you able to track people down (on Facebook) who don't have Facebook accounts with their last names?

I really can't believe the stuff that some people put out there. I think the super paranoia might come from growing up when I did. Everybody, at school and at home, put the fear of death in you if you ever posted anything about yourself online. They would constantly be telling you not even put the most mundane things about your life out there for public consumption, never to use your real name, etc.

[Coconut Flan]

I don't use my real name. I'm very careful not to use any email account with online accounts that might be tracked back to anything I do or any other bit of information that is out there.

Exactly. There are too many nosey parkers out there, too many people who want to track others down just because they can, and I don't think it's anyone's business who I really am or where exactly I live.

[Kitchen Princess]

Hello, I do know religion is protected, a damn good thing. But there are lots of people who might try to find another reason to not hire someone of a certain religion. Maybe even check their Facebook page to look for a reason.

A quick google search shows that there are some states in which political affliation cannot be held against a potential employee. In Canada one's political party is indeed protected. http://www.linkedin.com/answers/law-leg ... 14-9356514

I don't live in Canada.

For someone so old, you are incredibly naive. (I'm old, too.)

[hathorlive]

And this is why personal information should never, ever be posted online. It's also why people go Firstname Middlename on facebook when they are applying to jobs and grad school. To all those people checking Facebook and Google for potential employees, are you able to track people down (on Facebook) who don't have Facebook accounts with their last names?

Not posting all your names helps, but really, if you do this for a three letter organization, we have databases that would freak you out. Many large corporations pay to have access to this data. There is an entire industry that culls data and correlates it to you. Your credit history, all your past addresses, people you've lived with, email addresses. It's all out there and you can bet that someone has put it together in your profile. I've researched myself and 97% of the stuff in the file is accurate. I checked out my friend who legally changed her name (not married, but just totally changed first and last names). It's in there. And it ties her back to her entire family under a different last name. My friend who immigrated from another country and wasn't born here, she's correlated as well.

Another thing: Google. If you all only understood the scope of what Google is up too. You know how you have to give them a cell phone number and an alt email address as a "security" device in case you get locked out of your account? What do you think they are doing with that data? Yep, correlating it. To your email, your contacts in gmail, your youtube viewing habits (hey, she likes hockey AND ballet). If you are logged on to Google and do anything, third party cookies are tracking your online behavior via third party cookies. Turn those cookies off and Gmail stops working. Nice racket they have going. Google (and many other company's) soul purpose is to track you and market to you.

The main point is that if she gives her name, Ruth will be correlated to her blog. It might not seem like a big deal but in ten years, she might want to just forget this period of her life and move on. Regardless, she definitely should not give out her information. And most of us shouldn't either.

[holierthanyou]

Again, Republicans don't have any civil rights standing just because they're Republicans. People don't get hired because they're not "liked" all.the.time. It's not illegal.

If I said it was because he was black (he isn't) or that he was male (he is) or that he was Christian (dunno), it would be wrong. But it is not wrong to hire based on whether you like someone or not. A person has to fit in the culture of the workplace. He won't fit in mine.

There is some serious lack of critical thinking going on here.

I agree there is a serious lack of critical thinking going on here... I think we just disagree on who is lacking the critical thinking skills. ;)

Do you honestly believe it as fair and ethical behaviour to refuse to hire anyone for a job opening who does not meet an employer's personal preference criteria of thin, blonde woman who takes a purity/no birth control pledge and votes for the same candidate as her employer? Really?!?

Glad my country has laws against that.

[Beeks]

I checked a FB account on an applicant today and I eliminated him because of his rabid Republican political beliefs. I just can't spend that much time with a person I can't agree with.

I think that probably says a lot about you. Sad.

I can work with anyone, no matter their beliefs, as long as they are respectful and appropriate for the workplace. Lots of people share things on facebook that they would never discuss at work and I think this is a truly pathetic reason for eliminating somebody.

THAT SAID, he should have been a lot smarter about protecting his online info, so maybe he wouldn't have been the best hire anyway because he's not too bright.

[spragger]

I can't believe that people aren't smart enough to make their facebooks' unlisted when they start applying for jobs. That's the first thing I did. Then I used the various services people use to hunt down social media on people to make sure there wasn't much out there on the email address I used for jobs. Then I did a background check on myself.

However, I am a crazy paranoid person. :)

No, that is the smart thing to do! Think exactly like your potential employers would. I would only apply to places were I would fit in anyway because eventually politics are going to come up.

Like Creaky Steel said, if the person being interviewed had said those same things in the interview, that would have been a real clue to me to shut it down. Especially considering a lot of the bigoted BS coming out of the mouths of Republicans these days. It's not that different from somebody making racist or sexist remarks during an interview. That also would put them out of the running for the job if I were the one hiring.

We are way behind on protecting all the things that SHOULD be protected, much less adding on things that are questionable, like political affiliation. At the moment, I think you can still be fired on the basis of your sexual orientation.

[spragger]

I think that probably says a lot about you. Sad.

I can work with anyone, no matter their beliefs, as long as they are respectful and appropriate for the workplace. Lots of people share things on facebook that they would never discuss at work and I think this is a truly pathetic reason for eliminating somebody.

THAT SAID, he should have been a lot smarter about protecting his online info, so maybe he wouldn't have been the best hire anyway because he's not too bright.

I think it would just depend on what the "rabid Republican political beliefs" revealed about the person. Also, to some extent, the nature of the job. Were there other candidates who are equally qualified, etc?

I avoid the problem by not having a FB.

[Beeks]

I think it would just depend on what the "rabid Republican political beliefs" revealed about the person. Also, to some extent, the nature of the job. Were there other candidates who are equally qualified, etc?

I avoid the problem by not having a FB.

True. I have a facebook but I'm that annoying person who only posts pics of the kids for the grandparents to see. It's all set to private but even if a potential employer saw it.....not too damning.

[Kitchen Princess]

I agree there is a serious lack of critical thinking going on here... I think we just disagree on who is lacking the critical thinking skills. ;)

Do you honestly believe it as fair and ethical behaviour to refuse to hire anyone for a job opening who does not meet an employer's personal preference criteria of thin, blonde woman who takes a purity/no birth control pledge and votes for the same candidate as her employer? Really?!?

Glad my country has laws against that.

Obviously you've never been a business owner.

It wasn't the only reason I didn't hire him, but it was the last nail in the coffin. I still don't find it unfair or unethical to have personal preferences about what type of person you want to work with.

Will it make you feel any better to know that the next guy I interviewed is an ex-con and he starts work for me next week?

But again, I don't have to have any reason at all to hire or fire, so long as it is not based on status in a protected class.

[Witsec5]

I am a school psychologist working in a public school. I was to evaluate a student for a specific learning disability. The kid's mom googled me and then she called the principal to say she was upset at my lack of online presence because she said she could not find anything on me prior to 2006 (I've been doing this since 1994) and what she did find (one minor affiliation) she questioned as a conflict of interest. I'm also sure she found my FB page, which is set to private and maybe even information on my minor son because he has used my private email without my permission to go on music and baseball forums but she didn't say anything about that. She probably also found a newspaper article when I was interviewed about how hard it was to get a passport in time for a trip to see relatives overseas.

When I talked to the mom, I told her I wanted to have a lack of online presence on purpose and that my affiliation on the board of a now defunct software company that helps autistic children was not a conflict of interest. I told my boss I was uncomfortable assessing the child due to the violation of my privacy and the confrontation and my boss assigned someone else to the case. I might have been able to handle the mom's particular brand of crazy but I am very busy with this job and I could see it was going to take a big effort just handling her.

I actually don't blame a parent for doing a google search because people can be nosy if they want to and I have to plan for that but I am a public employee and the mother should not have confronted me like that to question every aspect of my life. If parents are concerned about me being alone with their child, they can be in the room while I do my assessment.

[Kitchen Princess]

I think that probably says a lot about you. Sad.

::snip::

THAT SAID, he should have been a lot smarter about protecting his online info, so maybe he wouldn't have been the best hire anyway because he's not too bright.

Yeah, it says I still have the right to freely associate, and the status as employer/employee has no bearing on that. Again, EXCEPT for status in a protected class.

[Beeks]

Yeah, it says I still have the right to freely associate, and the status as employer/employee has no bearing on that. Again, EXCEPT for status in a protected class.

I'm not questioning the legality of what you did. I just think it's jerk-y fo refuse to work with somebody because you don't like their political affiliation (that you learned about on facebook and have no idea whether he would have talked about it at all at work). Now you've said there were other reasons as well, but when you first posted that was the only reason you stated.

Again, you have every right under the law (in most states). Not questioning that.

[Witsec5]

I agree, there would have to have been other reasons. If he made a lot of douchy comments on FB and referenced political affiliation then I might not hire. However, just listing that he was a conservative--that wouldn't bother me. Quality of work and work ethic is important to me. Someone as ignorant Smuggar would be toast if I were the hiring manager regardless of political party.

[Kitchen Princess]

I'm not questioning the legality of what you did. I just think it's jerk-y fo refuse to work with somebody because you don't like their political affiliation (that you learned about on facebook and have no idea whether he would have talked about it at all at work). Now you've said there were other reasons as well, but when you first posted that was the only reason you stated.

Again, you have every right under the law (in most states). Not questioning that.

He didn't even get an interview. He was never born to be thankful he wasn't aborted. (Even though I said something about "the next guy I interviewed" in a subsequent post--I did interview two guys today, but FB guy wasn't one of them, although I considered it. I just misspoke in that subsequent post).

I'm actually a pretty good employer, and I pay $10/hour for a job that usually gets minimum wage. I don't think what I did was jerk-ish at all. If I had read his FB after I had already vetted his experience and offered him the job, I wouldn't fire him just because of it. It's just what sealed the deal for me.

[NurseNell]

I don't live in Canada.

For someone so old, you are incredibly naive. (I'm old, too.)

I never said you lived in Canada. I just found it interesting that in Canada an employer cannot refuse to hire someone because of what political party they belong to.

I am not naive.

I use Facebook a lot when I'm doing adoption searches. I'm one who likes that people tend to share more than they should. I've also used it in genealogy.

[Maul the Koala]

It's just wise to keep your information on lockdown. I have an online presence because of what I do but I'm very careful in using fake names in most political debates. It may be cowardly but wise with Teh Internetz Being 4eva! I am not risking it. I don't say dumbass things like rape being a choice but you never know.

It also helps when you're running for political office and someone pulls up something you wrote on a blog, like this

http://www.edmontonjournal.com/news/Int ... story.html

Moron. Between that and the white supremists in that party, I hope they lose.

[JesusFightClub]

I think that probably says a lot about you. Sad.

I can work with anyone, no matter their beliefs, as long as they are respectful and appropriate for the workplace. Lots of people share things on facebook that they would never discuss at work and I think this is a truly pathetic reason for eliminating somebody.

THAT SAID, he should have been a lot smarter about protecting his online info, so maybe he wouldn't have been the best hire anyway because he's not too bright.

I dunno.

I wouldn't check anyone's Facebook but if somebody said "See him, he's...(member of fascist organisation)" and it was verifiable (it is not impossible to find out), I would be concerned about a fascist in the workplace. I do not run a business, natch ;) but I would think "How will they treat a black customer? Or two guys who come into the building and are obviously a couple?" CS may also have these concerns.

Politics can be an issue. I kind of gave up being subtle, because it lasted about five seconds before I forgot and answered a mobile call by saying "Comrade." Which got me some funny looks. Point being, politics can't always be hidden in the workplace. If you are really involved and your beliefs are strong, it's going to come out.

That could be really worrying if you are female, BME or gay or all of the above and you get fash or a Santorum type working with you. I reiterate, would never check an FB but if this is common practice in the US then the game changes for applicants. Lock down your FB or there will be consequences.

In fact, even locking down an FB won't save you, but it does make it less easy.

[Mama Mia]

Wow, I am an employer and I think it is horribly unethical to not hire someone based on their political party ! I work for a non-profit that gets government money and can't discriminate based on about 100 different things - and I completely understand that having someone who fits in with their co-workers is important - but to blatantly discriminate based on their facebook profile ??? That is messed up.

[Artemis]

Hang on - we don't know what Creaky Steel does or who she is employing for what. If the guy was spouting e.g. anti-woman stuff, or similar, and she works for a women's organisation, would you still say she was unethical? She has to work with this person, possibly in situations that are tense and difficult.

If you were hiring, would you choose someone you realised you could not get on with because your views were very different? There is a difference between discriminating against someone based on race, gender, sexuality or ability and choosing not to hire them because they are a nasty small minded jerk.

You could have a disabled, gay, person of colour, totally suitable for the post and better qualified than anyone else, and obviously the best candidate, both in character and aptitude. Hiring them would make sense. Not hiring them because they were gay, disabled, or a person of colour would be discriminatory.

You could equally have a disabled, gay, person of colour ostensibly totally suitable for the post until you actually interviewed them and discovered that they were a nasty small minded jerk. Hiring them would not make sense because they would quickly screw up your organisation. Not hiring them because of this would a) make sense and b) not be discriminatory (although if they were a really nasty small minded jerk, they might well claim that it was.)

She didn't not hire someone based on their political party - she chose not to hire someone based on their expressed views, which she considered would not be suited to her workplace ethos. That's not discrimination, any more than it is discrimination when you choose anyone for a job because you consider them to be the person who can best fill it based on their aptitiude and views, and their ability to fit into their existing team.

Nothing prevents anyone from suffering from nasty small minded jerkness that is a barrier to being employed, whether they are Republican, Democrat, straight, gay, black, white, able, less able, or anywhere on any of those continua. If the guy came across on his Facebook page as a nasty small minded jerk who would potentially be hell to work with, what is discriminatory in not choosing him for the job? He happened to be a Republican. He could have been anyone.

[OnceModestTwiceShy]

Wow, I've been avoiding this thread because when I saw how long it had gotten I was afraid it had turned into a debate about gay adoption.

The online identity thing is interesting. I'm 28, which is young enough to have had internet since early adolescence, but not young enough to have had the privacy thing drilled into me as people even a few years younger did. When I was in my early 20s, I did put some stuff out there that I really wish I hadn't. It's nothing completely scandalous, but it's much more than I'd like. However, those things require a lot of digging.

At the same time, if you Google my name, you will very quickly learn that I'm a bleeding-heart lefty. I've worked for orgs and written articles and been mentioned in newsletters - there is no escaping my political affiliation. I don't regret that. I'm lucky to live in an area where most people are at least in the general ballpark of my political views, even if I'm on the fringe. I've actually had great conversations with interviewers who see these things on my resume. Now that I'll be on the academic job market in a few years, I know it's possible that I've closed any possible doors at Catholic and other Christian institutions because of my very outspoken stance on reproductive rights, but I am ok with that. I'm glad I've been vocal on these issues.

These days, I've gotten significantly more hawkish with my online identity. My FB is totally private, and even if someone unauthorized did see it, they would only get very rated-G pictures of me on my travels, political and cultural observations, and funny (hopefully) anecdotes. I very rarely ever even post something as personal as "I am feeling sad today." I can't control what I've shared in the past, but I can be more careful now.

BTW, has anyone had trouble getting rid of their MySpace accounts? In the past year I've erased mine 4 times, but it's still there. I finally just removed all the content and left an empty profile.