|
Over in The Best Thread, Obdicut proposes the following:Obdicut posted:I haven't, man, it's your own ethical clusterfuck. There is absolutely nothing wrong, in a very obvious way, with calling friends to tell them "This guy was an unethical fuckup on the job here, so watch out for him". In order to attempt to make it look bad, you have to construct tendentious ethical scenarios where you imagine bad fates befalling him but don't imagine those fates befalling anyone else who doesn't get the job. Moreover, your position involves being more sympathetic to someone who hosed over you and your friends to a stranger who didn't. It isn't my fault that you've taken a torturously indefensible position. You done shat your own bed. Now, as an employer, I can get behind the idea that this sort of thing is moral and just and right. I've certainly hired people and thought "drat, I wish someone had told me about X ahead of time". But on the other hand, this seems like the kind of thing that could get out of hand fast in a number of ways. 1) There may be multiple sides to "X" and more than likely I'm only going to hear the one from the person who is pissed off enough to want to burn the applicant in the first place. 2) The "X"'s I'm going to hear about could be things like "this dude was drinking on the job", which I probaby really should know about and take into account, but could equally be "this woman presented a harassment complaint and was a pain in my rear end", which...I also probably really want to know about, but I shouldn't be allowed to know about for reasons that should be obvious. 3) I'm not convinced this is any more moral than running a website on which employers post gripes about past employees for prospective hiring managers to peruse, a thing which I think we could all agree would be not only extra lovely but probably illegal. Unless the site were hosted in like Cambodia, then no one could say poo poo. Hmm. Hmmmmmmm. Anyway, I put it to you, D&D. Is blackballing people a poo poo move or the act of an enlightened concerned citizen looking out for his friends?
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2015 14:44
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 26, 2024 12:57 |
|
|
That's not blacklisting, and it's even less blackballing. Besides, how are you going to enforce a ban on this?
|
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2015 14:48
|
|
|
Effectronica posted:That's not blacklisting, and it's even less blackballing. Besides, how are you going to enforce a ban on this? At the very least it's attempting to torpedo someone's future prospects. Are you saying that's ethical? I have a business plan to write.
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2015 14:51
|
|
wateroverfire posted:At the very least it's attempting to torpedo someone's future prospects. Are you saying that's ethical? I have a business plan to write. Is it? If someone's most recent employer informs a friend of theirs in the industry that that guy sexually harassed people and couldn't get anything done on time, does that really "torpedo someone's future prospects"? Maybe you shouldn't be so passive-aggressive and start on the full mosquito whine now.
|
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2015 14:53
|
|
|
Sounds like defamation and there are cases where people get sued for negative references.
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2015 14:56
|
|
|
This happens all the time and for good reason. I get the distinct impression thing whole argument is a smokescreen for something else.
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2015 14:58
|
|
|
A quick trip to https://www.blackball.com confirms it's already taken, unfortunately. Though not by what you'd expect.
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2015 15:01
|
|
|
Mel Mudkiper posted:This happens all the time and for good reason. Soooooooo you see no ethical problems with it? I mean, I'll grant it happens all the time for Reasons good and otherwise. What is in question, IMO, are the ethics of the act. Imagine instead of reacting to an example some hilarious moral blindness on Obdicut's part, this thread were a commentary on a news article about a major employer revealed to have been spreading negative gossip about ex employees to hamper their career prospects. wateroverfire fucked around with this message at 15:14 on Jul 10, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2015 15:01
|
|
wateroverfire posted:Soooooooo you see no ethical problems with it? Answer my question, my good man. Wouldn't want to be caught being dishonest now.
|
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2015 15:03
|
|
|
Effectronica posted:Answer my question, my good man. Wouldn't want to be caught being dishonest now. *Notes poster name* Hmmm. Mmmh. I see. *reluctantly shakes head* No can do.
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2015 15:04
|
|
|
euphronius posted:Sounds like defamation and there are cases where people get sued for negative references. FWIW this was my thought. And my lawyer's thought. He wrote "Ha ha ha ha ha" on my invoice, which I thought was sort of immature of him.
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2015 15:07
|
|
wateroverfire posted:*Notes poster name* Okay then. I think you've adequately summed up your intellectual powers here. Thanks for playing.
|
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2015 15:07
|
|
|
Effectronica posted:Okay then. I think you've adequately summed up your intellectual powers here. Thanks for playing. In the shitposting with Effectronica game, the only way to win is not to play.
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2015 15:08
|
|
wateroverfire posted:In the shitposting with Effectronica game, the only way to win is not to play. I asked a question that was infinitely more sincere than anything you've smarmed about in this thread. You, of course, dodged it, because your existence is a pestilence and the day of your death will be a joyous one.
|
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2015 15:11
|
|
|
There's obviously no bright line and huge possible differences in contexts. Sharing information about a bad employee with people in your industry you regularly communicate with is very different from calling up every employer in your small town to let them know not to hire someone because you found out he's gay. First two things I'd look at, who was told and what was said.
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2015 15:12
|
|
|
wateroverfire posted:Soooooooo you see no ethical problems with it? What are the ethical problems with it? There are laws in place for the kind of problems that you're talking about. Sharing truthful information with the intent to inform other employers (as opposed to acting maliciously to harm someone because you don't like them) seems fine to me, and legal recourse already exists for situations where that's not the case. If you're only talking about the latter situation, then aren't you just asking if defamation is unethical?
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2015 15:13
|
|
|
It isn't ethical but will become more common as technology erodes privacy. Within say the next two decades everything you or your children do will be recorded and stored as data. Have a bad day at work? Hope you're prepared for every employer to ask you about that in interviews. Awkwardly tried to hit on the coffee shop girl? Be ready for every girl's phone/watch/implant in a three mile radius to send out a perv alert on you. The racist joke you repeated at 8 after hearing your uncle say it will come back to haunt you when you get a promotion and the customers find out about it. This stuff is already happening, but this is just the beginning.
|
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2015 15:13
|
|
|
What I'm gathering is that you're asking if an inverse version of Glassdoor would be ethical. I think it would not be.
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2015 15:14
|
|
|
The proposition quoted is about unethical behavior, and being a fuckup on the job. If the second thing is defamation and ruins anyone from ever having a chance at a job, that seems to suggest that business owners are universally evil and stupid, which is very telling coming from a professed business owner. If the first is defamation, of course, depends on what is considered unethical. But this is really, "Did those gosh-dang lefties give me an excuse to discriminate?" and we really should stop pretending even if the OP will never do so till his dying day.
|
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2015 15:19
|
|
|
Mandator posted:What I'm gathering is that you're asking if an inverse version of Glassdoor would be ethical. I think it would not be. I think the only reason it doesn't exist today is the potential legal action facilitated by putting your unsubstantiated gripes in writing. Paradoxish, I think that is where the ethical issues start. It is impossible for the person receiving the information to know whether it's true or not. There is no independant certification that a thing happened, or that it happened the way the reporting party said it did, or that the reporting party isn't salty and making more of the incident than it was, etc. But being a peer (an employer talking to an employer) of the person you're talking to grants the story credibility it may not merit on its own. Who are you going to listen to, the person coming to you as a friend or the applicant who says that story isn't true? The applicant may have recourse through defamation law, but that claim is going to be extremely hard to make. Most likely they'll just never get an interview and never know why. For some things that's merited. Possibly. But that determination is inherently subjective and left in the hands of the least objective party - the person/company salty enough to proactively burn an applicant's bridges. Obdicut, for instance, maintains he was acting in the right and the guy he burned was a fuckup. Okay, maybe, sure. But everyone is the hero of their own narrative so he would certainly think that, given what he (Obdicut) decided to do about it. The guy is at the very least hampered regardless of the merits of the accusation against him. A person who passed the word that so and so made an "unjustified" sexual harassment complaint and was "just fishing for a settlement" would do so with equal conviction that they were doing the right thing and being a good citizen. It's not enough to feel like you're justified. The only ethical policy is not to pass gossip.
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2015 15:52
|
|
|
But how is it ethical to the employer that they would be hiring a fuckup, without their knowledge, and then have to deal with the consequences and fallout of that person being a fuckup when they might gently caress up things? I don't think a person's inability to operate a HGV in a competent manner would negatively effect them applying for a job in an office, and as such I don't think it's relevant even if brought up. If that person is applying for the position of a HGV driver then it would be of the utmost importance that his previous transgressions be known so that the employer could make an informed decision about if that person is capable of not killing a bunch of people because he drove it into a pre-school. An employer is under no obligation to employ you.
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2015 16:05
|
|
|
I am pretty sure it is ethical to make factually true statements, and unethical to knowingly make factually untrue statements.
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2015 16:11
|
|
|
euphronius posted:Sounds like defamation and there are cases where people get sued for negative references. See, I always thought this was an urban legend. Case and point, a friend of mine recently worked with two new sales guys who instead of pushing leads and trying to make sales made maybe 5% of the required daily calls and spent the rest of the time surfing the net and, I poo poo you not, disappearing for three hours in the middle of the day to have picnics in the park next door. Of course after a couple months they were both fired for not doing their jobs. Apparently now those morons have been giving that company as a reference because they believe you can't give someone a negative reference. But its only defamation if it's a false statement, so my friend's HR department just tells whoever is calling they were let go for not making any sales and unprofessional conduct and that's it. It's not false, and they've got the paper trail and IT logs to prove it. They've also apparently been reapplying to the job they were just fired from so they might not be too bright.
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2015 16:13
|
|
|
I'm confused as to why this argument is expansive enough that it should take place outside of the context of where it was originally posted, given how little extra context you have given. Can you clarify with more specific examples or elaborate upon the ethical concerns you perceive?
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2015 16:18
|
|
|
I don't think there's a simple yes or no answer to it. It's a question of degrees. If someone is sexually harassing co-workers and completely failing to do their job, then yes, there's a good reason for other companies to avoid hiring him or her. If they have personal problems with a co-worker or boss, then having said co-worker or boss in a position where they can gently caress up the person's life is clearly a bad thing. In the end, no, I'm not comfortable with a situation where one company is in a position to blacklist someone. It's better to have a history of employers and references speak for someone, even if that means a fuckup is more likely to be employed, it also means an innocent is less likely to have their life hosed up, which I think is more important.
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2015 16:19
|
|
|
I don't think that anyone, as an individual, should ever take it upon themselves to do something like this, for basically the same reason vigilantism should be outlawed - without any kind of comprehensive bureaucratic constraint, it would end badly. If you've got an axe to grind against someone, you may do it unfairly, use deception to get what you want. If you've got no personal stake in it, but don't have the full picture, you may act based on limited information that gives an incorrect prejudice. And even if your information + intentions are correct, there has to be some kind of limit. Should someone be unemployable forever because of a mistake they made? Is that fair? How long should that period by and - importantly - why do you get to decide that? Like, the best thing you can do is just move on. We live in a society, with other people. That necessitates limiting the things any one person can do, if letting everyone do that leads to problems. It's not your job to try and right every wrong you see, just live your life and do the things you love. Leave the desire for justice in the realm of politics and policy. rudatron fucked around with this message at 16:28 on Jul 10, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2015 16:20
|
|
|
wateroverfire posted:At the very least it's attempting to torpedo someone's future prospects. Are you saying that's ethical? I have a business plan to write. Yes it is. Get used to it. I hope it encompasses all aspects of American life within the decade.
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2015 16:22
|
|
|
rudatron posted:I don't think that anyone, as an individual, should ever take it upon themselves to do something like this, for basically the same reason vigilantism should be outlawed - without any kind of comprehensive bureaucratic constraint, it would end up with negative outcomes if committed broadly. If you've got an axe to grind against someone, you may do it unfairly, use deception to get what you want. Even if you've got no personal stake in it, you may not have the full picture, and act based on limited information that gives a prejudice. And even if your information + intentions are correct, there has to be some kind of limit. Should someone be unemployed forever because of a mistake they made? Is that fair? How long should that period by and - importantly - why do you get to decide that? Yeah, it feels like this question covers things we already learned about the hard way. I'm a little confused why people would be comfortable with this.
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2015 16:27
|
|
|
wateroverfire posted:Obdicut, for instance, maintains he was acting in the right and the guy he burned was a fuckup. Okay, maybe, sure. But everyone is the hero of their own narrative so he would certainly think that, given what he (Obdicut) decided to do about it. The guy is at the very least hampered regardless of the merits of the accusation against him. You're acting like there's no recourse for someone who's had untrue or malicious accusations leveled against them. If someone's career prospects have been unjustly damaged by defamation, then that person should get a lawyer and pursue legal action. Spreading unfounded rumors and gossip is unethical and the legal system can deal with that. Spreading useful information (this employee is bad at their job) isn't unethical.
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2015 16:30
|
|
|
wateroverfire posted:Soooooooo you see no ethical problems with it? short answer: no longer answer: nope
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2015 16:30
|
|
|
Ddraig posted:But how is it ethical to the employer that they would be hiring a fuckup, without their knowledge, and then have to deal with the consequences and fallout of that person being a fuckup when they might gently caress up things? It was their choice to hire them. If they can't tell that the employee is a fuckup on their own, that's on them. Competence is subjective and context-based and an employee who was a catastrophically bad fit for their last job might be a great employee doing the same thing at another place with a different work environment. Not only is what constitutes a "fuckup" subjective, in some cases employers may very well consider someone a fuckup for refusing to act unethically. Even otherwise ethical employers may hesitate to hire a known whistleblower, regardless of how justified they were. If someone is a big enough fuckup to be worth trying to blacklist, chances are their fuckups are a matter of public record. Short of that, I don't think it's ethical to discourage other employers from hiring an ex-employee you had a beef with.
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2015 16:46
|
|
|
wateroverfire posted:
I think this is the problem. Instead of us imagining, perhaps you could provide some scenarios. Right now this seems more like a personal vendetta related to another argument, and basing it around a poster instead of hypotheticals or real life scenarios makes it difficult to discuss.
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2015 16:56
|
|
|
Reference checks: Profoundly Unethical.
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2015 17:01
|
|
|
Well my understanding is that when an employer is checking employment history they're really only by law supposed to give a yes/no kind of answer to questions like "Would you hire this person again?". Anything more might be breaking the law. If you're ok with breaking the law, then from a simply moral standpoint I think you have to ask the question "Did they do something so foul that you should threaten their means to pay for food, rent, support their family or whatever?". Unless they did something like poo poo in your cereal and kill your dog I don't think its ethical to threaten someones livelihood. If someone is putting you down as reference and you're saying that person killed your dog and shat in your cereal you should probably also tell them they shouldn't put you down as a reference. If they're listing you as job history and you're saying they killed your dog, you should probably check to see if you're doing something illegal.
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2015 17:12
|
|
|
Reason posted:Well my understanding is that when an employer is checking employment history they're really only by law supposed to give a yes/no kind of answer to questions like "Would you hire this person again?". Anything more might be breaking the law. If you're ok with breaking the law, then from a simply moral standpoint I think you have to ask the question "Did they do something so foul that you should threaten their means to pay for food, rent, support their family or whatever?". Unless they did something like poo poo in your cereal and kill your dog I don't think its ethical to threaten someones livelihood. Yeah, this is pretty much how I feel about things. I'm surprised people are arguing for blacklists outside of official channels given their history.
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2015 17:20
|
|
Adventure Pigeon posted:Yeah, this is pretty much how I feel about things. I'm surprised people are arguing for blacklists outside of official channels given their history. What is being described in the OP is not a blacklist. Blacklisting is when everyone agrees not to hire someone.
|
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2015 17:21
|
|
|
Effectronica posted:Is it? If someone's most recent employer informs a friend of theirs in the industry that that guy sexually harassed people and couldn't get anything done on time, does that really "torpedo someone's future prospects"? Maybe you shouldn't be so passive-aggressive and start on the full mosquito whine now. I think the concern would be that someone could lie about someone else doing bad things. In theory I don't really have a problem with the idea of "blacklisting" people who are bigots or sexually harass their coworkers, but I worry about people falsely accusing others of doing these things (not that this can't already happen to some extent). I can definitely see the similarity to McCarthyism, but it's still worthy of a discussion because of the rather key difference that the thing people are being accused of is actually genuinely bad. I think I would find this sort of "blacklisting" more acceptable if people had to provide proof of others doing bigoted/harmful things. Like, if you could show a bunch of Facebook posts by some guy where he talks about how terrible black people are, I don't really see a problem with employers being aware of that information. It's just very important for there to be a strong legal framework where people can challenge claims against them and force their employers/potential employers to show cause (which should apply to being fired in general). Ultimately, I'm inclined to be against an actual organised blacklist of people who have displayed bigotry. I feel that the potential harm and backlash from such a thing would outweigh any of its possible benefits. I do, however, think that peoples' public* online (and offline) activity should be able to be used as grounds for their dismissal or rejection, provided people have the option of cheaply legally challenging this (bolding this just because I would be totally against this sort of thing if this condition isn't met). I believe the courts are more or less able to discern whether something someone said/did is significantly harmful/offensive to justify them being fired(/not hired), and if anything they would probably err on the side of thinking that most forms of speech aren't a good enough justification. I don't really see most courts saying "it's okay to fire this person because they said X" unless X is something really loving racist/whatever. * I don't think it's okay for someone to take some private conversation and show that to someone else's employer, for example
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2015 17:23
|
|
|
Reason posted:Well my understanding is that when an employer is checking employment history they're really only by law supposed to give a yes/no kind of answer to questions like "Would you hire this person again?". Anything more might be breaking the law. This is actually very wrong and results in a lot of poor decision making by employees who don't understand that 1) an employer can say a lot of things, including things that break the law, and it is very hard to prosecute, and 2) employers actually have wide latitude in disclosing poor performance and behavior that is recorded and tracked as part of an employee file, only that they are generally advised to avoid speculation. I guess this urban legend came about because many larger firms have HR policy to limit who is allowed to handle calls from information seeking parties, and to keep such disclosure limited strictly to employee file contents... but your employee file can and will contain any and all negative feedback gathered on employee performance and any official notifications that have been given of poor conduct.
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2015 17:24
|
|
Ytlaya posted:I think the concern would be that someone could lie about someone else doing bad things. I don't really have a problem with the idea of "blacklisting" people who are bigots or sexually harass their coworkers, but I worry about people falsely accusing others of doing these things (not that this can't already happen to some extent). I can definitely see the similarity to McCarthyism, but it's still worthy of a discussion because of the rather key difference that the thing people are being accused of is actually genuinely bad. Sure, but it's much easier to provide a way for people to challenge that than to ban people from talking about people they've employed. Off the top of my head, requiring that companies inform rejected applicants (or people rejected after getting past a certain stage) why they've been rejected would provide grounds for people to challenge false claims or sue for defamation.
|
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2015 17:27
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 26, 2024 12:57 |
|
|
Reason posted:Well my understanding is that when an employer is checking employment history they're really only by law supposed to give a yes/no kind of answer to questions like "Would you hire this person again?". Anything more might be breaking the law. That's not a matter of law, that's most major companies having cover-your-rear end policies so they don't get sued for defamation.
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2015 17:27
|
|