|
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
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 29, 2024 06:58 |
|
|
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
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
Effectronica posted:What is being described in the OP is not a blacklist. Blacklisting is when everyone agrees not to hire someone. They're both working through unofficial channels to prevent someone from being hired. There may be justifiable reasons for this sometimes, but it's pretty open to abuse. Ytlaya posted: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 there's any good way to stop an employer from googling a prospective employee, but I don't think it's a good thing. How easy is it to legally challenge an employer that didn't hire you? Especially if they can come up with a reasonable explanation, even if the real reason was a nasty search result.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 10, 2015 17:40
|
|
|
Effectronica posted:A blacklist is a ban everyone agrees to hold to. What is described is, at most, an effort to persuade someone one way or another. People are not actually 100% persuasive. The issue is if someone lies or defames or if it's because of irrelevancies. Yes, it is. It's also an unofficial channel. An "effort to persuade" still has a devastating effect on someone's career prospects, especially in a competitive market. Effectronica posted:You can't stop them from talking, realistically. Doing so would create more problems than it would solve. So the question is how to prevent abuses. The long-term answer is, you know, ending the capitalist system etc. At this point, preventing abuses can really only be done on a case by case basis. I don't know if there's a good way to do it beyond that, especially since policing interpersonal relationships is a murky mess at best. The best solution for the time being might be to force companies to make their hiring processes as transparent as possible and to document everything. That's mostly just me talking out of my rear end, though, since I've only been hired as opposed to having to hire someone. SeaWolf, if you don't mind saying, what did you have to do to resolve your own situation? If you'd rather not discuss it, no worries, but it sounds like you've have the most relevant view on this discussion.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 10, 2015 18:11
|
|
|
Mel Mudkiper posted:It seems the concerns are not the process itself but the reasons. The problem is that the reasons will vary from case to case and may not necessarily be scrutable. Is it better, therefore, to regulate the process such that a bad employee will be prevented from being employed or risk good or at least innocent employees being victimized?
|
|
#
¿
Jul 10, 2015 20:44
|
|
|
Mel Mudkiper posted:the first one Unfortunately, vengeful former co-workers and employers are a thing that exists. I agree that it's not a zero sum game, and I don't think assholes and idiots should be protected from the consequences of their actions. That being said, I'd rather an rear end in a top hat or idiot get away occasionally, than an innocent be put in a horrible situation. It's a lot less serious for an rear end in a top hat to occasionally find employment, especially given the state of workers' rights in the country, than it is for a good employee to be kicked out of a field entirely. Finally, there're ways a company can indicate that an employee wouldn't make a good hire through official channels, for instance, by simply saying they wouldn't hire them again in SeaWolf's example, that the unofficial channels seem to be unnecessary and dangerous. If everything that goes into a hiring process, including the statements of the referees, is recorded and made available, I'd think that would make them less open to abuse.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 10, 2015 21:06
|
|
|
Mel Mudkiper posted:What evidence do you have this is even a problem? Where are the innocent workers being rumored and psuedo-blacklisted into poverty in a way not already covered by harassment or defamation laws? SeaWolf gave a good example. He was covered by harassment and defamation laws, but he was unable to find employment for a period of time and had to hire a lawyer to resolve his issue. The whole reason all those harassment and defamation laws exist in the first place is because of blacklisting practices. I doubt the unofficial channels we've been discussing are legal, or at least, they're in a grey area, but it's clear that in a lot of cases they're not tightly regualted. Adventure Pigeon fucked around with this message at 21:14 on Jul 10, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Jul 10, 2015 21:11
|
|
|
Mel Mudkiper posted:A single anecdote from an anonymous poster is not evidence. I think you have it the wrong way. The laws already exist which prevent it. My argument is they should be strengthened to better cover unofficial channels. Your argument seems to be that they should be removed to better allow companies to get the word out about bad employees? That being said, I don't know how or if it's even possible to cover unofficial channels. How do you regulate someone calling a company they suspect a former co-worker is applying to, talking to colleagues in the industry, or anything else like that. Adventure Pigeon fucked around with this message at 21:39 on Jul 10, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Jul 10, 2015 21:35
|
|
|
Mel Mudkiper posted:No my argument is that nothing needs to be done at all because there is no meaningful issue to address From what I saw, the opening post was basically "Should employers have options out side of references and official channels to determine whether they should hire someone or not?" Yeah, it was carrying on something from another thread, so maybe it was an attempt to cut at somebody without continuing a derail, but I've been trying to discuss it in good faith. My opinion is "No, employers should be forced to act through official channels, unofficial channels could be open to abuse." Is your opinion that unofficial channels don't exist or that they're not being abused?
|
|
#
¿
Jul 10, 2015 21:44
|
|
|
Obdicut posted:Yeah, that's still not a blacklist. One person isn't a list. I'm not really interested in the argument between you and the OP, since I suspect that's what this was really about. And no, one person can be blacklisted. While they don't advertise it, the HRs of companies do share information about employees and even interviewees. States do have laws about what can and cannot be said by former employers about an employee. Most of them cover supremely lovely behavior. Were you operating in a state that didn't offer information immunity?
|
|
#
¿
Jul 10, 2015 22:28
|
|
|
Obdicut posted:One person can't be blacklisted, because a 'list' has more than one item on it. What happened was in no way a blacklisting: I called only people I knew, which wasn't everyone in the industry, I did so about one person, and it wasn't about politics or personal issues but an actual job performance issue. One person can be blacklisted. It's refers to being added to a list of people a company won't hire. These lists often are shared within an industry, and depending on the state/country and the nature of the list can be illegal. Laws vary from state to state. Here's a partial list of what an employer can and cannot say. Feel free to peruse. http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/free-books/employee-rights-book/chapter9-6.html I'm curious why your company didn't provide a bad reference if this guy was a lovely employee, hence why I asked if your state provides information immunity. That's my only interest with regards to what you've said. I don't care about your motivations or fight with the op otherwise.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 10, 2015 22:43
|
|
|
Obdicut posted:If they are added to a list, it's not one person, is it? And a blacklist is not particular to a company, it has to have effects outside that company, because every company has a list of people they are going to not hire. Ok. You're being tedious, so I'll try to be clear for you. I have not once implied that a blacklist consists of a single person. I've said that a single person can be blacklisted, or added to a blacklist. A company having a list of people they won't hire is normal. The problem is when these lists are shared between companies. http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2012/mar/03/police-blacklist-link-construction-workers When a single person's name is passed around and added to multiple company's blacklists, it could probably be referred to as blacklisting as well. Or added to a blacklist. Or whatever your favorite combination of words are. http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052748703389004575033583145567138 quote:Notice how all of those say 'job performance' or 'reason for termination'? Yes, job performance or reason for termination are both things that I think are fine to pass on to other companies. The problem is when there's no way for someone to defend themselves against it, or even find out where the accusations are coming from. Hence why I think formality is important. Neurolimal posted:It seems like the consensus seems to be that it depends on the reason for going out of ones way to tell others "don't hire this person". And that If someone is prevented from finding work due to a lie then they are capable of suing for defamation. This is about my extent of opinion on the matter, with the addition that regulations should ensure a person is able to find out why they're not being hired. How to actually institute those regulations or what they should be when many companies are happy to break the existing ones, I have no idea. Adventure Pigeon fucked around with this message at 23:17 on Jul 10, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Jul 10, 2015 23:11
|
|
|
Obdicut posted:Okay, I"m sorry I didn't understand that you were saying that because it's just a truism. Of course a person can be added to a list. My point is that is not what was being talked about in my case. Nothing in what I did amounted to the creation of a blacklist. Nor was 'bullshit' involved. My point is that I wasn't discussing your case. As I said, that seems to be between you and the OP, which is where I'm happy to leave it. I'm only really interested in hiring policy in general. quote:What 'formality' are you referring to? If you're talking about the 'disclosure' bit, I was fine with the guy knowing it was me saying that he was a lovely, unethical fuckup. That is, in fact, what happened--a guy I warned about him told him at the interview what I'd said, he talked his way past it, and then proceeded to gently caress up and gently caress over his new employer and fellow employees a few months down the road. C'est la vie. Formalities, or regulations, or laws, or whatever you prefer to ensure there is disclosure. If he knew what you said and was able to contest it, great, that's what I think is important. It's when there's no disclosure about who's passing the information around or what it even is that there's a problem, because that is open to abuse. Having to come clean about what's being said and who's saying it at least gives the target access to recourse and discourages abuse to begin with. My only concern is with the process. Adventure Pigeon fucked around with this message at 23:37 on Jul 10, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Jul 10, 2015 23:34
|
|
|
Obdicut posted:Hiring policy in general is never going to exclude information the people doing the hiring have that came through 'unofficial' channels, and it shouldn't, either. In a thread that starts out as a kind of creepy callout of me, I appreciate you trying to move away from the particular situation described, but if OP had actually wanted to start a general thread there was no reason to include my post, and the particulars are significant. In my case, this is the only time I've ever called up people and warned them about someone because he was such an egregious shithead. It was exceptional and out of the norm, because the guy was such a raging rear end in a top hat but, critically, did not seem like one, he interviewed very, very well. Yes, it was weird he included your post and it makes me think this was mostly about arguing with your decision to out the guy. I'm not really interested in that. Do yourself a favor and bring it up with him. quote:I think you have a misguided and Quixotic view of the 'process'. I think that requiring disclosure also leaves people open to harassment from someone who they are (rightly) giving a bad recommendation of. Misguided. No, I don't think it's misguided. I do agree requiring disclosure could leave people open to harassment, which is why it's probably best to arrange things to be done through the company so that HR can say person X is a shithead. Alternatively, leave the source anonymous but leave them able to respond to the criticism itself. Being able to call someone a shithead without giving them a chance to respond leaves them open to abuse. Calling someone a shithead and letting them know who you are leaves you open to abuse. Neither situation is desirable, but fortunately this isn't zero sum. Regarding Quixotic... Adventure Pigeon posted:How to actually institute those regulations or what they should be when many companies are happy to break the existing ones, I have no idea. Yeah, already said I don't know any way to actually deal with it. That doesn't mean I think it's right. As much as I hate to say it, I don't think anything realistically can be done to fix the abuses in the system. The most you can hope for is that it doesn't happen to you, and if it does you have the money for a lawyer and can figure out where it's coming from.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 11, 2015 00:07
|
|
|
Obdicut posted:Again, saying that something is open to abuse is not an argument. Nearly everything is open to abuse. That is not sufficient to say that something shouldn't be done. I'm not sure you meant to say it this way. I'm assuming you mean that's not sufficient to say something should be done. On the other hand, because everything is open to abuse doesn't mean that some things aren't worse than others. I've already provided a few examples of people getting hosed over without even being aware of it by informal company-to-company networks. I'm not sure what else I can provide. If your position is "everything is bad so do nothing", we can stop right here. quote:A face-to-face interview as part of the hiring process is also open to abuse. So is having a resume where people put down their activities and interests. Anonymity would not help: If it was a real complaint, that would allow you to figure out who it was. If it was fictional, it wouldn't allow you to fight it. If a person was an absolutely lovely employee, they'd have plenty of people to disagree with. If it was fictional, they could speak with HR. In the end, in your case, the person was hired anyways and then fired for being, surprisingly, a lovely employee. Sometimes letting things go is preferable to being a vigilante, and it works out anyways. quote:Do you think that people talking to each other informally at bars about other people in their industry is a problem, or not? Yes, if it prevents someone from being hired. We're not going to agree on that, so lets drop it here. I work in the biological sciences, and I see the formal and the informal getting blurred all the time. The people you're on papers with, who you've worked under, who you've collaborated with, can all affect your chances of getting hired, getting grants, and keeping your job.In my own case, I was rejected from a fellowship because one of the minor people on the grant application had a grudge between him and someone on the grant committee. I found out about a year after the fact. I've heard and seen plenty of other stories about how those informal relationships can gently caress people who don't deserve it over. Maybe it comes from being in a more unpleasant field, but I take a dimmer view on those bar conversations.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 11, 2015 00:29
|
|
|
Mel Mudkiper posted:Anecdotes are not evidence Ok.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 11, 2015 00:33
|
|
|
Paradoxish posted:You should at least maybe stop and realize that the problem here isn't actually the informal gossip so much as it is the unethical behavior of the people involved, coupled with some larger economic and social issues which work together to make this an actual problem. No, I fully realize that's the problem. Hence why I said in my earlier statement "if it prevents someone from being hired". I don't mean we should ban talking about work in bars. I mean bar "relationships" shouldn't be the basis for choosing whether someone is hired or not.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 11, 2015 00:49
|
|
|
Obdicut posted:Yes, I meant 'should be done'. My point is that simply saying 'this is open to abuse' isn't an argument. You have to argue 'the potential for abuse outweighs the potential for good and the problems in stopping it'. Since you've said that this isn't actually possible to do anything about, it kind of sounds like you're saying 'This can be abused, but there's nothing we can do about it", which is you saying 'do nothing', right? Pretty much. I don't like the situation. I'll argue against it. If someone who understands the field said they were going to come up with a set of regulations to improve transparency in the hiring process and maybe improve regulation against blacklisting, I would support it, but if you said come up with something on your own, I'd admit I don't know enough about the field to be confident that whatever I came up with would protect people or fix things. quote:Wow, you actually think that people shouldn't even be allowed to complain about people when blowing off steam. You're right that we're not going to agree on that. You have a bad habit of misreading what people say so you can argue against it. As Paradoxish just said, it's not the conversation, it's how people behave with it. quote:Edit: Removed info so it doesn't further gently caress someone who already got hosed. Official channels can fail and academia is especially hosed up with regards to recourse. Your friend's story is very common. I could name four people with similar experiences, one of whom was kicked out of a program part way through a PhD, one at the end of it, but it's separate from what we've been talking about. quote:I fail to see how a bar conversation at all intersects with the above. Who you work with, who you've collaborated with, all of that is still going to function if nobody ever talks poo poo in bars. The above situation happened solely inside the formal settings of the program. Instead of fretting about the informal networks--which are not eradicable, which are a natural part of human association, and which also serve positive functions as well as the negative ones you fixate on--why not concentrate on the fact that the formal processes at most institutions are mostly massively hosed up and politicized, with the institution almost always working to defend the much more valuable PI than the employee? The formal processes are a separate issue and a separate conversation. If you've failed to understand why fields with a lot of competitiveness and hostility might use informal relationships to gently caress each other's job prospects over, well, I dunno what to tell you. Adventure Pigeon fucked around with this message at 01:21 on Jul 11, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Jul 11, 2015 01:18
|
|
|
Obdicut posted:Again, transparency comes with its own problems, and something can be totally transparent and still lead to someone being blackballed. We have not, at any point, actually been talking about blacklisting. This has gotten pretty far off track and kind of absurd. I think the thread was doomed the second it budded off the gamergate mess. I agree, transparency comes with its own problems, and needs means of recourse to be meaningful. We have been talking about blacklisting, but I think things keep coming back to your own case, which I agree wasn't blacklisting. Formalization is not protection against abuse, but that doesn't mean informal relationships benefit the powerful and established just as much. The stuff about barroom conversations is getting sort of silly. The real problem are informal relationships that result in things like the British blacklist of construction workers, or HR departments passing around blacklists consisting just of applicants. And yes, people outside of power can use informal relationships to protect each other just as much, and I've used them myself. I'm not really interested in those, but I wouldn't want any regulations that would prevent that. Mostly I think greater transparency and access to recourse would help prevent the major blacklisting incidents. It would also probably prevent some incidents where a person's name is dishonestly passed around. It would probably also prevent some people who're genuinely bad from being banned. I think it's more important that good people be hired than bad people not be hired. I have no idea what regulations would actually accomplish this, and I'm not sure any could since companies are happy to skirt the existing ones.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 11, 2015 02:56
|
|
|
Relentless posted:There are definitely cases where someone is being such a poo poo bag that other employers should be aware. It's functionally impossible to separate these from situations where there is employer abuse of power and complicated situations that don't have a clear right and wrong. In the end, it's probably better to err on the side of caution. Most states allow former employers to pass along information about a bad employee when contacted. Even if they don't, eventually the massive number of job changes will gently caress up their resume. It might be functionally impossible to separate the situations, but in many cases it's not necessary to. It's better just to prevent employer abuse of power even if a bad employee is allowed to continue a bit longer. Adventure Pigeon fucked around with this message at 18:32 on Jul 11, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Jul 11, 2015 18:18
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 29, 2024 06:58 |
|
|
Obdicut posted:I'm not doing that, nor have I done that at any point. What I'm saying is that you are, apparently, of the opinion that there aren't any regulations that could be put into place that would help, but simultaneously you're saying more transparency would be better. I do not agree: I think more transparency would force, for example, grad students who want to warn each other that a PI steals research, or a PI who wants to warn other PIs that a grad student cuts corners in doing research, to do so in a way that would be more damaging for everyone involved. In the first case, it could be absolute career suicide, in the second case, the PI would be forced to formalize a complaint in a way that would actually be more damaging to the grad student. The last conversation somehow lead to you accusing me of wanting people to stop being able to tell each other about bad employers. How does transparency in what goes into selecting whether to hire an applicant or not translate into that at all? So yes, we did somehow manage to go way off topic, and no, we're not doing that again.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 11, 2015 20:57
|
|