Subj : Re: Notice that...
To   : Mewcenary
From : boraxman
Date : Mon Feb 21 2022 00:49:13

 Me> It's not really about this when HR (or whoever) chcck online presence.
 Me> 
 Me> It's more a verification that the person is not completely toxic.  So
 Me> that will be information that the candidate is _choosing_ to put out
 Me> there (typically on Twitter).  
 Me> 
 Me> We're not talking about, "I like to write Doors for my BBS".  We're
 Me> talking about, "I am spending six hours of my day posting racist
 Me> comments on Twitter". That's understandably someone that a company may
 Me> not want to employ.
 Me> 

 Me> And it's not always down to HR.  There have been high profile cases of
 Me> the candidate's future co-workers picking up on the new hire, and
 Me> flagging up that the person is a racist or misogynistic creep, who does
 Me> not reflect the values of the company.
 Me> --- SBBSecho 3.14-Linux

Seems pointless.  I've worked with toxic, horrible people that HR absolutely LOVED.  The kind that can put forward a good image, say the right words, agree wholeheartedly (at least make an appearance to) with the companies values and their latest cultural crap.  I've worked with people who are bossy, arrogant, incompetent, all people that HR missed flagging.

By the way, companies are FULL of racist people.  HR is often racist, so it doesn't seem to work.  They're really looking for the working class type racist, the kind who just doesn't look good.  The toxic status climber will get through.  I'd rather work with someone competent who makes politically incorrect jokes time to time than someone who is going to screw me over, but knows how to play the corporate values game.  I've worked with people who make quite politically incorrect comments, who still did a decent job, and still treated everyone with respect.

I get the point, but in practice it falls so short as to invalidate the practice.

--- Mystic BBS v1.12 A47 2021/12/24 (Linux/64)
 * Origin: Agency BBS | Dunedin, New Zealand | agency.bbs.nz (21:1/101)

.