|
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
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 20, 2024 05:31 |
|
|
Adventure Pigeon posted: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. Unfortunately I imagine it isn't easy to legally challenge an employer that didn't hire you (or fired you), so it's probably really difficult, if not impossible, to meet that condition I gave of giving people the ability to cheaply/easily challenge hiring/firing decisions. So I guess that even though I'm not morally against people being fired/not hired due to bigoted/harmful things they say online in theory, in practice I'm probably against it due to the fact that it's likely impossible to enforce the transparency necessary to give people the ability to legally challenge an employer's decision.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 10, 2015 20:19
|
|