Please write a one and half page paper that include 5 paragraph by using simple words and simple sentence! Thank you!Social media manners matter, job recruiters
compare or contrast essay.
By Benny Evangelista
Published 1:20 pm, Thursday, September 5, 2013
Are you on Facebook talking about guns, alcohol or drugs? Do you tweet obscenities or show a
lack of spelling skills on Google+? Do you post sexy photos of yourself on Instagram?
If you said “yes“ to any of these questions, you have increased your chances of blowing a good
job opportunity in the future, according to a study released Thursday,
In fact, about 42 percent of job recruiters said they have reconsidered a job applicant, in both
positive and negative ways, based on what they saw on the candidate’s social networks,
according to a survey by Burlingame’s Jobvite, a job recruiting platform. With so many people
sharing information online, recruiters have an easy time scouring all forms of social media,
including LinkedIn, Facebook, Twitter, Google+, Instagram, Pinterest, YouTube, GitHub,
Vimeo, Xing, Yammer and Stack Overflow. “They can’t help but try to find any
about you online before they hire you,” said Jobvite CEO Dan Finnigan.
Human resource departments relying on social media to check out candidates has been a growing
trend for years. But this year’s sixth annual Jobvite Social Recruiting Survey showed just how
ubiquitous a tool social networking has become – it’s now used by 94 percent of recruiting and
human resources workers.
And 78 percent of them said they have made a hire through social media. The practice has spread
across industries around the country, not just tech industries in the Bay Area or just on the West
and East coasts, Finnigan said.
One reason it’s become so popular is cost. About 43 percent of recruiters said they spent less than
$1.000 a month on social recruiting, but 60 percent said the value of using those channels was
worth more than $20,000 a year to their organizations. And about one-fifth put that value at
$90,000 per year.
And instead of hiring someone to check backgrounds of candidates, HR workers can just Google
them. Finnigan said Jobvite customers report the interview process is shorter for employees who
are referred through social networks, and if hired they stay on the job longer.
LinkedIn has become the dominant tool used by employers, with 92 percent saying they have
hired through the professional social network. “Recruiters are using LinkedIn as the substitute
for what they used to do on job boards, which is to search for candidates and post for jobs,”
Fitting into firm
But 24 percent said they have also hired through Facebook and 14 percent through Twitter.
Recruiters find that social profiles give them a better sense of whether the candidate will be a
cultural and professional fit for their organizations. They typically use LinkedIn to see the
candidate’s professional resume and Facebook, Twitter and Google+ for more of a snapshot of
what the person is like.
So job seekers need to make sure they present themselves properly on social media, because that
next great job might be just a click away. “You can’t wish for the old days, and go to the big
newspapers or the job boards and presume the best jobs are there,” Finnigan said.
Still, there is a constant stream of news reports about people who tweet before they think, like
the University of lowa football fan who tried to rush the field last weekend, was arrested and
blew a mind-boggling 0.341 on the breathalyzer. She became an instant Internet sensation when
she told the world of her arrest on Twitter.
According to the Jobvite survey, which was conducted in July and involved more than 1,600
recruiting and human resources workers, 47 percent reacted negatively when they found pictures
of alcohol consumption on a job candidate’s social networks.
Good grammar crucial
And it gets worse from there. About 51 percent reacted negatively when they found references to
guns. And 61 percent reacted poorly to spelling and grammatical errors. Other negatives:
Profanity – 65 percent reacted negatively.
Posts or tweets of a sexual nature – 71 percent (although curiously, 4 percent reacted positively).
References to using illegal drugs – 83 percent.
Interestingly, posts or tweets about politics and religion – two normally hot-button topics –
garnered a neutral reaction from job recruiters.
nny is angelista is a San Francisco Chronicle staff writer. E-mail:
(should Emplovers Use Social Media to Screen Job Applicants?)
IR Magazine asked two experts for their perspectives on this important question.
3v Jonathan A. Segal and Jovce LeMay 11/1/2014
Proceed cautiously with social media checks, but proceed.
About 77 percent of companies are using social networking sites to recruit candidates for specific
jobs, according to a 2013 survey by the Society for Human Resource Management (SHRM).
In contrast, that same survey found that only 20 percent of 651 respondents use social
networking websites, such as Facebook, to research job candidates
When asked why, three-quarters said they were concerned with legal risks or discovering
information about protected characteristics (e.g., age, race, gender, religious affiliation) when
perusing candidates’ social media protiles. This is a legitimate concern.
However, ignoring social media entirely in the screening process is often an overreaction. The
legal risk can be minimized, and the business benefits maximized. Some content posted on these
platforms legitimately can be considered to the benefit or detriment of a candidate
For example, you might learn from her blog posts that the candidate is a good writer, or her
tiveets might reveal that she is active in charitable causes. On the other hand, you may discover
that the candidate has posted racist rants on Facebook
Vhile these are extreme cases, it is usually only at the extremes that social media is relevant.
How do we balance the legal risks?
In many ways, the ban-the-box” laws and ordinances at the state and local level are a good
model. Thev don’t ban employers from asking about criminal convictions. They require that
emplovers wait to do so, at least until after the first interview. Some require that employers wait
unul after a conditional offer has been extended
Emplovers can minimize the legal risks and maximize the business benefits of social media if the
screening is part of the reference or background check that is made before extending an otter or
ilter extending a conditional offer. After an applicant has been interviewed, his or her
membership in many protected groups is already known. So, checking his or her LinkedIn protile
or Twitter handle is not likely to reveal much more than HR already knows. According to the
2013 SHRM survey, the organizations that use social media for screening do so after conducting
1 job interview but before extending a job offer
The risk can be further minimized if HR, rather than a hiring manager, conducts the background
check. HR knows what it can and cannot consider.
Ind, the risk levels vary depending on which social media platforms are reviewed. Facebook
posts tend to be more private (ie, access to content is restricted to selected friends) than posts
on Linkedln or Twitter. So an employer can elect to look only at the last two.
For other steps that emplovers can take to minimize risk, see “The Law and Social Media in
Hiring in the September 2014 issue of HR Magazine
The bottom line is that avoiding legal risk is not possible, and avoiding social media in the hiring
process may cost you in the long run. We need to manage risk, not avoid it.
er is a partner with Duune Morris LLP, Philadelphia, and a contributing
editor of HR Magazine.
Screening social media is unethical and possibly illegal.
Would you follow a job applicant home and peek into her front window? Would you eavesdrop
on a candidate who is socializing with triends at a bar? Of course not
sing social media to screen applicants is equivalent to these scenarios
any emplovers don t train managers in how to use social networking websites to screen applicants in an
chnical and legal manner. So, recruiters and hiring managers poke and pry into posts that were meant for
the candidates friends.
More than half of hiring managers found information on social media that caused them not to hire a
candidate, according to a 2017 CareerBuilder survey. However, many of the reasons cited for not huring
the individual were not job-related
In a national survey I conducted last year. 31 percent of the 212 respondents (about half were in HR) said
they believed that using social media for screening applicants is unethical
That’s because recruiters may learn about job applicants age, sex, religion, national origin and
disabilities, which may open emplovers up to discrimination lawsuits.
Many also were concerned about the accuracy of the information they find. Someone could have hacked
into the applicant’s Facebook account and posted false statements.
Ind pictures can casily be taken out of context. For instance, if there is a photo of an applicant smiling
und holding up a glass of wine, a recruiter could assume he or she has a drinking problem.
However, the glass might have contained grape juice, or the occasion may have been a rare celebratory
moment. The picture doesn’t tell the entire story
These concerns are probably why only 20 percent of employers use social media to screen applicants.
uccording to a 2013 SHRM survey
In handling information, the SHRM Code of Ethics calls on HR professionals to consider and protect the
rights of individuals, especially in the acquisition and dissemination of information while ensuring
truthful communications and facilitating informed decision-making.
The challenge with social media lies with the acquisition and truthfulness of the information. Did we dig
to find it? How do we know that what we saw or read was true?
Based on the answers to these two questions, how do we use the information to make a hiring decision
that is fair and just?
These are real challenges to consider. As HR professionals. we are called on to use ethical and legal best
practices and to not take the easy way out by simply searching social networking sites
So, if you wouldn’t peek into the applicant’s window at home, why look into his or her postings on social
It s tempting, but not the best ethical choice, and clearly it can increase the legal risks.
SPHR, is an associate professor of HR, Bethel Universary, St. Paul, Minn. condu
member of SHRM’special experuse punel on ethics, corporate social responsibility and
Purchase answer to see full
Why Choose Us
- 100% non-plagiarized Papers
- 24/7 /365 Service Available
- Affordable Prices
- Any Paper, Urgency, and Subject
- Will complete your papers in 6 hours
- On-time Delivery
- Money-back and Privacy guarantees
- Unlimited Amendments upon request
- Satisfaction guarantee
How it Works
- Click on the “Place Order” tab at the top menu or “Order Now” icon at the bottom and a new page will appear with an order form to be filled.
- Fill in your paper’s requirements in the "PAPER DETAILS" section.
- Fill in your paper’s academic level, deadline, and the required number of pages from the drop-down menus.
- Click “CREATE ACCOUNT & SIGN IN” to enter your registration details and get an account with us for record-keeping and then, click on “PROCEED TO CHECKOUT” at the bottom of the page.
- From there, the payment sections will show, follow the guided payment process and your order will be available for our writing team to work on it.