Oh, this is where the on-topic discussion is. I had to wade through a pretty meaty Google flamewar to get here...

I have a question about this Facebook fiasco: what exactly does HR hope to discover and how would they plan to use such intelligence?

The reason I ask is that here in South Africa, when applying to a position (from my experience as a business intelligence consultant) I must release HR to check both my credit history as well as submit to having my fingerprints taken by an electronic device which connects to a governmental database and checks my criminal record for any misconduct.

Are these checks common place in your part of the world?

Can you see anything that HR in South Africa might gain by snooping through Facebook that wouldn't be outweighed by the information already available to them?

Wow, I've never heard of anyone in South Africa with a non-government job being asked to have their fingerprints taken. Admittedly, my background is mostly tech startups, but even friends who worked at big-ish companies (Didata, CS Holdings, &c.) have never mentioned it.

Credit history is a mostly used as a poor indication that you won't be tempted to sell company or user private information. It might also be an indicator of poor judgement or other bad traits, I guess. I think only one company ever asked this of me, and they were certainly the most backward of those I interviewed at.

Basically, companies are trying to avoid hiring bad people. Whether it's because they've bought into the "it is impossible to fire anyone" story or not, it is costly in terms of time and wasted effort and disruption. And, generalising from an admittedly small sample size, I'd say they're not as good or as introspective about how they hire as the few (admittedly really good) US companies I'm familiar with.

I'm based in SA too. I looked for and found a job recently, as a web developer, and had to consent to a credit check, fingerprints and criminal record check at the employment agency. I declined the criminal record check (whether they listened or not is another story). Many of the positions had employers asking for those things. Very odd. I don't know when this started since the last time I went looking for work before this was about 2003.

Howzit!

My assumption has been that they'd attempt to infer by marrying the two pieces of info whether it bit you'd pose a risk. So say you have a fraud charge laid against you some years back and you're currently in heaps of bad debt... It might be a bad idea to let you at my financials database, for instance.

I do think though that some of the more stringent assessment procedures also serve a secondary purpose when it comes to offer time. If you've run the gauntlet to get this offer the person offering you the position has considerable leverage in terms of negotiating a remuneration package. May it's not the main reason they do that stuff but it is a side effect of it.

I, like anyone else wanting a work visa at the time, had to provide a clear HIV certificate to South African immigration.

Once I had the permit I spent 10 months in KwaZulu-Natal - an area with 40% HIV incidence, and at an employer with (anonymously tested) 20-25% incidence.

I'm in SA also. I thought that we are not legally obliged to disclose our HIV status to employers

As another South African, I've actually heard of cases where people have taken companies to task for being passed over based on certain characteristics (like sexual orientation etc.)

The acronym CCMA is thrown around a lot depending on whose conversations you listen to.

So this is more of a "expect this type of stuff to happen if this becomes the norm" deal?

Either way, interesting read and gave me some stuff to think about, as usual. Thanks.

Yes, he confirms further down in the comments that this is a fictional story.

I wish he had made this more clear in the actual original post. Unless I'm missing something, there was no indication of this being a parable.

As it stands, I had already scanned his resume to mentally blacklist his most recent employer.

The massive google flamewar that occupies the top 1/3rd of this page notwithstanding, burying the true nature the article deep in the HN comments isn't really the best practice.

I had figured out about half way through that the story was fictional. It wasn't explicit, but it was subtle. Who's going to write a resignation letter like that? No one.

Boo. Should be disclosed in bold at the top of his article.

Mad respect for you, sir. I really feel like you did the right thing, and I hope the HR people there (and in the rest of our industry) get straightened out quick.

P.S. I would have done the exact same thing as the two hires. I probably would have recorded it on video and remained silent until you were done.

EDIT: boo for not disclosing clearly, in bold, at the top of your article that this is a fictional piece. Orig. comment left intact above.

You didn't send him an email saying thanks.

Edit: (I did, to my embarrassment)