LinkedIn is a professional networking site that has more than
300 million users. The purpose of the site is to help you get a job, but this
article highlights a feature of LinkedIn that can accidentally have the
opposite effect.
This feature
is “Reference search”, a product offered to the site’s premium members. \Reference search gives the hiring company a list of people in
their candidate’s network, including their old colleagues The hiring manager
can then use a LinkedIn’s tool “InMail” to reach out to these people, and get
their opinion about the candidate. This means
that this feature can hurt the job hunters by opening them up to possible
criticism from past coworkers and hirers.
But then again, LinkedIn is generally the monopoly of this
kind of network. The
lawsuit will likely fail, because I don’t think the best way to evaluate
candidates is to contact random people on a social network who may not know the
candidate and their job performance and personality. If a company actually does
that then they should probably review their hiring process. Either that, or people
are just finding excuses for being unemployed.
http://www.businessinsider.com/this-linkedin-feature-could-ruin-your-job-search-2014-11
While I think the story is interesting, I do not believe the case has much merit. We have to remember that pre-web employers did the exact same type of reference checking that they’re doing now with Reference Check; they did the exact same thing the feature does, but did so in the old-fashioned way. Ultimately, I think LinkedIn will have little trouble winning this case.
ReplyDeleteI agree with what Quang said in the write-up in that while many parties are at fault here, it really isn't that big of a deal and should be easy to fix. I think it's as simple as the Linkedin users not connecting with people that will give them bad references and employers being reasonable enough to ask for the submission of references by potential employees rather than going out searching for them. Linkedin will not lose this case and I think this is blown a little out of proportion as it should just be a matter of common sense.
ReplyDeleteI am surprised that the feature was not on the website to begin with. I feel like the point of a website such as Linkedin is being able to network with people and contact them as well. If a new employer wants to hire you, they should have the freedom to contact whomever they please. If people do not receive glowing reviews, there is probably a reason that. Suing a large company like Linkedin may take a long time, more time than it would take to find another job.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Sean regarding the employers freedom of digging through past employers to formulate an opinion on the possible employee. LinkedIn gives you the previous/current experience a future employee may have but it doesn't give us any insight on personality. I think employers taking the initiative by contacting past bosses and or colleagues will paint that picture to see if the employee actually fits within the new workplace.
ReplyDeleteI think it's extremely unlikely that LinkedIn users would win this case. I don't see why a company shouldn't be able to use this feature. I agree with previous comments in that employers should be able to speak to as many past employers or coworkers as they please in order to decide whether or not they want to hire someone. If users don't like this feature, they always have the option of closing their account.
ReplyDelete