Is it unprofessional to bring an iced coffee to a job interview, or are people who object just racist, ableist, and not engaged enough in revolutionary praxis?
How do you handle rejecting candidates for opinions and attitudes uncovered during a social media background search?
How do you handle rejecting candidates for opinions and attitudes uncovered during a social media background search?
Is a 45minute vibe check where all parties are uncomfortable and awkwardly aware that bias is going to be operating, regardless of how frequently and loudly insistence is made that it isn't, the best way to choose your next high performer, or even your next mediocre-keeps-the-lights-on-and-customers-satisfied hire?
Social media is the devil's current preferred mode of transport, especially where employability and recruitment are concerned. While it would be a very control-focused employer indeed who thought it appropriate to stalk not just current employees, but potential employees who have merely dared to send in applications for advertised vacant positions, and listen in to their conversations with their friends and family, every employer considers it a completely normal, and, indeed, almost legally required, action to follow the social media accounts of current employees, and skim-read the publicly accessible accounts of potential future employees. Mostly, consent isn't even requested; where it is, it's coerced - if you don't tick the box to agree that the company you're applying to can access your social media, you won't be invited to interview.
In an intimate relationship, telling a partner "say yes to having sex with me, or I'll throw you out of this house, drain your bank accounts, and tell everyone you're untrustworthy", would not typically result in most people seeing the 'consent' given as genuine consent - but do the equivalent in a job interview - "Agree that we can see everything you've ever liked on Facebook, every meme you've shared, every conversation you've engaged with on LinkedIn, every SnapChat filter you've ever used, every tweet you've reshared, or we'll ensure you move one step closer to homelessness and destitution" - and everyone nods intently, and murmurs that it's absolutely necessary, that it ensures you don't hire people with problematic views. It's the ultimate act of HR overreach - even thinking about employing someone who once shared a meme about work being a series of fires, but workers just blithely insisting "Everything's fine! It's all fine!", or who 'liked' a post about how "people don't leave bad jobs, they leave bad bosses" is a business risk! HR loves AI, because de-humanising the workforce is the ultimate risk mitigation! People are just too risky, too messy, too opinionated, too independently-minded. They have too many habits, thoughts, compulsions, neuroses. They won't put up with micro-managers. They need accommodations. They have pronouns. They bring iced lattes to job interviews.
Scoping out someone's social media before employing them is one of those things that sounds completely reasonable; after all, most companies genuinely can't afford to risk hiring someone who has blatantly racist, misogynistic, homophobic, or transphobic views - it's a lawsuit waiting to happen. Likewise, most companies wouldn't want to hire someone who revelled in getting drunk and/or high every other day - that kind of public persona suggests someone who isn't going to be all that conscientious about their work.
However, where does the attitude that "a social media background check is a must for our hiring practices" leave people who choose not to have a social media presence? Those for whom social media is a necessary space to process and vent about disability, mental health, kinship care responsibilities, or other things that result in "unprofessional" - and potentially "unacceptable" - feelings about? Those who use social media in their first language? Those who are only 'out' as gay, bi, or trans to their social circles? Those for whom social media is a necessary "mask down" space, because their experience is as a neurodivergent person, or comes from a global majority background?
Vulnerable to bias. Right in the very place that companies and HR professionals insist is erased by doing social media background checks.
Or else silenced. When people know their life experiences, their frustrations, their anxieties, are not "acceptable" to the majority of employers, but are fully dependent on being able to reliably access paid employment, they are likely to stop seeing social media as any kind of 'safe' space, meaning they don't get to connect with people with similar or shared experiences, they don't get to hear about possible solutions to their challenges from people with shared lived experiences.
That leaves them vulnerable to isolation, loneliness, and mental illness - all the things that make people even less likely to ever achieve employment, and forces them into long-term welfare dependency, and, as governments increasingly panic and try to claw back as much of that revenue as possible, at extreme risk of literal destitution, poverty, and homelessness.
Social media is the devil's current preferred mode of transport, especially where employability and recruitment are concerned. While it would be a very control-focused employer indeed who thought it appropriate to stalk not just current employees, but potential employees who have merely dared to send in applications for advertised vacant positions, and listen in to their conversations with their friends and family, every employer considers it a completely normal, and, indeed, almost legally required, action to follow the social media accounts of current employees, and skim-read the publicly accessible accounts of potential future employees. Mostly, consent isn't even requested; where it is, it's coerced - if you don't tick the box to agree that the company you're applying to can access your social media, you won't be invited to interview.
In an intimate relationship, telling a partner "say yes to having sex with me, or I'll throw you out of this house, drain your bank accounts, and tell everyone you're untrustworthy", would not typically result in most people seeing the 'consent' given as genuine consent - but do the equivalent in a job interview - "Agree that we can see everything you've ever liked on Facebook, every meme you've shared, every conversation you've engaged with on LinkedIn, every SnapChat filter you've ever used, every tweet you've reshared, or we'll ensure you move one step closer to homelessness and destitution" - and everyone nods intently, and murmurs that it's absolutely necessary, that it ensures you don't hire people with problematic views. It's the ultimate act of HR overreach - even thinking about employing someone who once shared a meme about work being a series of fires, but workers just blithely insisting "Everything's fine! It's all fine!", or who 'liked' a post about how "people don't leave bad jobs, they leave bad bosses" is a business risk! HR loves AI, because de-humanising the workforce is the ultimate risk mitigation! People are just too risky, too messy, too opinionated, too independently-minded. They have too many habits, thoughts, compulsions, neuroses. They won't put up with micro-managers. They need accommodations. They have pronouns. They bring iced lattes to job interviews.
Scoping out someone's social media before employing them is one of those things that sounds completely reasonable; after all, most companies genuinely can't afford to risk hiring someone who has blatantly racist, misogynistic, homophobic, or transphobic views - it's a lawsuit waiting to happen. Likewise, most companies wouldn't want to hire someone who revelled in getting drunk and/or high every other day - that kind of public persona suggests someone who isn't going to be all that conscientious about their work.
However, where does the attitude that "a social media background check is a must for our hiring practices" leave people who choose not to have a social media presence? Those for whom social media is a necessary space to process and vent about disability, mental health, kinship care responsibilities, or other things that result in "unprofessional" - and potentially "unacceptable" - feelings about? Those who use social media in their first language? Those who are only 'out' as gay, bi, or trans to their social circles? Those for whom social media is a necessary "mask down" space, because their experience is as a neurodivergent person, or comes from a global majority background?
Vulnerable to bias. Right in the very place that companies and HR professionals insist is erased by doing social media background checks.
Or else silenced. When people know their life experiences, their frustrations, their anxieties, are not "acceptable" to the majority of employers, but are fully dependent on being able to reliably access paid employment, they are likely to stop seeing social media as any kind of 'safe' space, meaning they don't get to connect with people with similar or shared experiences, they don't get to hear about possible solutions to their challenges from people with shared lived experiences.
That leaves them vulnerable to isolation, loneliness, and mental illness - all the things that make people even less likely to ever achieve employment, and forces them into long-term welfare dependency, and, as governments increasingly panic and try to claw back as much of that revenue as possible, at extreme risk of literal destitution, poverty, and homelessness.
All of which come at considerable cost to the State.
All of which have a negative impact on productivity - for countries as much as for companies.
All of which pose significant risks of disabling physical health impacts.
And even if those who don't feel comfortable posting anything to social media, because, even when it isn't bigoted or discriminatory, there's no way of telling how a particular company's particular HR team is going to perceive it, there's no way of knowing what will result in one over-sensitive manager getting triggered, there's no way to know what some relative stranger will take very personally, have a lively enough in-person social life that there's no real impact for them of not being active on social media, they are still pushed further from prospective employment precisely because they have no social media presence - which employers tend to see as "suspicious", even in 2026, as social media becomes increasingly just a dump of corporate advertising and AI dross, and more and more people choose to move away from it altogether.
If you express an opinion one way or the other on "Iced-Coffee-Gate", employers are going to have feelings about that - either you're too reactionary, self-centred, and "woke" for them, or too traditional, probably bigoted, afraid of change, etc. Take a nuanced perspective, and you're a wishy-washy people-pleaser who'll never dare to make a single decision. Don't comment at all, however, and you're "not involved with contemporary concerns", you're showing you wouldn't have the drive to network, to keep yourself informed of changes which influence your industry, you "lack a dynamic approach", you "wouldn't add to the character of a team."
On a global scale, unemployment is rising. Insecure employment is replacing the kind of dependable career progression which facilitates retirement, ensures a consistent volunteer force, and keeps vacancy entrances flowing, so that successive generations can enter the workforce. If people can't access well-paid, long-term, secure employment reliably, then elderly people, people unable to work because of high-impact disabilities, people needing to step out of the workforce owing to pregnancy or kinship care responsibilities, can't be supported to remain as contributors to the consumer economy (which is why welfare payments are made in monetary terms, rather than as vouchers or deliveries of 'deemed essential' items - because countries need every individual in their societies to be actively purchasing as often as possible...ensuring those who are unwaged are still able to make purchases is essential to a capitalist State's survival.)
Whether or not you should bring an iced coffee to a job interview is a less important question than whether or not job interviews are still relevant in 2026, and how could we recruit without them?
All of which have a negative impact on productivity - for countries as much as for companies.
All of which pose significant risks of disabling physical health impacts.
And even if those who don't feel comfortable posting anything to social media, because, even when it isn't bigoted or discriminatory, there's no way of telling how a particular company's particular HR team is going to perceive it, there's no way of knowing what will result in one over-sensitive manager getting triggered, there's no way to know what some relative stranger will take very personally, have a lively enough in-person social life that there's no real impact for them of not being active on social media, they are still pushed further from prospective employment precisely because they have no social media presence - which employers tend to see as "suspicious", even in 2026, as social media becomes increasingly just a dump of corporate advertising and AI dross, and more and more people choose to move away from it altogether.
If you express an opinion one way or the other on "Iced-Coffee-Gate", employers are going to have feelings about that - either you're too reactionary, self-centred, and "woke" for them, or too traditional, probably bigoted, afraid of change, etc. Take a nuanced perspective, and you're a wishy-washy people-pleaser who'll never dare to make a single decision. Don't comment at all, however, and you're "not involved with contemporary concerns", you're showing you wouldn't have the drive to network, to keep yourself informed of changes which influence your industry, you "lack a dynamic approach", you "wouldn't add to the character of a team."
On a global scale, unemployment is rising. Insecure employment is replacing the kind of dependable career progression which facilitates retirement, ensures a consistent volunteer force, and keeps vacancy entrances flowing, so that successive generations can enter the workforce. If people can't access well-paid, long-term, secure employment reliably, then elderly people, people unable to work because of high-impact disabilities, people needing to step out of the workforce owing to pregnancy or kinship care responsibilities, can't be supported to remain as contributors to the consumer economy (which is why welfare payments are made in monetary terms, rather than as vouchers or deliveries of 'deemed essential' items - because countries need every individual in their societies to be actively purchasing as often as possible...ensuring those who are unwaged are still able to make purchases is essential to a capitalist State's survival.)
Whether or not you should bring an iced coffee to a job interview is a less important question than whether or not job interviews are still relevant in 2026, and how could we recruit without them?
Comments
Post a Comment