Facebook and Employment...

Funnily enough I read two articles about Facebook yesterday; one about Goldman Sachs interest in the social networking site's potential and one about why it pays to be vigilant as to what you post on your personal Facebook page. There is probably some overlap in there somewhere.

The first was about Goldman Sachs USD 500 million investment into Facebook. This sees Facebook valued at somewhere in the vicinity of USD 50 billion. So, what is in the water up Cambridge way that allows Harvard drop-outs to head up multi-billion dollar behemoth tech companies? I wonder what this puts Mark Zuckerberg's personal stake in Facebook at in dollar terms? There was some talk of the company being forced to go public or at least run an Initial Public Offering with the Goldman Sachs investment. But, Zuckerberg seems pretty intent on not taking the public route at this point in time.

The second article was about how employers are getting applicants to log into their Facebook accounts as part of the interview process as a means of vetting whether the applicant is a suitable match for the prospective work environment. So, whatever happened to psychometric testing to find that synergy stuff out?

The article also noted how some employers were doing the hard research yards off their own bat and checking out prospective employees for themselves to find out whether there are the necessary values and ideals matches required to be successful. I am guessing that these vetting procedures would probably extend to blogs as well. I would reckon people are more likely to find "controversial" discussion on my blog rather than my Facebook or Twitter pages.

There is no doubt that the exponential growth of social networking capabilities and the technology to facilitate our interactions through social networking has meant that there is stuff going online every second that at some point, somewhere, and for some one is going to cause them some embarrassment or grief. Whether that grief be a broken relationship or a failed job application remains to be seen. However, as the photo here clearly shows, people post some really outrageous shots of themselves and others on their Facebook pages.

Perhaps the moral of this story, if there is one, is that one should think twice, maybe even three or four times, before posting those Friday or Saturday night party snaps on Facebook. Then again, maybe it is not only the pictures that are a problem. It is probably not a good idea to post on Facebook as a status update that you are not going into work today because your too drunk to get out of bed (or that you are in bed with the Boss' wife or girlfriend or whatever).

Ho hum...

Privacy Rights...

This particular post reflects neither my interest in all things Australian or Indonesian. However, there are interesting parallels between things happening in Bozeman, Montana, and Australia and Indonesia as this post relates to privacy, rights, and civil liberties.

It seems that the city of Bozeman in their standard job application form is asking for prospective employees to divulge their passwords to myriad of sites and accounts that they may hold. This includes your standard Facebook and other social networking sites like MySpace, and it also includes sites such as Google, You Tube, and Yahoo as well.

Now, according to the city, the failure to provide these passwords is not going to draw a negative inference on your application and nor will it preclude you from the advertised position. The city intends to use your passwords as a means of verifying the information that you provided in your application. I wonder whatever happened to calling an applicant's referees?

I guess I would not be getting a job in Bozeman anytime soon if this policy is continued. As a matter of principle I would not be supplying my passwords to anyone. Most civil libertarians are up in arms that this is a clear invasion of one's right to privacy. However, this is also an issue that relates to identity theft. Just about everyone that requires you to have a password unequivocally states that under no circumstances should you give your password to others. This is generally to ensure that your identity cannot be stolen and used by others.

One of the rationale being proffered is that it is reasonable that if a person has a public profile that an employer has a right to check it out. I agree, if a prospective employee has a public profile listed somewhere then there is no reason why a prospective employer cannot go and check it out. I would have no problems with a prospective employer reading my Facebook profile or my blog. However, I would object to the idea that they would need my passwords to get into the inner sanctum of my Facebook account or blog. Those parts are not part of the public profile or the public record and as such access to them by a prospective employer is an unreasonable request.

The idea that an employer has this right to this level of access to the personal information that the divulging of these type of passwords provides begs the question, "would an employer be comfortable with a prospective employee having the same degree and level of access to company, corporate, and management information in order to make a decision about whether to apply to work for the company?"

Next we will be hearing that we have to supply this information in order that employers can make certain they are not employing terrorists or other "undesirables".

I guess my point is, once you start on this slippery slope of openness or transparency, where does it stop?

Breastfeeding - An Obligation for / on Indonesian Women

In order to increase the numbers of mothers who breast feed their children, the Minister of Health, the Minister of Labor and Transmigration, and the State Minister for the Empowerment of Women have issued a Joint Ministerial Regulation that sets out the provisions for women who are wanting to breast feed their children at the office and during office hours. This addition to the legislative framework was not entirely unexpected.

Interestingly, the regulation states that every mother is under an obligation to provide breast milk to their children. It is not entirely clear as to whether the government intends to sanction women who do not or cannot breast feed their children. I am guessing that they won't. Even more interesting is that the regulation states that there is a period of time where children are to be fed exclusively breast milk.

My understanding is that some mothers just do not produce enough milk themselves to satisfy the voracious appetites of their newborns or just are physically incapable of breastfeeding. For this reason the characterization of the need to breast feed and to do so exclusively would seem to unnecessarily stigmatize those that cannot.

The premise of the regulation is that breast milk and breast feeding are crucial to the physical, mental, spiritual, and intellectual development of children. The spiritual angle is an intriguing one. I guess if breasts are your thing then it is possible that the experience might be a spiritual one for you. However, I am not sure that it is all that spiritual an experience for a new born.

Furthermore, it seems that the Ministers have collectively realized that most Indonesian office environments are not very new mother or family friendly. And, if the government is going to characterize breast feeding as an obligation on women then it makes good sense to put into place legislation that allows for this obligation to be met.

Under the regulation each of the Ministers is tasked with specific functions. For example, the State Minister of Women's Empowerment is tasked with socializing and providing knowledge to new mothers regarding the benefits of breast feeding. The Minister of Labor and Transmigration, for example, is tasked with working with employers and employee representatives with a view to establishing guidelines and agreements to facilitate the opportunity for nursing mothers to breast feed at the office and during office hours. The Minister of Health is tasked with creating and implementing training and education programs for new and nursing mothers.

For employers and employees the impact of this regulation conceivably has some wide-ranging and long-term impacts on office life in Indonesia. Initially, it would seem that employers are going to have to incur some costs in setting up designated spaces in order for employees who are new or nursing mothers to fulfill their breast feeding obligations.

Therefore, it seems a foregone conclusion that work environments are going to become increasingly more family friendly. This might lead to the establishment of in-house child care facilities so that mothers do not have to take considerable chunks of time out of the office to go home and feed their newborns. With Jakarta's notoriously nasty traffic it is likely that for a mother to leave the office, go home, feed their child, and get back to the office, maybe three or four hours have been lost.

Employers, rather than incur the expense of a more family friendly environment, will be more likely to marginalize female employees who get pregnant by restructuring the work environment so that when the period of maternity leave is finished there is no position for the new mother to return to. It will be interesting to see how the Ministers and the government deal with this kind of eventuality.

So, in that sense the regulation is interesting on a number of different levels, as it opens the doors to all sorts of possibilities. Some good and some not so good possibilities could arise in the future. Therefore, it is reasonable to expect that there might be more legislative developments in this area before the year is out.

Finally, this post lends itself to the gratuitous posting of a picture.

Religious Holiday Allowances (THR)

The Circular states that all employees who have worked continuously in the same company for a period of 3 months are entitled to the Religious Holiday Allowance (Tunjangan Hari Raya Agama / THR). For employees with less than 3 months continuous service there is no THR payable. Where an employee has been employed for a period in excess of 3 months but not yet 12 months, then the THR payable is pro rata based on their actual term of service. All employees engaged in continuous employment with the same employer for a period in excess of 12 months is entitled to an allowance of 1 month’s salary.

The THR must be paid no later than 7 days prior to the date of the religious holiday being celebrated. The need for this to be paid sooner rather than later is to ensure that workers have sufficient funds to satisfy their extra needs during the period. It is expected that employers will pay the THR on time.

Nevertheless, the Minister fully expects that some employers will not pay on time and the Circular instructs the various Governors, Regents, and Mayors to remind employers of the provisions and the requirements to pay on time. The Circular also allows for the establishment of special teams that are tasked with assisting those workers with complaints regarding the payment of their THR.

The Circular is current as of 3 September 2008.