Delaware Employment Law Blog

Job candidates are often unaware of the importance of their resumes. It surprises me, really, how little attention seems to be paid to not just the content of resumes but the appearance of resumes.  When I encounter a beautiful resume, I take notice.  And if I interview a candidate with a flawless resume, I’ll ask the candidate how they went about creating it.  Did they have it reviewed by a teacher or career services?  A candidate who responds that she sought advice of multiple people, in academics and in the professional world scores very well.  It tells me that she’s passionate about the way she presents herself and takes great pains to get the details just right.

So you can understand my dismay when I read a question from a reader sent in to the excellent blog, Ask a Manager.  The reader asked whether the font used on a resume really matters.  And, specifically, whether a resume created using the font Comic Sans can ever really be taken seriously. This is an example of Comic Sans.

The answer, in short, is “no.”  Comic Sans was a font created by Vincent Connare for Microsoft in 1994. The font was intended to be used in the Microsoft Bob program, which was intended for children.

Despite Connare’s insistence that the font was not designed as a typeface, it’s been used as one ever since its release—much to the dismay of typography enthusiasts.   Comic Sans is a font that says frivolity, light-heartedness, and playfulness. Comic Sans does not say professional, serious, or knowledgeable.  So, unless  you’re applying for a job at a day-care center, please, please, respect your document and skip the kiddie fonts.  To learn what you should do with your resume, check out Typography for Lawyers, where Matthew Butterick puts out some terrific posts on this very topic.

(Need more proof that Comic Sans is no laughing matter?  Check out the Ban Comic Sans website.  There’s an entire movement devoted to eradicating the professional world of this silliness.)

Legal Writing Prof Blog says that it may and it may not. I agree in theory.  In reality, though, I must respectfully disagree.  The answer to the question posed in the title is “Yes.” 

I’ve seen it happen too many times to count.  A candidate makes it past the initial screening process but is eliminated during the first-round interviews, not because of anything that goes on in the actual interview.  Instead, the hiring manager spots a typo in the candidate’s cover letter or resume and makes the decision not to hire her before the interview even begins.

Do I agree with this method of elimination?  Well, it depends.  If the candidate pool is entry-level college graduates, I tend to be a lot more forgiving. My experience has been that undergraduate students and recent graduates have not been taught the make-or-break nature of proofreading.  As a result, I tend not to make an elimination decision based on a single typo.

Now, when it comes to law students, it’s a different story.  I don’t expect law students to have perfect proofreading skills. But, what I do expect, is for them to take advantage of the resources available to them.  Law schools provide any number of resources to their students for this purpose, including career-center services and even resume-review services. My alma matter has a whole day devoted to resume reviews, when students can stop in to have their resume reviewed by practicing lawyers and professors alike.  I’ve been asked by a number of job-seeking students to critique their resumes.  In short, a resourceful student with the foresight to plan ahead and the initiative to be creative enough to find a sufficiently broad pool of potential reviewers, will not have a single typo in any document they provide to a potential employer.*

I also must take issue with the statement that a student with an outrageously good resume can escape the negative effect of a flawed resume. If a resume is brimming with very prestigious credentials but contains a typo, the typo doesn’t get overlooked.  Instead, the overlooked mistake indicates that the candidate, who otherwise appears brilliantly qualified, must not be interested enough in the position to put those qualifications to work. A mistake by someone who doesn’t know any better is, to me, less of a turn off than carelessness by someone who does.  Carelessness is a sign that the candidate must not want the job, after all. 

The United States Immigration and Citizenship Service (USCIS), posted this item on Friday:

USCIS Reminds all U.S. Employers of Requirements to Use Revised Form I-9, Employment Eligibility Verification

The revised Form I-9, Employment Eligibility Verification (Rev. 02/02/09), goes into effect today for all U.S. employers. The revision date is printed on the lower right-hand corner of the form.

The interim final rule, published December 17, 2008, in the Federal Register, revised the list of documents acceptable for the Employment Eligibility Verification (Form I-9) process. Employers may no longer use previous versions of the Form I-9.

The revised list improves the security and effectiveness of the Form I-9 process. The list specifies that expired documents are no longer acceptable forms of identification or employment authorization. Allowing for expired documents makes it more difficult for employers to verify an employee’s identity and employment authorization and compromises the Form I-9 process.

***

If you haven't already, employers should download the new I-9 form today for immediate use.

Job applicants today face a tough market.  There can be no doubt about it.  And law students are no exception. Graduating at the top of one’s class from a top law school no longer guarantees an interview, much less an eventual job offer. Upon racking up a number of rejection letters noting his “impressive background” (or something similar), one law student decided to take a new approach to his cover letter.

The entire letter is posted at Above the Law and is worth reading.

The letter recounts the writer’s top 15 percent law school rank and law journal experience, but goes on to offer “an outside perspective”—the opinions of nine law firms, offered in a variety of permutations, that the job applicant has an “impressive” background.

Lawyers at one firm, for example, were "most impressed" with the writer’s resumé. Another firm “remarkably” came to the identical conclusion that that the applicants’ "qualifications are impressive."

"Clearly, there is a consensus among many firms that I am ‘impressive,’ ” the cover letter posted on the blog says. “Although there is some disagreement about whether my background, credentials, qualifications, resumé, or a combination of these is impressive, it is obvious that I am impressive on some level. Furthermore, while these accolades were all included in rejection letters, the opinions still hold true and are strong measures of my value as a candidate in your colleagues' and competitors' eyes. Thus, I am undoubtedly qualified for a position in your litigation department."

“Finally, if I do not receive an offer for employment, many firms will be quite disappointed. Dozens of firms have indicated a desire for my ‘success’ in the ‘future’ with a ‘challenging’ or ‘rewarding’ position ‘somewhere else,’ and I do not intend to upset these firms by failing."

Unfortunately, the creative approach did not pan out for this law student – he states that the firm receiving this letter rejected him within three days.

Recruiting and training programs, to be truly successful, must have a clear purpose with well-defined objectives.  This is very difficult to do.  In the book Change to Strange, author Daniel M. Cable writes about just how difficult it can be to define your organization's true priorities, the ones that you will be fanatical about in the execution of the organization's business, and then building your workforce architecture around that "strange" picture. 

For an example of the lessons taught in Change to Strange, have a look at this speech by Randy Nelson, dean of Pixar University, the company's recruiting and training arm.  Mr. Nelson is inspiring, to say the least.  From his presentation, it's clear to me that Pixar "gets it."  As in, really gets it.  I am very impressed. 

[The video is made available by Edutopia.org, which Fast Company posted about early in the month.]

The video is about 10 minutes long (worth every second of your time).   As Fast Company describes the HR theory Nelson advocates:

Mostly, it's about hiring ultra-nerds with good communication skills. To wit: You want people who have become exceptional at a tiny discipline, no matter how obscure or dorky, since it's that compulsion to truly master something that predicts how they'll handle a new task. (Wannabe Pixar employees: Don't bury your unicycle or juggling skills on your resume.) Another idea is looking for people who have failed and overcome—as Nelson puts it, "The core skill of innovators is error recovery not failure avoidance," which is key if you're asking someone to solve a never-before-solved problem. But perhaps the squishiest trait is the ability to make others around you better, through communication and camaraderie.

This, I believe, is the HR Gold Standard in action.

Employers were mandated to use a revised I-9 form, beginning on February 1, 2009, per the order of the the United States Citizenship and Immigration Service (USCIS).  The I-9 form is the form used to verify an employee’s eligibility to work in the U.S.  

USCIS has changed its mind, and has decided to delay implementation of the new I-9 form to allow time to evaluate whether it is the best approach to take. The new effective date will be April 3, 2009. USCIS has also reopened the public comment period for thirty days, so if you have an opinion about the proposed new form that you’d like USCIS to consider, you have until March 4, 2009 to do so.

U.S. Citizenship & Immigration Services (USCIS), will issue a revised I-9 Employment Eligibility Verification Form.  Employers must use the new form on February 1, 2009.  USCIS issued an Interim Final Rule describing what documents can be used as proof of identity and authorization to work in the United States.

The biggest change under the new rule is the new prohibition on accepting expired documents.  Expired documents will no longer be acceptable proof of the right to work. This means that U.S. Passports and List B identity documents, such as driver’s licenses, may not be used for employment verification purposes if they have expired. In the Interim Rule, the USCIS explains that this measure will help prevent the use of counterfeit documents since current documents are more likely to include security features and up-to-date photographs.

The revised form will also include changes in references to various immigration documents (I-551, I-688, I-688A, I-688B, I-766, I-94, I-94A) to conform to current Department of State and USCIS practices with regard to those documents. There will be two new acceptable List A documents: (1) a machine-readable immigrant visa with a temporary I-551 printed notation, and (2) A passport from the Federated States of Micronesia (FSM) or the Republic of the Marshall Islands (RMI) with Form I-94 or Form I-94A indicating nonimmigrant admission under the Compact of Free Association Between the United States and the FSM or RMI.

The new form and a revised version of the instruction book for completing the form will be available on the USCIS website by February 1. Employers must use the new form for all new employees and for reverification of current employees beginning on that date. The draft of the new form is attached to the Interim Rule.

Job applicants lie on their resumes.  They lie a lot.  Some estimates say that as many as 62% of resumes contain embellished education and employment histories.  This is why, as we've posted before, employers must screen applicants.  One recent example of an employee caught with his hand in the cookie jar, so to speak, is Robert Irvine.  The popular host of the Food Network show, "Dinner: Impossible," admitted that he had spiced up his resume when it was discovered that he had not cooked for the Royal Family as he'd represented during the application process.  He was released from his contract and a substitute was hired for the rest of the season. 

Apparently, though, his cooking and his charm were enough to warrant the forgiveness of the TV network.  Irvine is set to return to "Dinner: Impossible" this season.  He's said to be coming back for six new episodes, which will tape in December and January and air in March.  His previous and soon-to-be employer had the following to say about its forgive-and-forget attitude to the resume indiscretion:

[Irvine] has taken responsibility and made a conscious effort to clear the air, rebuild the relationship with Food Network and apologized for the earlier inaccuracies.

Would you be so forgiving?  Would it matter whether the employee was a well-loved celebrity of sorts with big money-making potential?

Of the many ways to screen job candidates, using set standards for resume reviews, behavioral interviewing, and pre-employment testing, there is one fundamental that cannot be overlooked--reference checks.  Don't be fooled into believing that no one gives reference information.  Not true.  At the very least, verify academic credentials. 

The reality is that people lie on their resumes.  I recently heard that it is estimated that as many as 62% of resumes contain "inaccuracies."  And those "inaccuracies," in large part, are related to the individual's employment and education histories.  So check the history stated on the resume against the real history. 

Don't believe me?  Just ask the Iranian President Ahmadinejad, whose Minister of the Interior, Ali Kordan was impeached for dishonesty when he admitted that he'd falsely represented that he held a law degree Oxford University.  The revelation has caused major political turmoil, as reported in detail by the Washington Post.

[H/T to Employee Screen IQ University]

Layoffs was one of the topics discussed at a meeting of a local HR organization I attended last week.  Attendees from different organizations participated in a round-table discussion of the issues they'd each been facing since the last quarterly meeting. Not surprisingly, several raised layoffs as a "hot topic." There was some discussion about how they were handling layoffs and the potential of more cuts in the future.

But not all organizations were laying off.   Some still were hiring as normal and others' hiring needs had recently increased, for various reasons.  What was most interesting trend was also the most surprising.  Many of the attendees who were still hiring new employees regularly said that lots of candidates had been laid off by the previous employer.  Nothing new or surprising there. 

What was so striking was the observation, which was repeated by several individuals, that the applicants didn't seem to be in any hurry to become reemployed.  A Recruiting Director commented that the candidates who'd been let go were looking for "the best job," not just "a job."  And, to be frank, they are being pretty damn picky.  The recruiters and hiring managers admitted to being taken aback by the demands of the unemployed candidates.

So what does this say about our current workforce?  It sounds like Baby Boomers have adopted the Gen Y mentality of, "I'd rather be broke than suffer all day in a job I hate."   Revolutionary.

Joe Biden isn't the only national news out of Delaware these days--Young Conaway's Summer-Associates Program ranked first in Delaware and 4th nationally (out of 162 participating firms) in The American Lawyer’s latest survey. The survey was conducted from early June to mid-August, and drew responses from 7,633 Summer Associates.  

This is a program to which we devote a lot of effort--not just funds, but effort--in the form of attorney event attendance, one-on-one mentoring, and real-time substantive feedback.  Young Conaway approaches recruiting and development from a fairly unique perspective--when we make hiring decisions, we do so with the expectation that the new lawyer will join the Firm and stay with us, well, forever.  That long-term-investment approach definitely carries into the amount of hard work and attention that is given to our Summer program.

Associates were asked how interesting the work was, how much "real" work was assigned, how the training and guidance measured up, how positive the interactions were with partners and associates, how well the firm communicated its goals and expectations, how accurately the firm portrayed itself in interviews, and the respondents' inclination to accept a position if one were offered.  The respondents were also asked to rate the firm overall as a place to work.

Eligible summer associates were first- and second-year law students (classes of 2009 and 2010) clerking at firms for at least three weeks during the summer. Respondents were guaranteed anonymity.

So what makes the program great enough to rank among the best in the country?  A number of things, starting with the hiring philosophy discussed above.  But philosophy alone cannot carry the day.  Real, live, people, must play a role, as well.  In that respect, although all of the firm's attorneys are given some credit because all participate in some way, the real accolades are deserved by two lawyers in particular. 

Tricia A. Widdoss, Esq., who had responsibility for firm recruitment and associate development, as well as the Summer programs for the past three years, deserves countless kudos for her creative ideas, innovative initiatives, and her unyielding enthusiasm and devotion to making the program a success and to each of the Summer Associates placed in her care.  There is a tremendous amount of hand-holding to be done--of the lawyers' hands, mostly--to make sure that all candidates are given a broad range of assignments from as many practice groups as possible.  (This can be particularly difficult when one group falls in love with a candidate and doesn't want to share their new all-star.  Not such a bad thing from the Summer's perspective, of course).

Danielle Gibbs, Esq., is the other half of the winning equation.  Danielle is the Hiring Partner, which means that she has the responsibility to manage all of the behind-the-scenes choreographing to make sure candidates are getting enough exposure to the departments where they may want to be placed.  It also means countless hours spent at committee meetings and at the two formal evaluation meetings provided to every summer associate.  It also requires review of enough writing samples to make your eyes cross and twice as many work-product memos and assignments generated by the Summer Associates over the course of the summer.

The ultimate goal of the Summer Program is to provide summer associates with a structured program emphasizing continued development of their legal skills while also allowing them a sampling of private practice. Young Conaway accomplishes this goal through a centrally coordinated assignment allocation process, a summer-long writing program, and extensive mentoring and feedback, all fostered by the firm’s open-door and accessible culture.  Most important, though, are the exceptional candidates who seem to get more brilliant every year, who make the attorneys actually look forward to their arrival each summer.  They are truly a remarkable group of students who we are thrilled to have join us as colleagues.

See the full American Lawyer survey results.  Or, see more information on Young Conaway's recruiting program.

Gen Y employees are difficult to recruit.  "Millenial" employees, as they've come to be known, have lots of demands from a potential employer.  But the expectations of potential Gen Y employees are not nearly as high as the expectations of their parents.  Their parents?  That's right.  For the first time, employers aren't recruiting just job candidates.  They're also recruiting the parents of job candidates. 

No, I'm not kidding.  The parents of Gen Y'ers are often referred to as "helicopter parents."  Why?  Because they're always hovering around overhead.  They were hyper-involved in their childrens' already over-extended activity schedules.  They raised Gen Y to believe that there was nothing they could not be, nothing they could not achieve.  (Thus explaining Gen Y's perceived sense of entitlement--Why can't I be the boss right away?  My mom said I can be anything I want to be!)  They coddled their Gen Y'ers and bought them new gadgets like cell phones and Blackberries, which, as an ancillary perk, enabled parent and child to remain in constant contact.  They treated their Gen Y offspring like adults, further deepening the one-way dependence that ran from child to parent. 

And now, employers of America, they're yours.  Now it's up to you to treat them like the equals that they're not, to pat them on the back for every seemingly unimportant accomplishment, and to give them the flexibility to work from home whenever the spirits move them crack open their third laptop of the year.

Which brings me to recruiting strategies.  For employers who haven't already figured it out, Gen Y job applicants won't make a move before getting the stamp of approval from Mom and Dad.  Not until the parents give the thumbs up will candidates accept a job offer.  So, when recruiting Gen Y, be sure to advertise your organization's flexible and alternative work schedules, the company's continued investment in its technology infrastructure, and the yearly allowance offered to new hires for purchases of Blackberries, laptops, and the like. But don't forget to look out for what Mom and Dad will want to see before they'll give the official seal of approval.

Helicopter parents want to make sure their Gen Y'ers will be secure for a long, long time (even though it's fair to say the chances of a Gen Y staying at any firm for more than 3 years at a time is pretty slim).  They don't want any chance that their pride and joy will be subject to a layoff during a reorganization.  But Helicopter Parents also want to be Helicopter Grandparents.  And in order to do that, the Gen Y employee needs to work for an employer with a healthy understanding of work-life balance.  After all, how else can the generation be expected to find a mate and produce offspring?  Work-family balance is as important to the parents of Gen Y employees as it is to Gen Y employees themselves.  The next time you are recruiting for a position that may be filled by a Gen Y candidate, don't forget your marketing audience has grown and now includes the parent hovering overhead. 

Attention, Employers.  Your Millennial workforce has an important message for you--one that you'll need to get loud and clear if you want to remain competitive in attracting the massive wave of talent currently graduating from college.  So what's the message? 

Well, what's important is not so much the message, really, but how they're going to be communicating it.  The message is going to be coming through via
Wikis, Blogs, and Social Networking sites.  Instant Messaging and Text Messaging will also be the way your future workforce will communicate its needs and demands through the chain of command.  And those employers who aren't equipped to deal with this change to its infrastructure will be left behind.   

The reality is, today's newest employees, known as "Generation Y", are known for their need for speed--on the information highway.  They're about as comfortable as one can get with the idea of technology.  They embrace--instead of reject--the idea of rapid technology changes.  In fact, technology is such an integral part of the daily lives of Millennials that you shouldn't be surprised when you start to get questions about your organization's technology from recruits.

As reported in PC World, Gen Y employees have a laundry list of technology-related demands that must be met in order to have some chance at job satisfaction.  Employers who don't offer virtual learning, internal social networks, or are unwilling to spend the money and time needed to get these essentials will be unable to recruit and retain the best and the brightest young employees

1 in 5 employers use social networking sites to screen prospective employees.  That's according to a new study by Careerbuilder.  34% reported that they rejected candidates based on what they discovered during their online search.  We've written quite a bit about this practice, including what to look for if you do elect to incorporate online background checks into your hiring repertoire.

Here's what other employers have been looking for and, specifically, what will prompt them to reject a candidate:

• 41% - content posted about alcohol or drug use
• 40% - “inappropriate of provocative” pictures
• 29% - candidate appeared to have poor communications skills
• 28% - candidate bad-mouthed their previous company or fellow employee
• 27% - candidate lied about qualifications
• 22% - discriminatory comments related to race, gender, religion, etc.
• 22% - candidate’s screen name was unprofessional
• 21% - candidate was linked to criminal behavior
• 19% - candidate shared confidential information from previous employers

Unlike some bloggers, I am in favor of this practice--so long as it is performed with certain safeguards.  For example, Nick Fishman's concerns about the accuracy in candidate's Facebook or MySpace pages (1) have not materialized to any significant extent that I've seen; and (2) are allayed by simply asking the candidate about whatever it is that the employer found that may acting as a barrier to employment.  Just as with criminal backgrounds, employers should not make a per se decision without first giving the candidate an opportunity to explain the results of the report and any circumstances surrounding the arrest and/or conviction.  The same interactive discussion should occur if an employer finds something on the candidate's social-networking site that gives them concerns. 

One thing that opponents of this practice seem to overlook is that employers have an affirmative duty, legally, and for business reasons, to make the best hiring decisions possible, using all of the information reasonably available to them.  The only real threat of suit here is if the employer does not take the few minutes required to do an internet search on a candidate who, after being hired, commits an act of workplace violence. If the employee's MySpace page was filled with images of violence and words of rage, you can bet your last nickel that the employer will face a negligent hiring lawsuit for hiring the employee without taking the free and quick step of running that internet search. 

For prior posts on this topic, see:

Conclusive Proof that Employers Should Screen Applicants with Social Networking Sites

How to Conduct Online Background Searches With Google

Facebook Users Beware: Employers Aren't the Only Ones Who Know How to Google

Top 10 Reasons Why Employers Should Screen Their Applicants

And for employers who are considering the practice of Online Applicant Screening but who don't know where to start, be sure to catch the easy-to-understand video, Video Resources: How to Set Up a Facebook Account for Applicant Screening, available under the Resources > Video Resources tab at the top of the page.

From the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ), comes a new published Guidance relating to the use of E-Verify.  The recent, though short-lived excitement over the use of E-Verify for employment verification has now quieted down. Private-sector employees are back to the voluntary use of the system as a method for confirming that newly hired employees are authorized to work in the country.  

One of the concerns that was raised with the E-Verify program was its potential effect on discrimination in the workplace.  If, as a result of using E-Verify, an employer receives a no-match letter or a “tentative” no-match letter, he cannot terminate the employee without first trying to resolve the mismatch.  Failure to work with the employee to determine the cause of the mismatch could result in a claim for national-origin discrimination.

Anticipating the likelihood that employers would not want to engage in the additional steps of “working with the employee,” the DOJ issued guidelines outlining the step that an employer must take upon receiving information about a potential mismatch.  (See Antidiscrimination Guidance Concerning the DHS No-Match Rule).

See also:  E-Verify Employer Dos & Don'ts

Employers across the country admit to screening job applicants by checking the candidates' social networking sites, such as Facebook and MySpace. If you want to consider online job applicant screening, though, you'll need an account. Here's a step-by-step on how to create one.

This is the 4th Video in the series.  The first three can be accessed by selecting the "Resources" tab at the top of the page, and then "Video Resources" from the drop down list. 

Earlier posts on using the internet in hiring and recruiting:

• How to Conduct Online Background Searches With Google

• Facebook Users Beware: Employers Aren't the Only Ones Who Know How to Google

• Top 10 Reasons Why Employers Should Screen Their Applicants

Hiring managers have a lot of homework to do. Background and reference checks have become absolutely necessary steps in hiring today for a variety of reasons, which we've previously discussed.  One way many employers are getting the access they need to uncensored information on candidates is with the internet.  Especially where the job pool is largely college graduates, the internet can be a great tool for applicant screening.

But the information superhighway doesn't come with a road map and employers may not know exactly how to navigate the internet when it's being used as a hiring tool.  When William W. Bowser and I spoke about this issue last week in an audioconference, there was a significant amount of interest in a tutorial on the ins and outs of performing background checks online.  We're happy to oblige. 

Here is a run-down of the two of the way you can use Google for doing your own, online investigation of potential candidates.

Google

What:  Google is the most popular search engine in town.  It's actually quite a bit more than that, but you can check out our video tutorials on the other ways to use Google.  But, for this purpose, Google is just about as self-explanatory as they come.

How:  The quintessential websearch tool, just about everyone knows how to search via Google.com.  In short form, all you need to do is direct your web browser to www.google.com.  In the search box, type the name of your candidate.  Run a search for every iteration of the candidate's name.  For example, if you were going to search Bill Bowser, you'd use that version of his name, but also, "William Bowser", "William W. Bowser", and even "Bowser, Esq."  Be sure to use quotation marks to ensure you don't return search results for all websites that include the word "William."

What You'll Find:  Of course, it all depends on the candidate, but Google is likely to turn up more favorable results than unfavorable ones.  Sports achievements commonly show up in a Google search, for example.  For younger candidates, the results are likely to be limited in number and will most often be directly from a local newspaper or school publication.

When to Use It:  If you use it at all, Google is an excellent place to start when searching for public information on candidates.  It's also a good tool for gathering data that the candidate would proudly tell you if given the opportunity. 

Google Blogsearch

What:  Well, since you're reading this via our blog, I'll assume you have a basic understanding of the concept. But for the sake of equality with Nos. 1 and 3, I'll give a little summary.  "Blog" is a combination of the words "Web" and "Log."  Blogs began mostly as personal journals (or logs) maintained by individuals and used as a way to communicate their daily adventures to friends and family.  But, as the phenomenon has caught on, blogs are maintained by an enormous spectrum of individuals and entities for an even larger variety of purposes.  There are enough blogs that your candidates may be bloggers themselves, providing you with direct access to their uncensored opinions and commentary.

How:  The easiest way to search for blogs online is to use Google's blogsearch tool.  Basically, you're just doing a Google search but limiting the results to blog posts.  This can be done either direct from the Google home page by selecting "more" from the list at the top left side of the window, and then by selecting "Blogs" from the drop-down list that appears.  Alternatively, just go directly to http://blogsearch.google.com. 

What You'll Find:  You may find a blog hosted by the candidate, a blog post written by the candidate for someone else's blog, or a blog post about the candidate.  Any of these three are likely to give you meaningful insight into the candidate's personality, opinions, and, if nothing else, their communication skills.  For example, if hiring for a customer-service representative, an employer may have concerns about a candidate who uses an extraordinary amount of profanity throughout his posts.  Another serious red flag is an applicant who uses derogatory terms or expresses anger or hate towards any group.  This behavior should be major concerns to employers who want to avoid liability for discrimination and harassment.  It can also be indicative of violent tendencies.  And, given the fact that nearly $2 million American workers are victims of workplace violence every year, this must be a concern for employers, as well.

By as early as 2010, the Baby Boomers will leave the workforce en masse.  As the "reliable" generation heads towards retirement, employers will be faced with a substantial need for new recruits.  And those employers who have the foresight to plan ahead know that recruiting starts now.  Otherwise, there will be nothing but college grads and retirees.  To prevent the "brain drain," the need for mid-level managers must be factored into hiring and recruiting decisions now. 

More than ever, the hiring process is a critical element of success planning.  But hiring, of course, is no easy thing.  There are obstacles everywhere.  And, frankly, hiring should be a priority far beyond the Human Resources department.  It should be a priority for the C-Suite, too.  If senior management appreciates the fundamental need for good hiring decisions, there will be less resistance to implementing a full-fledged hiring program.  In an ideal world, all companies would have one. 

If you are one of the businesses fortunate enough to get buy-in from executive management, one of the best things you can do is to be highly selective in choosing the hiring team.  The authority to be involved in the hiring process, at any level, should be granted sparingly.  Treat the hiring team with the importance it deserves and don't let the undeserving join the team.

Select interviewers with purpose.  Not everyone should be permitted to interview.  Interviewing is hard. It involves a great deal of legal exposure. It's a great opportunity to capture the attention of the best and brightest--or to send them running out the door faster than you can say "signing bonus." 

Employers use Google, Facebook, and MySpace to conduct informal and unofficial background checks on job applicants.  But what about the employer's online reputation?  Learn how to monitor your online reputation, as well as your business' reputation using Google's free tool, Google Alerts.

http://www.slideboom.com/presentations/15998/Google-Alerts-by-Delaware-Employment-Law-Blog

FaceBook, MySpace, and other social network sites, have multiple uses. Of course, the traditional idea is that members gather to meet new people and share experiences.  As most recruiting and hiring managers are well aware, these websites can provide substantial insight into the personality and personal lives of job applicants. 

The value in this hiring strategy is subject to debate.  William W. Bowser and I will be debating it ourselves in greater detail tomorrow in our audioconference, Click Here for Lawsuit: Applicant Screening With Google and MySpace.  Employers must balance the need to make crucial hiring decisions with the privacy demands of Gen Y.  The arguments against using the internet's resources as the basis for employment decisions are shrinking, though.  And, if the trends continue, employers who do not utilize the web in hiring may find that they're alone in that decision. 

A survey released yesterday reports that the use of social networking has just begun to get off the ground outside America.  In North America last year, the number of users increased by 9% compared to an increase of 25% worldwide. 

Social networking has seen growth not only in the number of members, but also in the number of ways it has been put to use.  For example, the National Law Journal's article, Social Networking Sites Help Vet Jurors.  The article details how many lawyers now incorporate a Facebook-MySpace background-style check into their jury selections.  The information that is available online about potential and seated jurors can be invaluable in selecting jurors, striking potential jurors, and even in crafting opening and closing arguments that will hit home for the jury-audience.

What is remarkable about this trend is the revelations that often come with the discovery of an individual's FaceBook or MySpace page. Over and over, when social networking is used as a means to find out the "real" personality, behavior, and preferences of others, whether it be a job candidate or a potential juror, the "real" version is drastically different from the version presented to the searching party.