Of course. What they cannot do (at least in many jurisdictions) is hire a 15-year-old and then make signing up on LinkedIn a subsequent condition of further employment. They also could not, for example, require the employee to disclose their password to them if that is a violation of the TOS (as it is for many sites).
Can you use an alias - let’s say, if your name is John E. Hoover instead use the middle name, post as J. Edward Hoover?
This also allows you to tell whether a correspondent scraped your name from LinkedIn or elsewhere. Plus, reduces correlation by Google, and also you can just auto-junk any emails from LinkedIn. You can put up an entry, but you don’t have to maintain it or pay attention to it do you? Plus, unless someone is constantly checking, you can delete it after a performance review and re-create it for the next one…
At the risk of turning this into a Great Debate - I have stated before that I would like to see legislation or court rulings that do a better job of defining what is public space vs. private space, etc., regarding ones presence on the internet.
While LinkedIn has established itself as a broadly used tool in the professional realm, I am troubled by the idea that an employer would dictate use of it to employees. I see my LinkedIn presence as mine, not my employers. What would be the next logical step for the employer in this case? Requiring editorial control of ones postings, likes, who one links to, etc? Perhaps that would work if LinkedIn specifically had differentiation between a “personal” profile and a “employee” profile (much like we all have a personal email address, and a work email address). If the employer is dictating use for company rah-rah purposes, what’s to prevent them from dictating that you wear company logo clothing in all of your off hours? How would that be any different?
Note - I work in the recruiting realm, and I often see that the stated purpose of LinkedIn being a recruiting tool is being subverted by policy. It is too easy for prospective employers to check out a LinkedIn profile and see by their profile photo that someone is in a protected class. This is information that is specifically prohibited from being considered in recruitment, and there are many safeguards in place to prevent potential hiring managers from knowing this information when evaluating resumes and qualifications, prior to the selection for interview stage. So, there is that too.
So don’t post a photo.
I can’t imagine that would hold up in court.
What happens the first time they have a suitable applicant who is an Orthodox Jew, or Muslim, etc. Religious discrimination is subject to strict scrutiny in court. And what justifiable reason would the company give for this policy?
I once worked at a food company, and everyone in the production area was required to wear hats/hair nets. They once tried to prohibit beards (for sanitary reasons), but the union forced them to instead provide beard nets for those with beards.
In your case, the company would have even less credit in court – the fact that prior employees are allowed to have beards proves that it isn’t any health or safety problem on the job. And if they say that it’s because ‘customers don’t like bearded employees’, there are a lot of 50-year-old cases where Judges threw out southern companies arguments that ‘customers won’t like black employees’.
If I remember Flashman correctly, the British Army didn’t allow beards until the Crimea — where it gets pretty cold in winter and the powers that be hashed up the supplies even worse than most wars — because of the danger of lice and also because enemies might grab the beard to slit the throat ( studying Greek was the main pleasure of the 18th/19th century intelligentsia ).
Actually it was because the aristocrats’ minds were ossified.
And Wellington didn’t like it.
Was that at your last employer? Because if so, the issue was almost certainly that union took the position that your employer couldn’t change the policy unilaterally as it was a “past practice” rather than a law prohibiting your employer from changing the rules.
The password issue is one thing , but do you have a cite that suggests that there is any jurisdiction where they cannot hire a 15 year old, later make having LinkedIn a condition of further employment and them terminate the 15 year old because he is not eligible for a LinkedIn account ?
I don’t have a cite for it, but in my lifetime newspapers have gone from being delivered by kids with wagons or bikes to being delivered by adults with cars. I am certain that some number of kids lost their jobs because of a new condition imposed by their employers that they could not meet due to their age - whether that condition was a requirement to have a driver’s license and car or a requirement that deliveries start at 4:00 am (which is earlier than most states allow those under 18 to work)
They can fire you if you are no longer a suitable employee. They cannot ask you to commit a crime and fire you for refusing.
Apparently they just did this a few days ago, according to their help pages. What you can do is copy and paste sections of your resume in. It’s not as easy, but it’s something.
IIRC you were a state employee in a large northern state, so you probably weren’t an at-will employee. The grounds on which that matter was fought and won were probably an internal provision in your contract.
As some people have pointed out, I was a government employee and we were unionized. But we did not fight the issue as a contract violation. We fought it in regular courts as a violation of labor laws. The only advantage we got from being a union is that we had the resources to fight a legal battle.
Plus this was in New York, which is a relatively employee-friendly state.
Sure, but how will you get hired anywhere without a LinkedIn profile?
We had a formal discussion about this topic at work the other day. As a general rule, a professional should have a profile of some sort established on LinkedIn, even if it’s just your name and current employer.
Our firm suggests that its employees link to each other and follow the company site, as well as repost any official company posts, articles or whitepapers. It’s by no means mandatory though.
Personally, I question the utility of LinkedIn these days. It’s basically become nothing more than a giant database for recruiters and vendors to troll for contacts and corporate drones to repost the same stupid Business Insider articles. Sometimes corporate HR uses is to make sure the bullshit in your resume reconciles with the bullshit you present online.
That is how shitty companies think. Good companies think in terms of attracting the best and brightest, not trapping their employees or hiding them away.
This is probably as good a thread as any to ask:* What the hell is LinkedIn?* My sister has sent me some emails inviting me to join, but when I emailed her back to ask that question, she didn’t respond. Which is unusual for her.
Strict scrutiny is a 14th Amendment doctrine, which only applies to government-imposed classifications. A private beard ban would fall afoul of Title VII - but only as to employees whose religious practice is affected. There’s no reason why the employer couldn’t ban beards for everyone else.
Well played.
LinkedIn is kinda, sort of like a Facebook for vocations. You create a profile that generally includes resume type stuff. You can ask people into your network, and they can ask you into theirs - similar to “friending”. LinkedIn is the only social media site where I have a presence, and only there because it could be beneficial should I ever again need to look for a job. If that circumstance happens I have 500ish contacts that I can tap for assistance, all in one place. OK, probably only 10-20% of those contacts would actually be useful for job finding, but that’s better than starting from scratch. It’s also a job posting site where I can keep tabs on who is hiring in my industry and at what level. I do get emails from them, but they go straight to my spam bin, so no impact to me.
IOW, I care not about other people’s cat pictures but I care greatly about career opportunities.
It’s basically Tinder for the over 50 crowd.
I just use rolled-up newspaper, junk-mail and old credit card statements.
I guess, too, the question is - did they set minimum standards for what you put there, or simply that you had to logon? Do you have to specify your location? You employer’s full actual name? (I.e. can you say “Intl Logisitics” instead of “International Logistics Inc.”?) Did they demand you put a photo up? Does it have to be a meaningful photo, or would you be so small in the standard display that you are indistinguishable? Make almost all your information private. etc. I assume they don’t mandate “make 5 links each month”. Do you even have to link to your boss or co-workers?
I’m going to guess this was someone’s bright idea in IT or HR (Or PR) and within a year it will all be forgotten.