Is it standard practice for potential employers to ask for your social media usernames to do background checks?

[Thesage]

Just that really. I've been called for an interview and they've asked me for my usernames to do a social media and Google check. Is this allowed? And are there any legitimate grounds for me to refuse? They also asked for my dob on their application, which is not usual these days, so was wondering about the legitimacy about asking for SM usernames. I am more than happy for them to search me on Google, social media with my name , but I feel that asking for usernames is going a bit too far? It's more of a matter of principle than anything else. Any advice would be appreciated. Thanks

Yes but that is checking your name and nationality.

I am happy for people to see my Twitter and LinkedIn accounts as I deliberately don't say anything controversial on there.

But if they asked me for my MN account: well, I don't have the "right" sort of opinions on things like men doing womens' sport, or liking dogs, so I'd lie and say I wasn't on here.

I did have a prospective US finance company who wanted me for a Java programming job insist on drug testing. I told them to get lost, not because I'd been taking cannabis (or anything stronger than aspirin), but because I didn't want to work in that sort of cultural environment.

In the US this is totally standard.

When we lived there, my teenage son had to do a drug test in order to volunteer at a hospital and an old people's home. And when he took a Saturday job at Safeway. I think he was 16 at the time.

I would find it very intrusive. Social media is for my personal life. I wouldn't mind them looking at LinkedIn (as that's what it's for), or Googling my name, but they would only find my professional presence - which is entirely as it should be. They don't need to see pictures of me with my family and friends - it's an employee's choice if they want to share such things at work.

Why?

Are you sometime who would be posting aomething that an employer might find objectionable?

That's an odd way to think

None of their business.

In your case my response would be that you use social media to communicate with family and friends and to talk about your interests outside work and not for any business purposes, and therefore that you do not see the relevance of sharing this with them.

I would find this very intrusive and would not agree to share anything.

I have had DBS checks done for some of my roles and I am happy with that as it is relevant to check for criminal convictions as I used to work with vulnerable people but to check my social media to see what my political views are or which celebrity I might follow or what I did other the weekend is totally irrelevant to the job.

Any company that does that is best avoided.

@Radiatorvalves@RahRahOhLaLa

Wow can they search our mumsnet posts??

I would just tell them that I don't do social media, which apart from MN I don't.
I wouldn't tell them I was on here either.

Is that a serious question?

Well yes, why else would you say you're glad you've never done SM on a thread about employers checking sm for inappropriate content

Anyone with innocous postings or private accounts wouldn't regret having accounts would they?

In an educational setting it's a requirement of the Keeping Children Safe in Education statutory guidance on recruitment.

The issue is, one person's innocuous postings might cause issues with a potential employer. Supporting a party they don't like...even having a party they don't like! I was at a networking event chatting to a guy who is one of my referees. I mentioned we'd had a great Jubilee party and he didn't just eye roll...he told me he walked round the neighbourhood that day to glare at people having street parties!!

or maybe you post about a favourite song and it turns out the artist is being accused of something. The level of crazy that goes on in the world is astonishing.

I certainly wouldn’t be telling potential employers my mumsnet or reddit details. Don’t think I’ve ever talked about anything which could cause a job offer to be withdrawn but it’s just private.

likewise my Facebook. It’s locked down to friends only. I would not be comfortable with someone I barely know looking at it and I wouldn’t want to add someone I don’t know as a friend so they could view it.

id give them my instagram and they could look at my cats. 🤷🏻‍♀️

If you're working in a school it's standard practice as part of their Safer Recruitment procedures and is to do with safeguarding. All of mine are set to private so I had no issues giving my employer my user names as I knew they wouldn't see anything anyway.

I am a childminder, I’m not on social media. when a potential parent came round they mentioned something they had seen on Tik Tok, and I said I’m not on SM, she said I know, I checked 👀

it’s a bit of a weird one because I can appreciate vetting candidates for jobs, but people are allowed privacy too.

They don't want your mumsnet or reddit usernames just your Facebook, twitter and/or insta ones. It's to do with safeguarding and in my experience is only education settings that ask for it and are perfectly entitled to do so. If your settings are private they won't ask to be your friend it will just be noted that its private.
I work in a secondary school and we are always told to make our profiles private to avoid the students finding or friending you.

As Thanks and Prof said, it's a new requirement for schools this year. We are interpreting it as information that is available via Google search (because the final version of KCSIE removed the reference social media specifically that was in the draft) and we don't ask for handles. I know other schools do though and I imagine it will become more standardised as things progress. The change to KCSIE arose from a case where a candidate's conviction was filtered out of the DBS-equivalent check in another country - but information about the conviction would have shown up on an internet search.

I find this quite worrying. If they think you are likely to bring your employer into disrepute or something then it's more likely if you're using your real name for your social media profiles. If your name has to be told to people then it's not really identifying anyway, is it?
I second the person who said just give them your LinkedIn page.

"Are you sometime who would be posting aomething that an employer might find objectionable?
That's an odd way to think"

Anyone is someone who might post something that an employer might find objectionable FFS.
They might object to your opinion on workers' rights for example. Are you saying that people shouldn't be allowed to express such opinions?

Why would they not ask for your dob on application form? Don't they need to know that the applicant is actually not a 14 year old?
Also nowadays don't you have to take ID to a job interview to prove your right to work?

They haven't asked for your DOB on job applications for years. It's to try and prevent age discrimination.... although it's usually pretty easy to work out!

As others have said, it's part of Safer Recruitment for schools or educational settings. It's important to have a sense of someone's motivation and suitability to work with children. This might seem intrusive to some but it's vital to do what is reasonable and sensible to screen people who may be appointed to a position where they will have open access to children or young people.

Christ can you imagine actually complying and giving your MN username!!! They would get way too much personal info!

Ex-teacher here. Schools don’t pay enough to own my life and be this intrusive. Good practice for them to search your name but asking for usernames is several steps too far.

In my first school, there was a very intimidating meeting where staff were threatened with Gross Misconduct if their FB profile wasn't completely locked down and told that 'we will be checking on you all'. Naturally, I got straight on there to doublecheck and block every possible permutation - it took all of ten seconds to find the head's personal FB, twenty to find all of SLT and probably another five minutes to find a potential conflict of interest in a recruitment decision and also a very niche 'interest' on the part of somebody else. All from the people making the threats.

I was already locked down, but I made absolutely certain that there was nothing to see that could cause concern, just in case a 'friend of a friend' slipped through the net or someone I knew decided to adopt a Scorched Earth principle when posting and I became tainted by association.

In the process, I found that an ex Governor had clearly used the burner email address I had set up for a whistleblowing disclosure through the Twitter 'people you might know' function and followed a defunct Twitter account I'd opened with it. Which prove to me I was absolutely right in doing that.

These days, they would get the details of a completely inoffensive set of accounts - music (and not 'controversial' bands/genres), animals & wildlife, Gardeners' World, The Archers, Radio 3, etc, and would therefore see I exist online, but not that I'd be in any way harmful or detrimental to their organisational aims. If the lack of updates were queried, I'd be able to say quite honestly that FB/Twitter/IG do not form a significant part of my life.

Which Mumsnet username would they want? I've name changed loads of times. I wonder if I should just find the most inoffensive one and go with that, not that I'd tell them in the first place.

Never "In the process, I found that an ex Governor had clearly used the burner email address I had set up for a whistleblowing disclosure through the Twitter 'people you might know' function and followed a defunct Twitter account I'd opened with it. Which prove to me I was absolutely right in doing that."

sorry to be thick but how did the ex Governor have the email address?