What if they caught pirates and didn't arrest them?

I signed up for Kennedy's free webinar on "Ethical Standards of Recruiting Today". The panel includes Rothberg, Smitty, The Wheel Man and Steve Lowisz.

If you've read my stuff on ethics and recruiting for the past decade, you know where I stand on the topic. But I'm interested in what my friends have to offer on the topic - can't wait to listen and comment. Heh-heh...

This is all nice but I sense that many in recruiting - as well as peeps outside who believe recruiters would sell their souls to Satan for a 20% fee - believe that many are unethical and that the presumption of guilt before innocence holds true. As I've asked for the decade, where is the data? Ain't none - unless you count EEO and BBB reports of increased dissatisfaction with recruiter - can you think of other reasons for this dissatisfaction? As in people believing they're perfect for a job but didn't get it? Or that most recruiters possess the communication skills of reptiles and don't like giving candidates "bad news"? Or that we are in an increasing litigious society and that suing is as easy as brushing one's teeth?

So I read today that the Danish Navy came upon a boatload of Somali pirates - but didn't arrest them.

But when Danish special forces from the Absalon went alongside the stricken speed-boat, they found rocket-propelled grenades and AK-47 assault rifles -- familiar pirate weapons -- which they confiscated.

“Their ship had been without propulsion for several days,” [the Danish spokesperson] said. “They were hungry and thirsty. We had them checked out by our doctor. We gave them blankets, food and water.”

“We had a situation where these guys were shipwrecked persons,” [the Danish spokesperson] said. “But we haven’t caught them in an act of piracy, and what their main purpose was -- your guess is as good as mine.”

Huh?

Seems as if the Danes didn't arrest them because they weren't in the act of piracy.

Pirates are presumed innocent but not recruiters? Huh?

Comment by Steve Levy on December 8, 2008 at 1:53pm: For those new to this ethical dilemma, my take is that the data that "demonstrates" unethical behavior is simply not available; all that is available is the negative interpretation of said data. Anyone can lodge a complaint with the BBB and we aren't privy to the circumstances surrounding the accusations. As for the EEO, company after company has said that it is better to settle than to fight - even knowing one's innocence. But since the government is behind the case, they must be honest, right?

For years, the commenter has posted links to data or articles by "respected people" that "prove" the existence of profession-wide unethical" behavior by recruiters.

For years, I read the links, analyzed and reported the data (now hidden somewhere on ERE threads) and given no numbers that proved that we have unethical DNA crawling in our profession said that since the data quoted doesn't come close to proving a problem, why state that there is a pervasive problem at all?

If you have time to kill, dig up the old threads on ERE and read them.

My belief is that the market will take care of the bad apples; sure some hearty bad ones may survive but as in business and on the Galapagos Islands, the strong and adaptable will survive.

Why even bother with the data? Let's answer this question with a question:

Does anyone have any empirical data that articulates what percentage of the recruiting population uses unethical techniques?

Karen, no one ever knocked you for your passion. Everyone has heard of stories of bad apples yet we have no way of knowing the freshness of these stories; many are Snopes.com fodder, stories that have been traveling around the net for years - yet are spoken about as if they occurred yesterday.

Is unethical behavior by recruiters increasing or decreasing year to year? Only well collected data using a solid research design can start demonstrating this. By the way, by asking me to "create the data yourself" (data is only created by those with ulterior motives) aren't you saying that the data doesn't exist?

Show us the data and be prepared to defend it on both validity and reliability fronts.

Comment by Steve Levy on December 8, 2008 at 3:53pm: No more posts on ethics and recruiting because no matter what the orientation, Karen will always hijack the thread. But I'm game this one last time because she spouts stuff without explaining...

Privacy ClearingHouse is a not-for profit whose mission, etc. is here. Here is a chronology of privacy data breaches. Specifically to recruiting, Monster was breached and "Hackers have stolen the names, e-mail addresses and telephone numbers of about 146,000 subscribers to USAJOBS.gov. The hackers accessed the information from the resume database run by Monster.com, which provides the technology for USAJOBS.gov. Monster Worldwide told OPM that no Social Security numbers were compromised." Note that "It does not appear that SSNs or financial account numbers were exposed."

So tell me more that shows that this was not the work of hackers hacking for hacking sake and but the work of evil people retained by bad recruiters. Tell me that this more than a privacy breach and show us the data.

As far as the employment industry being the 14th most complained about industry, people complain about death, taxes, and the weather probably more than they do about jobs but I don't hear you railing against the Grime Reaper, the IRS, or God. Of course people will complain about employment primarily because very few are aware of the laws of right and wrong. Employment is personal and being turned don't isn't pleasant; some learn, others complain. Show us the data, Karen.

As far as the BBB, take a look at the latest BBB data here. Keep in mind that to file a complaint, click here.

It's pretty easy to complain about anything.

Sorry JD and Ami, I truly am sorry...