I have been doing a bit more research on this. I googled the EEOC.GOV site and found some interesting documentation.
"The magnitude of Internet recruitment began to rapidly expand during the late 1990s. It soon became clear that existing recordkeeping guidance regarding race, gender, and ethnicity which is set forth under the Uniform Guidelines on Employee Selection Procedures (UGESP) issued in the 1970s did not adequately address electronic recruitment issues.
QUESTION: What issues led them to this belief? Nothing is mentioned of this in this document.
"The new recordkeeping guidance would apply exclusively to the Internet and related technologies, including Internet resume banks and job boards, and employers' own web sites, resume databases and online job listings. Existing UGESP guidelines would continue to apply to traditional non-electronic recruitment and selection, for example, submission of hard-copy resumes to employers.
QUESTION: Record keeping guidelines apply to resume banks? How? They are not the ones with the jobs! They are merely pooling resumes for the employers (the ones with the jobs) to search through.
I can see how it applies to the employer's website. Are Careerbuilder
now responsible for determining fitness for a particular job posted on their site by a third party?
Further research led me to this document:Federal Register: March 4, 2004 (Volume 69, Number 43) Q: Is Internet recruitment, like traditional recruitment, exempt
from UGESP requirements?
A: Yes. As a business practice, recruitment involves identifying
and attracting potential recruits to apply for jobs. Under UGESP,
``recruitment practices are not considered * * * to be selection
procedures,'' \21\ and the UGESP requirements geared to monitoring
selection procedures do not apply. Just as recruiters traditionally
researched paper copies of professional and employer publications and
listings to identify potential recruits, so recruiters now search huge
bodies of information online--which include new resources such as
personal Web sites and a variety of resume databases--for the same
purpose. Online recruitment also involves organizing the search results
into usable formats.
Furthermore:With respect to Internet recruiting, this means that people who
post resumes in third party resume banks or on personal Web sites are
not UGESP ``applicants'' for all employers who search those sites. By
posting a resume, the individual is advertising her credentials to the
world and indicating a willingness to consider applying for new
positions that may be brought to her attention. The individual is not
indicating an interest in a particular position with a specific
employer. If an employer contacts this individual about a particular
position after finding her resume or personal profile online, and the
individual indicates an interest in that position, then the individual
becomes a UGESP ``applicant,''
Ah heck.. just read it for yourself. All my questions have been answered. That Federal Register document is a treasure trove of information on this. Basically, it spells out what the current electronic practices have been, standardizing them, and modifying them by adding the same level of accountability an employer already imposes on hard copy (dead tree) resumes to electronic ones.
As for the tests for an interested party, well, you already follow that procedure when you look up a job in a newspaper's classified sections and follow their instructions. At that point you become an applicant. I tried to apply online to Cox Cable when I was unemployed. I had one HELL of a time filling out their application form (a really crappy applet!). I eventually just scrapped the idea of working for Cox. I didn't follow their procedures by completing the "test" so that means I did not "express an interest" and will not be considered an "applicant". Duh. This is current practice, now it is a Federal Guideline.
The government is saying that the online test cannot be discriminatory under current *existing guidelines*. In the end there is nothing new here and I think it will actually have little impact on what is already going on.
CNN is just being sensationalist about these new guidelines. I don't see how they (the guidelines) actually change much of anything from what is going on right now.
I am no longer concerned... and I hate CNN. Why do I continue to read their drivel
? I might as well read The National Enquirer.