Why can't the "blacklist" of enterprise recruitment be too capricious?

Li is a fresh graduate of a university in Beijing. He may not have thought that he might be blacked out by many HR in the industry after looking for a job. Recently, an HR interviewing Li sent his resume to a 500-person advertising industry HR WeChat group, informing Li of many problems in the recruitment process: "Being late for the interview, acting rashly, and finally negotiating with him about salary, but being stood up ..." In view of these "bad records", many HR spokespersons in the group said that they would "hack" him once he was really hacked.

As a disciplinary measure against dishonesty, the "blacklist" system is more and more widely used in all levels of society. But just as everything has two sides, the "blacklist" system is also a double-edged sword. In the absence of shortlisting criteria and institutional constraints, whether the "blacklist" of enterprise recruitment will become a retaliatory means for employers to "blacken" and "ban" job seekers at will and infringe on the legitimate rights and interests of workers is indeed worthy of people's attention and vigilance.

The so-called * * * enjoys the "blacklist" of recruitment, that is, enterprises or employers put candidates they don't like on the "blacklist" and publish them within a certain range to attract the attention of peers or other employers. By definition, this "blacklist" should have a strong color of individual cognition, which can easily be alienated into retaliation or abuse of power, and even become an illegal infringement. For example, artificially amplify the shortcomings of a job seeker, or describe legal rights protection as a "stain" for job hunting. However, the negative effects it brings to job seekers should not be underestimated.

More tragically, because this "blacklist" is often spread only in the HR WeChat group, job seekers have been "blocked" when applying for a job, but they don't know where to fold. This "blacklist" of black-box operations does not talk about workers' right to know and fair legal protection.

In view of the two-way choice of recruitment, the employer has the right to criticize the dishonest behavior of job seekers, such as "being late", "impetuous" and "standing in line", and make a decision to give up employment accordingly, but it is biased, rash and arbitrary to easily blacklist them and even spread their exclusive judgment widely in the circle. Honesty is the bottom line and foundation for people to stand on the society and behave themselves, and it is often regarded as the "second identity card" for interpersonal communication. Being blacklisted should be a serious and prudent thing. It is not easy for anyone to be "famous" on the list, even if it is not "bad", at least it needs the * * * of several companies to "prove".

In all fairness, since government departments can blacklist enterprises or employers that fail to keep promises and pay attention to quality, it is understandable for employers to use the "workplace blacklist" to screen unreliable job seekers in order to improve recruitment efficiency and avoid company losses. But the question is, is it "reliable" for you to enjoy the blacklist? Looking at the practical cases that are currently blacklisted, most of them have two obvious characteristics: First, there is evidence of being shortlisted. For those who are included in the "blacklist", there are listed cases, specific behavior details, and the consequences and effects of "breaking faith"; The second is openness and transparency. The original intention of the "blacklist" system is not only to punish the faithless, but also to educate everyone to handle cases with integrity, openness and transparency, and publication should be the meaning of its title.

The "blacklist" of enterprise recruitment should not be too capricious, and black-box operation must be rejected. If it is really necessary for the "blacklist" system to restrain candidates' job hunting behavior, there should be unified and standardized identification standards, open procedures, application deadlines, publishing subjects and supervision requirements to prevent alienation, bad taste and abuse.