She had interviewed and met both remotely and in person, this guy was merely an HR drone confirming her documentation. I was a little bent when she told me he had asked her to remove her blur filter “to have a look at her working environment, make sure it’s not cluttered” (something along those lines). No one else at this company requested such. Was he way out of line?
I should note, this is my PC in our living room and not where she will be working from. And this guy wants a look around our home?! Told my wife to bring this up once she’s settled in, ask HR if this is policy. She started today!
She thinks it’s a racism thing. I’m not so sure, but I don’t have any other explanation.
I can see this as a one time verification to help verify the video isn’t being faked / you aren’t working out of a remote cube farm in another country.
Clearwater firm KnowBe4 accidentally hires North Korean hacker
She’s met them in person and the 6-week training is in person.
If the blurring is happening to her I9 info, like her driver’s license, yeah they’ll ask to unblur. Especially on Zoom… Zoom will see the image on the ID, focus on it, and blur the rest of the ID. I had to do the same thing.
Have they not got emails where you live?
When you present your ID, they want to see it live, like you’re in person. They want to confirm it’s an actual ID card, not some photoshop junk. It’s also why they will ask you to flip the card around so they can verify that it looks like a typical state issued ID. Very easy to trick others with photoshopped documents - so I doubt they would ever ask for your I9 forms via email. Especially since most people don’t have encrypted / secured email.
Oh. Where I live you just send a photo taken on your phone by email. It’s only so they can say they’ve asked for proof you’re allowed to work here after all.
Oooh that’s a good point. Never thought of that.
That would be fair, but the stated reason was to look at her background.
I re-read your post, yeah that’s a bit strange. A lot of times, when I had worked remote, I would take my laptop and chill outside to do my work. A lot of the meetings I got into wasn’t even indoors. You’d think they’d maybe ask during the interview process? Rather than after getting the job offer.
Nonetheless, HR fkin sucks. I’ve been burned just once by HR and that’s all it took to realize HR is never to be trusted.
There was just a news article about US corporations hiring North Koreans for remote work unintentionally, and the north Koreans then did a sabotage and stole secrets… Strikes me as HR is freaking out across the board and they were looking to confirm you aren’t actually based in a foreign country. It is very easy to hide where you are(phone numbers can be forwarded, addresses can be false). If it’s a 1 time thing, not racism, if they consistently single her out, is there anyone else of her race being singled out? Did HR maybe get a derogatory report from someone that doesn’t like her and they wanted to see if she was sober? That’s happened to me.
KnowBe4 has an article about their experience.
They also covered at least one other instance in the US.
That is the reason why identification documents are needed. How can they hire people without knowing who they are?
NK stole the identity of other Americans. They dotted i’s and crossed t’s to get into knowb4 via social engineering. Really fucked up.
Edit: check out the link above for full story
Seems like something sufficient IT security could prevent easily enough.
It sure sounds like racism and poorphobia to me. HR trying to make sure her surroundings don’t look like what a “typical poor person” would have (clutter, children, signs of disability, “drugs”, etc.) It’s not super common, but it’s common enough that I hear about it every so often.
I can’t offer any kind of legal advice, but it sounds like this job will be potentially problematic and HR will definitely be one to watch out for.
ETA: There’s a lot of paranoia in the US right now about “laptop farms”. Remote jobs are paranoid about people getting remote work to send money back to North Korea. It’s completely ridiculous, and it’s causing issues for a lot of people, mostly marginalized people. I think it’s useful context to know why this kind of thing is happening more lately.
There was a big headline recently about a tech company accidentally hiring a North Korean “hacker” (I’m just going off the headline) so that might be fresh in memory with regards to your laptop farm reference.
Exactly what I was referencing! I’ve known a few people who were recently fired from remote jobs under very strange circumstances. I can’t prove anything of course, but I distinctly got the feeling that they were fired because the intersection of their marginalizations made them look like “evil North Korean spies” to management.
That was knowbe4, a fairly large player in the information technology security game, failing to vet its own employees and potentially exposing its customers to a foreign hacker.
This could be raised as discrimination. Not only regarding income, but could also be against disabilities. People with ADHD (hello it’s me!) are really bad at organizing, especially desks and work areas (I work in layers of papers like sedimentation). I would definitely take notes on this incident and if it continues or if he job gets changed following.
Definitely! However if your first experience with HR is being discriminated against, raising concerns about discrimination can be dangerous. Who do you go to when HR is causing the issues? HR is there to protect the company, not you. If the easiest way to protect the company is to fire someone, HR will probably do that.
I’m not trying to talk OP or anyone else out of going to HR, they aren’t always sharks waiting to fire someone. It’s just good to be careful here and OP and their wife should be aware of the risks before taking any action. Definitely document this incident. If this becomes a repeat issue, documentation can be the difference between getting fired and winning a wrongful termination lawsuit.
HR can protect the company by reigning this guy in. I really feel it was a lone wolf thing, not policy.
I’d like to approach them anonymously, but it might be obvious who I was talking about.
HR can protect the company by reigning this guy in. I really feel it was a lone wolf thing, not policy.
Very true! Like I said, I’m not trying to convince you to not bring it up, just that it’s something to be careful about, and to make sure you have evidence or documentation.
That’s why I said keep notes. Recount the event with timestamp. If things continue or get worse you now have a file with all occurrences. And if you get fired for calling out HR, that’s an easy lawsuit.
I would suggest unionizing and talking to a union rep
Agreed. Unfortunately a lot of people don’t have a union, and sometimes unionizing just isn’t possible.
Ah the sedimentary filing system. I can tell you exactly when I last touched each layer of each pile and what’s there but if I file it all away somewhere I can’t tell you shit.
My wife moves my personal piles around and royally jacks me up. As to work, I’m much more organized because of deadline and customer expectations.
If I hadn’t seen the blatant discrimination she’s faced job hunting, I’d be more skeptical. She’s Filipino, but that’s “Mexican” to many. When I say blatant, I mean to say heads would roll if we had some of this on camera. She’s mostly unhurt by these things, just figures that’s the way of the world. But damn. One lady asked if she was Asian and was visibly appalled. Another said she would have to attend their church, and barely stopped short of asking her to renounce Catholicism. There’s much more I’m not remembering ATM.
What’s shocking is that this employer is widely considered to be the best in the whole area. Solid pay and benefits, really cares about their people. My ex-wife worked there and loved them. I’m guessing their HR folks would have kittens if they knew this guy had pulled this.
Also, just read your edit, makes much more sense. Still, I would have said, “This is not where I will be working. If you want to pick this back up in 5, I can be in my home office.” (We hadn’t set up proper video cam or setup the laptop so I had her use my machine.)
Having said that, this is a hybrid position, so the laptop farm shouldn’t be an issue. She’ll be in 3 times a week.
I completely believe all of that, and I’m sorry she’s had to deal with so much crap. Lately a lot of employers seem to be showing their asses by being overtly racist, ableist, and transphobic. Everyone I know who isn’t a white straight cis man has had employment troubles in the last six months.
I hope this is just a strange interaction with one HR person and you have a better time with everyone else!
Why does she think it’s a racism thing?
She’s probably a race
deleted by creator
No one else at this company requested such. Was he way out of line?
People who experience discrimination develop a sense for when someone is othering them. It’s not always correct, because it involves intuition, and you can misread people. But will still develop a sense for it.
Now, apply this to OP’s wife. OP says this about her:
If I hadn’t seen the blatant discrimination she’s faced job hunting, I’d be more skeptical. She’s Filipino, but that’s “Mexican” to many. When I say blatant, I mean to say heads would roll if we had some of this on camera. She’s mostly unhurt by these things, just figures that’s the way of the world. But damn. One lady asked if she was Asian and was visibly appalled. Another said she would have to attend their church, and barely stopped short of asking her to renounce Catholicism. There’s much more I’m not remembering ATM.
But why racism is particular? Sure I see how she has been “othered” by the interviewer, but why racism?
I have a birthmark that reads ‘VAGINA’ on my face.
Some people treat me differently from the moment I meet them.
I say, “I think that those people are reacting to my birthmark.”You ask: “Why assume they react to your VAGINA birthmark in particular?”
- The VAGINA birthmark is visible.
- People have made fun of me for having it before.
- I can see facial expressions when people perceive it, and notice features of judgemental reaction in their speech and behaviour after.
Now, apply this to OP’s wife. OP says this about her:
If I hadn’t seen the blatant discrimination she’s faced job hunting, I’d be more skeptical. She’s Filipino, but that’s “Mexican” to many. When I say blatant, I mean to say heads would roll if we had some of this on camera. She’s mostly unhurt by these things, just figures that’s the way of the world. But damn. One lady asked if she was Asian and was visibly appalled. Another said she would have to attend their church, and barely stopped short of asking her to renounce Catholicism. There’s much more I’m not remembering ATM.
I’m heavily autistic. I’ve figured this all out logically, as a person who has experience discrimination myself. It wasn’t easy, because I don’t grasp social cues natively. I thought I’d been doing something wrong for a long long time when people initially appraised me as ‘other’, but it turned out they were just being judgemental assholes. If you’re not heavily autistic, I believe it should be easier for you to figure all this out, right?
…you have a birthmark in the shape of legible english characters, not just one, but a full sequence which spell a word?..
It was a metaphor, lol
It was a dumb metaphor that made no sense.
Or maybe the problem is with you?
So, a visible difference that some other people react to with prejudice is not like racism. Got it.
You ask: “Why assume they react to your VISIBLE ETHNIC DIFFERENCES in particular?”
- The VISIBLE DIFFERENCES are visible.
- People have made fun of me for having those VISIBLE DIFFERENCES before.
- I can see facial expressions when people perceive THOSE VISIBLE DIFFERENCES, and notice features of judgemental reaction in their speech and behaviour after.
I’m sure you can comprehend why removing the controversial topic of ethnic differences [controversial because e.g. some people want to claim racism is does not happen any longer, or is not of any importance when it does because ‘it’s illegal to discriminate’] to replace it with another visible difference made it a suitable metaphor. I’m sure that you knew this, in fact, when you called it ‘dumb’.
Your annoyance is, therefore, possibly more at me saying that a woman is allowed to believe she is being targeted for racist reasons, and that such a woman should be listened to fairly. Feel free to clarify on that, if you wish. As for me, I logically believe that racism exists, as I have seen it. And that people can intuit when it is happening, as I have seen it. And that other people can disagree with it, because they profit from racism being ignored, as I have seen it.I think it made sense to most other people who read it
I’m autistic also and I understood it just fine.
Yeah that was a shit metaphor.
Well if you aren’t willing to engage in any sort of introspection all metaphor is stupid probably.
The irony of the autistic person using a metaphor, and someone else taking it too literally. You have to laugh!
It’s about as likely as someone starting and ending all of their writing with ellipses, with some of those ellipses being incomplete.
… all part of the flow mang…
OP should consider screen-recording her zoom calls.
The Zoom client alerts all parties. You could use another screen recorder, but this is a two-party recording state, straight illegal to record someone without their consent.
Anybody know a good screen recording program for Linux that doesn’t alert Zoom to the recording?
If you use the browser version of Zoom, it would have no way to know
Run Zoom in a VM and record from the host maybe?
My I-9 verification is birth certificate, so no photo. Not sure how unblurring would help? I’ve never done it remotely though. Wanting to see work environment isn’t so great. I set up for a video interview a while back by carefully positioning the camera so there was nothing interesting around or behind me. I had trouble getting the video working though, so we did a voice-only phone interview instead, which was much better anyway.
I wouldn’t call that kosher, personally.
A large percentage of people in Human Resources are absolute idiots. They often use their own perspective as what the company should be doing.
Ask them politely where that rule is because you want to understand. If they cannot provide it, immediately share all the conversation with your manager.
It may lead to nothing. Or discovery that this HR guy seems to always ask women to unblur their cameras and now they got a sexism case on their hands.
Not a racism thing. Happened to me at my last two companies (white guy, both remote jobs).
I’m inclined to agree, and was surprised my wife though it might be a racist thing. She’s not one to pull the race card, quite the opposite in fact.
What was the reasoning for the company’s request and at what part of the onboarding process was it?
No judgment here, and to be clear I don’t mean to invalidate her suspicion or yours. It wouldn’t surprise me if there were unethical individuals in HR who take things like this as an opportunity to call out things they don’t like… But in my experience, the asking part is pretty typical, and I doubt it was targeted.
For me, I-9 verification was very early on in the onboarding process. A list of eligible I-9 documents was provided in the onboarding paperwork and HR scheduled a time in my first day or two to show them on camera. Took maybe 2 minutes once we were actually on the call.
I didn’t press them on why when asked to unblur, but given I-9 is about presenting documents that verify your identity / eligibility to work, I suspect it’s best practice to avoid any obvious image processing as a matter of policy. At the very least, not having to worry about the paper getting blurred just makes things easier. Ultimately, they’re keeping these images on file to cover their own ass, so they want them to look as clear and legitimate as possible.
Same here. It’s company policy to review remote workers space to make sure it’s not in a place where client information can be overhead/people can see the screen. My boss is really lax about it and just requires me to unblur for a minute, tops.
For me it was strictly during onboarding for verifying I-9 documents. I assume it’s just to ensure any documents you present aren’t getting software blurred.
EDIT: Misread the post like an idiot.
The post was about being asked to disable background blurring specifically.
Oops. Thanks for the heads up. I completely misread. That’s what I get for multi-tasking.
She had already met them in person and will be working in the office 3 days a week. I understand the concern, but this is not that.
I get it. I misread the post earlier. If unblurring the background was useful to uncover anyone helping her during an interview then maybe, but it’s not. We do a lot of these and my clients have requirements like what I wrote before (when I misunderstood), but I have never come across someone objecting to a privacy setting like that. It’s fucking weird.
Hmm, so, policy in our office is a clean desk. Before you jump to conclusions, it’s because our secured area and office occasionally has people come through that should absolutely not see what information we have on our desks. This requirement is a compliance issue for our continued contracts and certifications.
Our work from home policy hasn’t addressed this issue, but it sounds like it’s a clear gap. Your neighbour coming around for a cup of tea absolutely should not be able to see any work related information.
My assumption is that someone has considered this kind of aspect and had a check to confirm that they’ve done diligence by asking you to reveal your working space. A space the companies sensitive information would be visible. Actually you too should maybe not be looking at your wife’s screen nor materials on her work desk. Depending on the situation.
Either way, policy comes first so perhaps her employment agreement or employee handbook would reveal more.
How can one not have a clean desk when working remotely? Do people just print random documents for no good reason when you can just have it on the screen?
I don’t even think my work would even let me plug in a printer to my MacBook, they disabled all the USB drivers except mouse and keyboard to prevent usage of flash drives and other unauthorized peripherals.
They made damn sure the only thing displaying sensitive information is the computer screen, which automatically locks after 5 minutes and cannot be configured by the user. I’d really have to willingly show company data for this to be a problem.
That really shouldn’t matter at all for remote workers as everything should be self contained in the company provided computer, with encryption enabled, strong password policy, 2FA, the whole thing.
We have a clean desk policy at my workplace too, we also don’t take classified documents home
Bravo! A well stated and sane explanation. She will be working in the financial sector, so that explains much. Doesn’t quite fit her situation, but yeah, I get it.
“Sorry, this is a shared office and my partner is working under NDA”
No such thing as an NDA that allows a spouse to work in the same room, and allows the spouse to actually be on video while blurred, but draws the line at not being able to unblur the video.
It is it’s the NDA you made your partner sign.
There is and unfortunately I cannot show you the NDA as the NDA won’t allow me to show you the NDA. The NDA does allow me talk about the conditions in general like this though.
…cluttered? the fuck?
has this fucker seen a cubicle? why did she allow it?
She landed the highest paying job she’s ever had, that’s why she allowed it. Also, she’s foreign and steps very lightly, doesn’t want to offend anyone and doesn’t really get American norms.
You really shouldn’t hire a wife, that seems wrong
I mean I bet he got a really good deal for it otherwise he wouldn’t be bragging on the internet
Post pandemic, this kind of ID “verification” is SUPER bogus, but it’s quite common unfortunately, and, tbh, I can’t think of a better way to handle it that isn’t either in person or via snail mail.
Not great for sure, but most likely not racist, or at least not purposefully so (not that that matters).
