26 Replies. 2 pages. Viewing page 1.
< Newer [ 1 2 ] Older >
 |
| 26. |
Re: Morning Legal Briefs |
May 1, 2012, 12:08 |
Prez |
|
|
NegaDeath wrote on May 1, 2012, 00:36:
I will also never inspect a persons facebook account as part of my hiring routine. It's none of my damn business. Using the millenia old technique of talking to people I've managed to not hire any psychos so far.
At least I know where to send my next resume. Any chance you are looking for a middle-aged, anti-social, washed-up nuke engineer/electrician/instrumentation technician? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| 25. |
Re: Morning Legal Briefs |
May 1, 2012, 08:07 |
Beamer |
|
|
NegaDeath wrote on May 1, 2012, 00:36:
Beamer wrote on Apr 30, 2012, 17:04:
I don't get why people feel they can fight this. You can't.
Sure you can. There is almost zero information on me available on the internet. You can find a phone listing (landline not cell) that they pulled from the local phone directory and that's it.
I will also never inspect a persons facebook account as part of my hiring routine. It's none of my damn business. Using the millenia old technique of talking to people I've managed to not hire any psychos so far.
I'm not saying you can't fight having an online presence, I'm saying you can't fight people expecting you to have an online presence. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| 24. |
Re: Morning Legal Briefs |
May 1, 2012, 00:36 |
NegaDeath |
|
|
Beamer wrote on Apr 30, 2012, 17:04:
I don't get why people feel they can fight this. You can't.
Sure you can. There is almost zero information on me available on the internet. You can find a phone listing (landline not cell) that they pulled from the local phone directory and that's it.
I will also never inspect a persons facebook account as part of my hiring routine. It's none of my damn business. Using the millenia old technique of talking to people I've managed to not hire any psychos so far. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| 23. |
Re: Morning Legal Briefs |
Apr 30, 2012, 20:53 |
xXBatmanXx |
|
|
You know that employers also do credit checks and google your name and email right? Not tough to figure things out these days. Most employers also have access to sites that know everything about you via a simple SS number search.
Don't like it? Don't be a dick online and on social sites and possibly consider deleting your online accounts and persona.
Facebook is forever. a 14-20 year old will find out really quick that they messed up by posting EVERYTHING online when they go get that really important job in their mid 20s. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
In this present crisis, government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem. / Few men have virtue enough to withstand the highest bidder.
Playing: RL |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| 22. |
Re: Morning Legal Briefs |
Apr 30, 2012, 19:29 |
Prez |
|
|
Verno wrote on Apr 30, 2012, 11:53:
Lord Tea wrote on Apr 30, 2012, 11:13:
"Bill banning employer Facebook snooping introduced in Congress"
who really cares? No one is forced to have a FB account.
It's bad enough employers make hiring decisions based on a fucking social network, let alone them demanding or obtaining access to it.
Whoever is making my phony racist tirade-laden Facebook account for me be please be sure to give it out to any employer who asks for it. Thanks. 
I think nin was going to take care of that for me... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| 21. |
Re: Morning Legal Briefs |
Apr 30, 2012, 17:46 |
Orogogus |
|
|
Jivaro wrote on Apr 30, 2012, 16:17:
Right, but what you are talking about is having the ability to go view the sites Beamer. That isn't where companies are stopping in terms of what they are asking for from prospective employees.
Companies are requiring people to give them their passwords to sites like FB and LI. I seriously have ZERO problem with an employer taking the time to look people up, but password access? Really? You think that is OK? That is what the law is trying to block. It isn't like they can make a law that is going to prevent companies from looking up completely public sites. We are talking about private, password protected level access.
"The bill seeks to block any employer from requiring current or potential employees to turn over login credentials to any person; online content can not be used as a condition of employment to "discriminate or deny employment to individuals, nor punish them for refusing to volunteer the information." -the article
How did it ever occur to companies that this would be an okay thing to demand? It seems tantamount to asking for my email login username and password. Why would this possibly be acceptable? What would admin access to my Facebook account get them that they couldn't get just by being friended or whatever? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| 20. |
Re: Morning Legal Briefs |
Apr 30, 2012, 17:04 |
Beamer |
|
|
NegaDeath wrote on Apr 30, 2012, 16:47:
Beamer wrote on Apr 30, 2012, 16:08:
It's 2012. The internet is important. Not having any kind of presence, most notably on LinkedIn, then Facebook, then anywhere else, is going to hurt you.
If that's the kind of world we're headed for then I'll gladly back any bill that removes the right of employers to check a facebook page.
But there's no such bill saying employers can't check public information.
In any case I'm always shocked people don't think this is weird. You're googled, linkedin and facebooked constantly. Constantly. A friend wants to set another friend up with you? That person will check you out online before agreeing. A friend wants to add you to his fantasy football league? Other members of the league will check you out first. You submit a job application and catch a recruiters eye? The recruiter will check you out before passing you on.
Not that you can easily catch a recruiter's eye without using LinkedIn to do so, anyway.
I don't get why people feel they can fight this. You can't. You're much smarter to accept it and control it rather than let your information get out there without you directing it in any way, shape or form. If you have a Facebook page with a simple picture, maybe you smiling or maybe a shot of a favorite vacation spot, and lock everything else down completely so only friends see it, including locking down seeing how many friends you have (if you don't feel like it don't add any), then you have at least a small shred of instant credibility. "Hey, this guy probably isn't a serial killer!" |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| 19. |
Re: Morning Legal Briefs |
Apr 30, 2012, 16:47 |
NegaDeath |
|
|
Beamer wrote on Apr 30, 2012, 16:08:
It's 2012. The internet is important. Not having any kind of presence, most notably on LinkedIn, then Facebook, then anywhere else, is going to hurt you.
If that's the kind of world we're headed for then I'll gladly back any bill that removes the right of employers to check a facebook page. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| 18. |
Re: Morning Legal Briefs |
Apr 30, 2012, 16:34 |
Beamer |
|
|
Jivaro wrote on Apr 30, 2012, 16:17:
Right, but what you are talking about is having the ability to go view the sites Beamer. That isn't where companies are stopping in terms of what they are asking for from prospective employees.
Oh, I am aware, and I'm fully against that. If a company were to ask me that it's obviously not a company I'd want to work at.
But many on this site, and in this thread, feel Facebook shouldn't be used to make hiring decisions at all. They think you can separate work and play. But the fact is Facebook will be used in hiring decisions because it's an extra step to make sure the person you're making a fairly serious commitment to isn't annoying or insane or antisocial or in any other way terrible to be around. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| 17. |
Re: Morning Legal Briefs |
Apr 30, 2012, 16:17 |
Jivaro |
|
|
Right, but what you are talking about is having the ability to go view the sites Beamer. That isn't where companies are stopping in terms of what they are asking for from prospective employees.
Companies are requiring people to give them their passwords to sites like FB and LI. I seriously have ZERO problem with an employer taking the time to look people up, but password access? Really? You think that is OK? That is what the law is trying to block. It isn't like they can make a law that is going to prevent companies from looking up completely public sites. We are talking about private, password protected level access.
"The bill seeks to block any employer from requiring current or potential employees to turn over login credentials to any person; online content can not be used as a condition of employment to "discriminate or deny employment to individuals, nor punish them for refusing to volunteer the information." -the article |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| 16. |
Re: Morning Legal Briefs |
Apr 30, 2012, 16:08 |
Beamer |
|
|
NegaDeath wrote on Apr 30, 2012, 15:53:
Then there's also the possibility of discrimination if a person doesn't even HAVE a facebook account (hand raised).
"Oh sorry we can't spy on you, we'll have to look for someone else"
Of course. I've mentioned that here before. If you have two candidates that have interviewed equally well, have similar backgrounds and are similarly qualified you start looking to other places. If one has a Facebook page that shows a smiling, happy person with interests similar to you and one is just an internet black hole you're almost definitely thinking that one looks like a fun person to be around and the other is either hiding something or antisocial.
Of course, if the guy with the Facebook page doesn't cultivate it well and comes across as creepy then you go with the other person.
It's 2012. The internet is important. Not having any kind of presence, most notably on LinkedIn, then Facebook, then anywhere else, is going to hurt you. Hell, pretty much before I reach out to anyone for anything I look them up in LinkedIn and Facebook to see what they're like. For anything. One of the better ways I did this was when I used Craigslist to hire someone to do a few hours of manual labor. Not wanting to be scammed or robbed I threw every responding email address into Facebook. I found a college kid and hired him, figuring a college kid is less likely to screw me over than a random dude in his 40s looking to do similar work.
But I'll do it when recruiters contact me, or when I'm going to a meeting with someone I don't know inside my own company, etc. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| 15. |
Re: Morning Legal Briefs |
Apr 30, 2012, 16:05 |
xXBatmanXx |
|
|
Burrito of Peace wrote on Apr 30, 2012, 12:39:
Lord Tea wrote on Apr 30, 2012, 11:13:
"Bill banning employer Facebook snooping introduced in Congress"
who really cares? No one is forced to have a FB account.
NnnnngggggggGAH TOO MUCH STUPID!!!!!
Dude, it's not about Facebook, as has been stated above, it's about God damned time we reigned in corprofacists from fucking over citizens with data that has no bearing on the performance of the person doing their job.
My life is not for my employer's amusement. My job is for my life's amusement.
If you don't like what your employer is doing, go work for a different company. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
In this present crisis, government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem. / Few men have virtue enough to withstand the highest bidder.
Playing: RL |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| 14. |
Re: Morning Legal Briefs |
Apr 30, 2012, 15:53 |
NegaDeath |
|
|
Then there's also the possibility of discrimination if a person doesn't even HAVE a facebook account (hand raised).
"Oh sorry we can't spy on you, we'll have to look for someone else"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| 13. |
Re: Morning Legal Briefs |
Apr 30, 2012, 15:41 |
Jivaro |
|
|
| @Beamer: I only meant the "schools" comparison in the way that the individual concepts sound good on paper, but not so good in practice. I wasn't comparing the relationship of student/school to employee/employer. In hindsight, perhaps I should have made that clearer. That comparison would be a whole other thing all together, and as you said..it would vary based on things like age group, public/private, etc. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| 12. |
Re: Morning Legal Briefs |
Apr 30, 2012, 15:23 |
Beamer |
|
|
WarpCrow wrote on Apr 30, 2012, 15:20:
I have to balance the stupidity of posting things you wouldn't want a stranger to see on Facebook with the right to privacy. An employer should be able to look you up and see what you've made public, but they should have no right to hold your job hostage solely on the demand that you give up your login credentials. That is... beyond unacceptable, and yet it's becoming more and more common because people need jobs, and often don't have the choice to just walk away and apply elsewhere. You say no, the employer says tough, I'll just hire the next in line.
Agreed.
I don't think you can fully compare employers to schools, either. At least not public k-12 schools. I think employers can fire you for what you publicly post. I think colleges can kick you out. I do not think public schools can punish you.
If I were to post "my boss is the biggest idiot, my company sucks and our products are shit" on my facebook wall I think my company would be within reason to let me go. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| 11. |
Re: Morning Legal Briefs |
Apr 30, 2012, 15:20 |
WarpCrow |
|
|
| I have to balance the stupidity of posting things you wouldn't want a stranger to see on Facebook with the right to privacy. An employer should be able to look you up and see what you've made public, but they should have no right to hold your job hostage solely on the demand that you give up your login credentials. That is... beyond unacceptable, and yet it's becoming more and more common because people need jobs, and often don't have the choice to just walk away and apply elsewhere. You say no, the employer says tough, I'll just hire the next in line. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| 10. |
Re: Morning Legal Briefs |
Apr 30, 2012, 15:15 |
Jivaro |
|
|
I view this the same way I view schools trying to punish kids for things they do off-campus. At first, it seems practical, and then you realize the possibilities of it being abused outweigh the upsides. There are very few jobs where your FB page should even matter, and if it does, that company can look you up and do a friend request like everyone else. Requiring access, particularly the password, is ridiculous.
To look at it from another point of view, do you really want a world where sites like Facebook, Twitter, etc become a part of a job application process? I mean do you want people making fake sites and twitter pages just to get jobs? I mean, it isn't like FB and Twitter take any responsibility for the content or authenticity of the content. I am sorry, but if you can't see how bad of an idea it is to allow companies to move in this direction you are being really short sighted. Background checks, credit checks, references, and etc tell a company everything they could ever possibly need to know...probably more then they need. Sites like Facebook and Twitter, there is nothing accurate about them, and there shouldn't have to be.
Allowing companies to require password encrypted access to ANYTHING personal is not a precedent I want to set. I mean, what is next? My checking account? Maybe my cable TV bill to see what I watch on my day's off? I feel like there is a line, and that is crossing it. Maybe the "company" won't abuse the acquisition of such info, but there will always be people who do, and if tech companies can't keep their password info safe, how do I know that my employers can? What happens when my password gets jacked by a bored IT guy with a grudge?
Sorry, I hate having to write a law for every little damn thing as much as anyone, but I just don't see why companies should be allowed to "require" this level of access.
This comment was edited on Apr 30, 2012, 15:26. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| 9. |
Re: Morning Legal Briefs |
Apr 30, 2012, 12:55 |
Beamer |
|
|
Verno wrote on Apr 30, 2012, 11:53:
Lord Tea wrote on Apr 30, 2012, 11:13:
"Bill banning employer Facebook snooping introduced in Congress"
who really cares? No one is forced to have a FB account.
It's bad enough employers make hiring decisions based on a fucking social network, let alone them demanding or obtaining access to it.
I think it's fine for making hiring decisions, with restraint. Hiring someone is a pretty big deal, and I'd like to check their Facebook page first. You're going to be spending a lot of time with that person, and your career may depend on their work, so you'd probably want to check their page and see what's showing up. Are they sharing too much with little privacy? Do they seem annoying in ways that aren't apparent in an hour interview? Are they racist jerks?
I guess if you're hiring someone to work on an assembly line some things don't matter, but if you're hiring someone to work very closely with you it can. I mean, hell, by the time someone interviews with me they've already proven themselves with their resume, one colleague does a case interview and another does a behavioral. I just take the cultural part - is this person someone we want to spend 8-14 hours a day with, eat lunch with, get stuck in an airport with, etc. Facebook definitely comes into play there.
It's not enough that the person can do a good job, but we have to like the person and like doing the job with them. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| 8. |
Re: Morning Legal Briefs |
Apr 30, 2012, 12:40 |
Dmitri_M |
|
|
I don't have a FB account, only a Flickr page I update regularly. I'm very cautious what I put on there though. I'm a fairly private person to begin with so I'm naturally cautious about this sort of thing.
Being fired for something on your FB account isn't right. Though I don't think that's the issue, the reality is if you post compromising pictures which leaves a negative impression with an employer - they'll eventually find a way to twist it back on you. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| 7. |
Re: Morning Legal Briefs |
Apr 30, 2012, 12:39 |
Burrito of Peace |
|
|
Lord Tea wrote on Apr 30, 2012, 11:13:
"Bill banning employer Facebook snooping introduced in Congress"
who really cares? No one is forced to have a FB account.
NnnnngggggggGAH TOO MUCH STUPID!!!!!
Dude, it's not about Facebook, as has been stated above, it's about God damned time we reigned in corprofacists from fucking over citizens with data that has no bearing on the performance of the person doing their job.
My life is not for my employer's amusement. My job is for my life's amusement. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
26 Replies. 2 pages. Viewing page 1.
< Newer [ 1 2 ] Older >
|
|
Twitter 
