Facebook can cost you your job

[Don Coyote]

I don't use facebook at all.  I get all the stalkers I need, right here at PD.

Upside:  Bosses can't easily find my shit.

Downside:  I don't know how to play farmville.  

I don't see...

[Adios]

Well, from a different viewpoint, what about what you say and do on your own time? Should your employer have the right to monitor your personal life and make job determinations based on it?

YOU ARE NEVER OFF THE COMPANY CLOCK.  YOUR TIME BELONGS TO THE COMPANY.  THOSE FOUND COMPLAINING WILL HAVE THEIR EMPLOYMENT TERMINATED.

THIS IS FOR YOUR OWN GOOD.  TRUST THE COMPANY.

THIS

[East Coast Hustle]

At first blush, and without giving it deep consideration, on a personal level I would tend to disagree with firing an employee based on something on their FB page that had nothing to do with their job, but am totally fine with not hiring someone to begin with because of something they've made publicly available on the internet.

[Doktor Howl]

At first blush, and without giving it deep consideration, on a personal level I would tend to disagree with firing an employee based on something on their FB page that had nothing to do with their job, but am totally fine with not hiring someone to begin with because of something they've made publicly available on the internet.

I could agree with that.

[Thurnez Isa]

It is?  The first amendment only protects you from government punishment for speech, not social consequences.

I can't believe I agree with you so much, but yes, yes, yes. This is the same concept as with Dr. Laura when she said "nigger" on the radio while talking to a black woman and making other borderline racist comments, and people got mad at her. She said her constitutional rights were violated, but she's full of shit. People can judge people as they want, it's their constitutional right.

The difference there is advertisers where involved.

The difference is made up by the fact that you represent your employer as someone they deemed worthy to hire.

She quit. She was not fired. Advertisers where pulling out. And I don't know the details of her contract, if she even had one.
Also her opinions, as a radio host, are actually THE job. The way she interacted with the public mattered. It is not the same as someone working in a grocery store, or doing tech work.

[Bebek Sincap Ratatosk]

This is all good stuff, I think it boils down to (at least here in the states): You are free to Speak as you will, but you are responsible for the results of that speech. If posting pics of you being trashed or hitting a bong is 'speech' and you make it public... then an employer can hold you responsible for that 'speech'.

Now, in my opinion, this is just the natural extension of workplace intrusion into private lives that begins with the pee test and ends... well who knows where but at this point some employers are embedding RFID tags in their employees.

Until everyone says "Uhh... No." this will continue.

[NWC]

She quit. She was not fired. Advertisers where pulling out. And I don't know the details of her contract, if she even had one.
Also her opinions, as a radio host, are actually THE job. The way she interacted with the public mattered. It is not the same as someone working in a grocery store, or doing tech work.

Depends on the job, it's not a black and white issue, and you're certainly right in some cases. But a grocery store clerk who makes 'off' comments and makes people feel uncomfortable won't be around too long, he reflects poorly on the business, and he is interacting with the public.

[Richter]

LMNO: ::

I don't talk work on the internet for this reason.  Everything's wired too.  The wall IS an ear.
HR folks I know outside of work say they always look for web - presence associated with your name.  Having some general presence is a good thing, but a myspace full of deviancy, illegal acts, substance use, and "Korn" playing in the background will not reflect well.

I also keep meaning to make a "professional" facebook account.  Full name, for work friends, connections, etc., need to get on that.

[Doktor Howl]

This is all good stuff, I think it boils down to (at least here in the states): You are free to Speak as you will, but you are responsible for the results of that speech. If posting pics of you being trashed or hitting a bong is 'speech' and you make it public... then an employer can hold you responsible for that 'speech'.

Now, in my opinion, this is just the natural extension of workplace intrusion into private lives that begins with the pee test and ends... well who knows where but at this point some employers are embedding RFID tags in their employees.

Until everyone says "Uhh... No." this will continue.

I was told before I hired on that piss tests were mandatory.  This is a chemical refinery inside city limits, after all.

I agreed to that at the time of my hiring, so it is not an intrusion into my life.

[East Coast Hustle]

I also keep meaning to make a "professional" facebook account.  Full name, for work friends, connections, etc., need to get on that.

that's what LinkedIn is for.

[Adios]

This is all good stuff, I think it boils down to (at least here in the states): You are free to Speak as you will, but you are responsible for the results of that speech. If posting pics of you being trashed or hitting a bong is 'speech' and you make it public... then an employer can hold you responsible for that 'speech'.

Now, in my opinion, this is just the natural extension of workplace intrusion into private lives that begins with the pee test and ends... well who knows where but at this point some employers are embedding RFID tags in their employees.

Until everyone says "Uhh... No." this will continue.

I was told before I hired on that piss tests were mandatory.  This is a chemical refinery inside city limits, after all.

I agreed to that at the time of my hiring, so it is not an intrusion into my life.

This I agree with, it was made a condition of employment up front.

[Bebek Sincap Ratatosk]

This is all good stuff, I think it boils down to (at least here in the states): You are free to Speak as you will, but you are responsible for the results of that speech. If posting pics of you being trashed or hitting a bong is 'speech' and you make it public... then an employer can hold you responsible for that 'speech'.

Now, in my opinion, this is just the natural extension of workplace intrusion into private lives that begins with the pee test and ends... well who knows where but at this point some employers are embedding RFID tags in their employees.

Until everyone says "Uhh... No." this will continue.

I was told before I hired on that piss tests were mandatory.  This is a chemical refinery inside city limits, after all.

I agreed to that at the time of my hiring, so it is not an intrusion into my life.

It's an intrusion that you accepted... but its still an intrusion. I'm not saying that you can't agree to be intruded upon. There is a company in central Ohio that doesn't let any of their employees use tobacco. Everyone agrees to it. However, its still an intrusion into their off work time... and they just make baskets.

I mean, how long, do you think, before "WE CAN FIRE YOU FOR YOUR INTERNETZ" is included in every hiring agreement? Which we'll of course all agree to... or be homeless.

[LMNO]

I don't talk about my job on the internet because it's really fucking boring.  Who wants to hear about Section 38a-1 of the SEC code all day?

[Disco Pickle]

I guess I am on the other side of this. I like to post political issues on facebook. If an employer has a differing viewpoint them I am either disqualified or fired.

Freedom of speech squished.

I can't agree that this is a freedom of speech issue, as no one is silencing your opinion. Now,the hiring manager MAY disagree with your view, or your views may conflict with the philosophy of the company culture and effect how well you'll fit in, which I think is a valid consideration since you'll be spending at least 8 hours a day around this person.  Also, if you're that vocal politically on your facebook, whats to say you wont be striking up politically charged conversations in the break room?  I rage whenever someone at work starts giving me their take on the latest hot topic coming out of washington or my state government.  If I wanted to hear and talk about that shit, I'll go to a website or rally or some such shit.  I'm at work to do the companies business.

Also, the way you behave in toto reflects on your company.  You might end up being involved with clients and customers.  Nothing stops THEM from looking you up on facebook and seeing that you're a complete asshat, and the fact that the company they're doing business with would hire someone who doesn't even know how to set their facebook to private reflects on the company.

If credit checks are a valid way to see how someone manages their own finances before you put them in charge of a companies, then what you're stupid enough to put on the internets should be able to be used to determine just how much of a fuckup you could potentially be at your job.

What's to say I will?

See, what this opinion is setting up (to me) is allowing companies to control your private life. As long as, when I am at work, I am doing my job and not causing trouble, then IMO what I do in my offtime is not any business of the company.

Of course there are going to be exceptions. If I said on fb that my company sucked and my boss was a prick, then it may need to be looked at, for instance.

YOU control your private life and how much of it you share with the world.  I don't take pictures of myself doing the stupid shit I do, so the only people that find out about it are the people stupid enough to do it with me.  

a company controls who it wants to bring into its culture and pay to do a job.  It's an area of Risk Management, and you'll find HR and Risk Management people think the same way, and may even share departments.  An employee is an asset.  The company will spend money to train you and groom you to do the job they need done.  In this regard, they need to choose the best person they can based on available information.

and really, even the small part of me that says this IS a little discriminatory based on what would normally be private info, I go back to things like references for instance: say you give a personal reference, they call the person but turns out the person you gave has a grudge you don't know about and dishes on some stupid shit you do in your down time.  A hiring manager will consider that when deciding to hire you.

If you put the information out there, expect people to look at it.  If you want your private life to be private, don't put it on the public internet.

[Thurnez Isa]

She quit. She was not fired. Advertisers where pulling out. And I don't know the details of her contract, if she even had one.
Also her opinions, as a radio host, are actually THE job. The way she interacted with the public mattered. It is not the same as someone working in a grocery store, or doing tech work.

Depends on the job, it's not a black and white issue, and you're certainly right in some cases. But a grocery store clerk who makes 'off' comments and makes people feel uncomfortable won't be around too long, he reflects poorly on the business, and he is interacting with the public.

A lot of dismissals I was involved in, in fact all I was personally involved in, was wrongful.
When you get a job you should get copies of your contract and go over it with a fine comb. Cause you have lots of rights as a worker, but there no one but YOU stand up for them. I could tell you from personal experience even your union half the time wont do anything to help you unless you make a fuss.