Facebook can cost you your job

[Cardinal Pizza Deliverance.]

I dunno. I agree with Doktor Howl. If you're going to display your retardation for all to see, employers should be allowed to factor that in. Other people are going to do the same. Part of getting a job is selling yourself as a valuable commodity that the employer should be all over like mice on peanut butter. Vomit-covered drunks aren't that valuable.

Someone has a bad night, someone else snaps a pic.

Beat them with a rat flail until they take it off the internet?

[BabylonHoruv]

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.

Firing someone for a difference in political views is illegal in the US, no matter how you found that information.  (falls under the creed part of nondiscrimination)

what about not hiring them in the first place?  I admit I don't know all of the law. Though I'm quite familiar with nondiscriminatory practices, they could just as easily find any other reason i.e. found a better candidate.

Florida is a right to work state, so employers can basically lay you off at will and that's usually stated in the offer of employment.  I suppose the burden of proof of discrimination would be like anywhere else, on the employee, but it's easier here to cut payroll.

And I was never for employers firing someone for something they found on facebook that wasn't illegal or against the company.  I think there should be a slide rule, HR could speak to the employee and explain how this would look to a client or reflects on the company and teach them about personal privacy in the internet age.  If other than the stupidity they posted, they perform their job in an exemplary manner, they shouldn't be let go.

They should be able to evaluate a person BEFORE they're hired using available means.  I mentioned credit checks being used, and they are.  How is facebook any different other than they aren't yet notifying a potential employee that they will use this method, like they do with a credit check?

You can't not hire someone for political views either, but trying to prove that was the reason would be really incredibly difficult.

[Don Coyote]

I dunno. I agree with Doktor Howl. If you're going to display your retardation for all to see, employers should be allowed to factor that in. Other people are going to do the same. Part of getting a job is selling yourself as a valuable commodity that the employer should be all over like mice on peanut butter. Vomit-covered drunks aren't that valuable.

That was depressing.  I got my job by lying my ass off.

I got mine by pretending to be enthusiastic and cheerful. So basically the same.

I got mine by subjecting myself a series of embarrassing medical exams, and then agreeing to be a bitch of the State.

[Adios]

I dunno. I agree with Doktor Howl. If you're going to display your retardation for all to see, employers should be allowed to factor that in. Other people are going to do the same. Part of getting a job is selling yourself as a valuable commodity that the employer should be all over like mice on peanut butter. Vomit-covered drunks aren't that valuable.

Someone has a bad night, someone else snaps a pic.

Beat them with a rat flail until they take it off the internet?

Too late. You have already labeled them as a vomit covered drunk that has no value.

[BabylonHoruv]

http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/world/2010/08/26/prism.social.media.work.cnn?hpt=C2

Germany so far is the only country taking steps to preventing potential employers from using social media to determine hiring practices.

I disagree with Germany.  If you're dumb enough to smear yourself IN PUBLIC, then an employer has the right to react to that.

And if somebody else with the same first and last name is dumb enough to do it, you should also suffer!

This actually happened to me.  I was fired from a job because someone else with my legal name (it's a really common name) did not show up for work.  They called me back a week later to apologize and offer me the job back but I had found something else by that point.

[Bruno]

Anything on the internet with my real name attached is designed to be seen by employers and other people whom I want to think that I am an upstanding citizen and shit.

I actually never use my real name unless absolutely necessary. My mailman probably thinks there are 30 different people living in my apartment.

My real first name isn't Jerry, BTW.

[Disco Pickle]

I dunno. I agree with Doktor Howl. If you're going to display your retardation for all to see, employers should be allowed to factor that in. Other people are going to do the same. Part of getting a job is selling yourself as a valuable commodity that the employer should be all over like mice on peanut butter. Vomit-covered drunks aren't that valuable.

Someone has a bad night, someone else snaps a pic.

you have complete control over the privacy of photos you're tagged in on FB.  Even if you're tagged on someone else's page, you can set it so that no one can see those photos.  I still say it's the person and willfull ignorance of facebook settings that should be to blame here, not an employer seeking an employee to fill a position.

Now if government is doing it..  cops..

[Adios]

I dunno. I agree with Doktor Howl. If you're going to display your retardation for all to see, employers should be allowed to factor that in. Other people are going to do the same. Part of getting a job is selling yourself as a valuable commodity that the employer should be all over like mice on peanut butter. Vomit-covered drunks aren't that valuable.

Someone has a bad night, someone else snaps a pic.

you have complete control over the privacy of photos you're tagged in on FB.  Even if you're tagged on someone else's page, you can set it so that no one can see those photos.  I still say it's the person and willfull ignorance of facebook settings that should be to blame here, not an employer seeking an employee to fill a position.

Now if government is doing it..  cops..

Honestly, I don't see the difference. Either I am qualified to do the job, or I'm not.

[Disco Pickle]

I dunno. I agree with Doktor Howl. If you're going to display your retardation for all to see, employers should be allowed to factor that in. Other people are going to do the same. Part of getting a job is selling yourself as a valuable commodity that the employer should be all over like mice on peanut butter. Vomit-covered drunks aren't that valuable.

Someone has a bad night, someone else snaps a pic.

you have complete control over the privacy of photos you're tagged in on FB.  Even if you're tagged on someone else's page, you can set it so that no one can see those photos.  I still say it's the person and willfull ignorance of facebook settings that should be to blame here, not an employer seeking an employee to fill a position.

Now if government is doing it..  cops..

Honestly, I don't see the difference. Either I am qualified to do the job, or I'm not.

you could have a masters in accounting and be have a CPA license, but if they run your credit and you have a ton of outstanding debt and a shit credit score (a little suspension of disbelief is required here, I know) they wouldn't hire you for an accounting position even though you were qualified.

Your personal accounting is what you do in your private life, that can affect whether you get a position with certain companies.

the manager at Burger King will probably hire you anyway  if you put pictures of yourself being a tool on Facebook.

I think it's perfectly acceptable for a company to have standards of conduct they use in evaluating whether someone will be a good fit.

I fail to see the difference in using a potential employee's bad judgement or lack of attention to detail that manifests as not having the forethought to cover their ass on the internet as a guage for deciding whether to hire them.

[Don Coyote]

"This person can't even keep their half naked drunken escapades off the net."
"Why would we want to hire this person. IF they are this careless with their personal life what are they going to do with our valuable company secrets?"
-application filed in the circular-

[Epimetheus]

I think it's perfectly acceptable for a company to have standards of conduct they use in evaluating whether someone will be a good fit.

I fail to see the difference in using a potential employee's bad judgement or lack of attention to detail that manifests as not having the forethought to cover their ass on the internet as a guage for deciding whether to hire them.

This, too.

[Adios]

I dunno. I agree with Doktor Howl. If you're going to display your retardation for all to see, employers should be allowed to factor that in. Other people are going to do the same. Part of getting a job is selling yourself as a valuable commodity that the employer should be all over like mice on peanut butter. Vomit-covered drunks aren't that valuable.

Someone has a bad night, someone else snaps a pic.

you have complete control over the privacy of photos you're tagged in on FB.  Even if you're tagged on someone else's page, you can set it so that no one can see those photos.  I still say it's the person and willfull ignorance of facebook settings that should be to blame here, not an employer seeking an employee to fill a position.

Now if government is doing it..  cops..

Honestly, I don't see the difference. Either I am qualified to do the job, or I'm not.

you could have a masters in accounting and be have a CPA license, but if they run your credit and you have a ton of outstanding debt and a shit credit score (a little suspension of disbelief is required here, I know) they wouldn't hire you for an accounting position even though you were qualified.

Your personal accounting is what you do in your private life, that can affect whether you get a position with certain companies.

the manager at Burger King will probably hire you anyway  if you put pictures of yourself being a tool on Facebook.

I think it's perfectly acceptable for a company to have standards of conduct they use in evaluating whether someone will be a good fit.

I fail to see the difference in using a potential employee's bad judgement or lack of attention to detail that manifests as not having the forethought to cover their ass on the internet as a guage for deciding whether to hire them.

Shall we agree to disagree?

[Cain]

Not to mention, they don't even need to say the word Facebook when they fire you.


It's pretty easy to mock up some crap about "productivity" or "performance" issues.  They may have fired you because they saw your tits on the internet, but the official documents will cite "a lack of productivity."

If you're firing someone for naked internet pics, you're doing it wrong.  You want to keep those people on, if only for the office parties.

[Disco Pickle]

I dunno. I agree with Doktor Howl. If you're going to display your retardation for all to see, employers should be allowed to factor that in. Other people are going to do the same. Part of getting a job is selling yourself as a valuable commodity that the employer should be all over like mice on peanut butter. Vomit-covered drunks aren't that valuable.

Someone has a bad night, someone else snaps a pic.

you have complete control over the privacy of photos you're tagged in on FB.  Even if you're tagged on someone else's page, you can set it so that no one can see those photos.  I still say it's the person and willfull ignorance of facebook settings that should be to blame here, not an employer seeking an employee to fill a position.

Now if government is doing it..  cops..

Honestly, I don't see the difference. Either I am qualified to do the job, or I'm not.

you could have a masters in accounting and be have a CPA license, but if they run your credit and you have a ton of outstanding debt and a shit credit score (a little suspension of disbelief is required here, I know) they wouldn't hire you for an accounting position even though you were qualified.

Your personal accounting is what you do in your private life, that can affect whether you get a position with certain companies.

the manager at Burger King will probably hire you anyway  if you put pictures of yourself being a tool on Facebook.

I think it's perfectly acceptable for a company to have standards of conduct they use in evaluating whether someone will be a good fit.

I fail to see the difference in using a potential employee's bad judgement or lack of attention to detail that manifests as not having the forethought to cover their ass on the internet as a guage for deciding whether to hire them.

Shall we agree to disagree?

I can agree with that.

[Jenne]

Not to mention, they don't even need to say the word Facebook when they fire you.


It's pretty easy to mock up some crap about "productivity" or "performance" issues.  They may have fired you because they saw your tits on the internet, but the official documents will cite "a lack of productivity."

If you're firing someone for naked internet pics, you're doing it wrong.  You want to keep those people on, if only for the office parties.