[Jack_]

Originally Posted by Omah

Yeah, cross-checking the personal profile on a CV against an applicant's social media profile can be quite revealing, in more ways than one .....

It can also be very damaging. Let's sack someone because they've posted a picture of their night out at the weekend on their own Facebook page! Let's sack them because they've told a joke I don't find funny on their own Twitter account! Yay for unfair dismissal! Yay for increases in unemployment! Yay for a curb of civil liberties! Yay!

[Omah]

Originally Posted by Jack_

It can also be very damaging. Let's sack someone because they've posted a picture of their night out at the weekend on their own Facebook page! Let's sack them because they've told a joke I don't find funny on their own Twitter account! Yay for unfair dismissal! Yay for increases in unemployment! Yay for a curb of civil liberties! Yay!

Anyone who places personal material in the public domain has only themselves to blame for the consequences (for better or for worse) .....

[Jack_]

Originally Posted by Omah

Anyone who places personal material in the public domain has only themselves to blame for the consequences (for better or for worse) .....

Yes, because that makes it acceptable. Let's curb free speech and expression and live in fear of unemployment for what we choose to do in our own personal leisure time. Fantastic idea there Omah, I'm sure it'll improve people's job satisfaction.

Once again you've bypassed all the points and just resorted to 'well that's the rules, I don't make the rules, accept the rules!!!'.

[Livia]

Originally Posted by Jack_

It can also be very damaging. Let's sack someone because they've posted a picture of their night out at the weekend on their own Facebook page! Let's sack them because they've told a joke I don't find funny on their own Twitter account! Yay for unfair dismissal! Yay for increases in unemployment! Yay for a curb of civil liberties! Yay!

If you've got ten applicants for one job, you're going to make sure you're going to choose the one who's not paralytic every weekend, who doesn't badmouth colleagues and throw sickies and then write about it on their Facebook page, which is in the public domain so is not, therefore, private. If someone's not bright enough to know that, I wouldn't want them working for me. If you're doing to demand free speech, you can't expect it to be considered private if it is in a public place. If you don't want people to read what you're saying, or look at your dodgy photos, sort out your privacy settings. It's that simple.

Yay for the most reliable and intelligent person for the job actually getting the job.

[AnnieK]

Originally Posted by Livia

If you've got ten applicants for one job, you're going to make sure you're going to choose the one who's not paralytic every weekend, who doesn't badmouth colleagues and throw sickies and then write about it on their Facebook page, which is in the public domain so is not, therefore, private. If someone's not bright enough to know that, I wouldn't want them working for me. If you're doing to demand free speech, you can't expect it to be considered private if it is in a public place. If you don't want people to read what you're saying, or look at your dodgy photos, sort out your privacy settings. It's that simple.

Yay for the most reliable and intelligent person for the job actually getting the job.

Totally agree. Companies, particularly small companies invest a lot in a new recruit so they have every right to research and make balanced judgements from available media in order safeguard their investment.

[Jack_]

Originally Posted by Livia

If you've got ten applicants for one job, you're going to make sure you're going to choose the one who's not paralytic every weekend, who doesn't badmouth colleagues and throw sickies and then write about it on their Facebook page, which is in the public domain so is not, therefore, private. If someone's not bright enough to know that, I wouldn't want them working for me. If you're doing to demand free speech, you can't expect it to be considered private if it is in a public place. If you don't want people to read what you're saying, or look at your dodgy photos, sort out your privacy settings. It's that simple.

Yay for the most reliable and intelligent person for the job actually getting the job.

First of all I want to make a distinction between those with a publicly open Facebook profile and those with privacy settings turned on. Whilst I still don't agree with using people's personal lives as means of picking a suitable employee for those with publicly open profiles, I have much less sympathy than those who have private profiles yet somehow still end up feeling the repercussions of what should be their personal free leisure time. This does happen I believe, I'm sure I have read and heard stories of highly trained IT professionals being employed by companies and universities to bypass security settings on social networking sites in order to spy on potential candidates/existing workers. That, as far as I'm concerned, is totally out of order.

I also don't agree with this supposed correlation between going out and getting paralytic and being unreliable or unsuitable for work. Plenty of people are more than capable of turning up Monday to Friday, working 9 until 5 to the best of their abilities and to the satisfaction of their employers, and then going out on the town on Friday night getting absolutely wasted and off their face, before returning to work on Monday right as reign as if nothing has happened. This assumption (and that's all it is) by employers, and indeed anyone else who believes so, that having wild nights out on the tiles in people's leisure time, that they are entitled to spend as they wish, means that they won't be suitable for a job is just insulting.

If people are slogging it all week, they deserve a break, and are perfectly entitled to spend that break as they wish. I do not see how it is the business of anyone else but their own, so long as they still perform well day-to-day in their job. They also deserve not to be judged on, or have assumptions made from actions which are totally of no relevance to their bosses.

[Joseline]

Someone tumblred my pussy, never been more popular.

[Black Dagger]

So will I never have a job now because on Twitter I have the tendancy to tell people to die in arguments

[Me. I Am Salman]

I should stop threatening celebrities on Twitter

[Black Dagger]

Originally Posted by Salman!

I should stop threatening celebrities on Twitter

When you told that Daily Star journalist to fall down a well

[Kizzy]

And always remember...BIG BROTHER IS WATCHING YOU!

[Ramsay]

Jack is right

[Tom4784]

If you're stupid enough to throw a sicky and then post about it on Facebook then you deserve to be sacked for being a ****ing moron.

I don't see the benefit of having your profile enabled for public viewing, It's just asking for it to be used against you and there's no benefits for you in the long run.

[KingBilly]

If I ever want to follow my porn dreams I should stop.

[MTVN]

Think I have my Facebook on private so should have nothing to worry about, they mess around with their settings so much I'm never really sure though

Heard quite a bit about these University Confession pages that have popped up on FB last few months could damage your prospects as well, our Uni had our one taken down

[the truth]

how do u a ctually closae a facebook account?

[Ninastar]

fair enough I think

more so because I work with kids though. I have to be careful with what I say on facebook about work because anyone can find it really. People can comment on that status and they might be friends with someone who goes to the nursery, so they can end up seeing it and getting upset etc...

[Ninastar]

Also, Livia once again

[Niall]

I'm in two minds over all this. I mean, I can understand the whole sacking of people that slate colleagues or post about sickies etc on social media, but I don't really like the idea of basing a decision on who gets the job over how dubious their posts are. It sounds a bit too judgemental. (But then again, all that can be easily avoided if you use the proper privacy settings (which the vast majority of morons do not).)

If they started checking to see if people have Tumblr and what their posts are like on there though then I would be royally screwed however so I'm just glad that isn't happening just yet.

[InOne]

http://www.lamebook.com/fired-via-facebook/

Classic example of idiocy if it's real.

[Omah]

Originally Posted by InOne

http://www.lamebook.com/fired-via-facebook/

Classic example of idiocy if it's real.

Love it .....

[Omah]

huffingtonpost.co.uk - January 25, 2013

A huge 91% of employers use LinkedIn, Twitter and Facebook to screen candidates. A further:
• 13% rejected a candidate because they lied about their qualifications
• 11% rejected a candidate because they posted inappropriate comments
• The same amount rejected a candidate because they posted inappropriate photos, with another 11% rejecting applicants because of posting negative comments about a previous employer
• 10% were rejected for posting content about them using drugs, while 9% were rejected for posting content about them drinking

With so many applicants for jobs, posting any of the above (even with privacy control) is foolhardy in the extreme.

[Jack_]

Originally Posted by Livia

I take it from all you've said that you're not actually an employer, and haven't been for that many job interviews recently.

I don't know anything about getting people to hack into accounts to get information. That's not what we're discussing here and it is, as far as I know, illegal.

It's an employers market. If an employer has to choose between a load of applicants then those applicants will be judged on a whole host of things: what they wear, what they say, their personal grooming, how they present themselves, how they sit in the in interview, eye contact, what's on their CV... and what's publicly available to view on their Facebook page.

If you were going to pay someone to work for you, I think you'd probably want to employ someone who is most likely to turn up on Monday morning and not have the rest of the staff pick up the slack when they're inevitably too hung over to come to work. That would be my assumption if there were lots of drunken pictures and silly comments available for the whole world to access. If you're going to demand freedom of speech, don't expect not to be judged on it.

Not entirely sure what relevance that has to my argument or indeed how it would devalue it in any way regardless of the answer.

And again, yet more assumptions. Just because someone goes out at the weekend and gets absolutely batfaced it does not necessarily have any correlation with their work related performance. People are perfectly able to separate the two and have been doing for many years, just because social networking sites have now come along and given employers yet another avenue by which to judge, outcast and make assumptions on you that doesn't suddenly mean that someone can't have wild weekends yet be Employee of the Month. It's all assumptions and it's grossly unfair.

If and when an employee turned up to work hungover, drunk, or their performance began to slip, then perhaps their personal life could be brought to task and disciplinary action could be handed out, just as before. Second-guessing what potential employees might do, or sacking people for having a good time on their weekend off is just of order.

Originally Posted by Omah

huffingtonpost.co.uk - January 25, 2013



With so many applicants for jobs, posting any of the above (even with privacy control) is foolhardy in the extreme.

Don't you just love youth unemployment and things which make it worse

[Livia]

Originally Posted by Jack_

Not entirely sure what relevance that has to my argument or indeed how it would devalue it in any way regardless of the answer.

And again, yet more assumptions. Just because someone goes out at the weekend and gets absolutely batfaced it does not necessarily have any correlation with their work related performance. People are perfectly able to separate the two and have been doing for many years, just because social networking sites have now come along and given employers yet another avenue by which to judge, outcast and make assumptions on you that doesn't suddenly mean that someone can't have wild weekends yet be Employee of the Month. It's all assumptions and it's grossly unfair.

If and when an employee turned up to work hungover, drunk, or their performance began to slip, then perhaps their personal life could be brought to task and disciplinary action could be handed out, just as before. Second-guessing what potential employees might do, or sacking people for having a good time on their weekend off is just of order.

Well actually, you not being an employer or someone who has been for many interviews recently is extremely relevant to the issue. Of course you can still have an opinion, but it'd be like you coming on here getting all outraged about changes to the MOT when you don't own a car.

You do not have a right to a job. If youth unemployment is a huge issue for you, you should be thinking about the ways to impress an employer, not expect him make exceptions for you because you can't control yourself (I obviously don't mean you personally here...). If you want the job, put your settings on private. If you don't mind the world seeing what you're up to... leave your privacy settings as they are, but don't moan when people look at your page to see what kind of person you are, what kind of character you have and whether they want to pay you to represent their company. If they want to go out at the weekend and "get totally batfaced" then that's their choice. If they're smart they won't write about it on Facebook or it'll come back to bite them on the arse. As I said before, if you want free speech, you have to take the downside too.

Ninastar mentions she works with children and she is fully aware she would have to be careful about what she puts on Facebook. That's because she's smart. She didn't say that she's going to live her whole life being an angel. (although obviously... you are Ninastar).

Once someone's employed there's a whole raft of laws protecting them. It's much easier to weed out the potential problems before you start paying them money every month and save yourself the trouble of disciplinary panels, warnings and ultimately a tribunal. Employ the best person for the job at the start and use every tool available to make your choice.

[Jack_]

Originally Posted by Livia

Well actually, you not being an employer or someone who has been for many interviews recently is extremely relevant to the issue. Of course you can still have an opinion, but it'd be like you coming on here getting all outraged about changes to the MOT when you don't own a car.

You do not have a right to a job. If youth unemployment is a huge issue for you, you should be thinking about the ways to impress an employer, not expect him make exceptions for you because you can't control yourself (I obviously don't mean you personally here...). If you want the job, put your settings on private. If you don't mind the world seeing what you're up to... leave your privacy settings as they are, but don't moan when people look at your page to see what kind of person you are, what kind of character you have and whether they want to pay you to represent their company. If they want to go out at the weekend and "get totally batfaced" then that's their choice. If they're smart they won't write about it on Facebook or it'll come back to bite them on the arse. As I said before, if you want free speech, you have to take the downside too.

Ninastar mentions she works with children and she is fully aware she would have to be careful about what she puts on Facebook. That's because she's smart. She didn't say that she's going to live her whole life being an angel. (although obviously... you are Ninastar).

Once someone's employed there's a whole raft of laws protecting them. It's much easier to weed out the potential problems before you start paying them money every month and save yourself the trouble of disciplinary panels, warnings and ultimately a tribunal. Employ the best person for the job at the start and use every tool available to make your choice.

I guess then that begs the question, if having little experience of something invalidates your opinion, why is it that MP's are so often commenting on and making policies for people that they have absolutely no contact and experiences with? If the people running this country are going to pass judgement on things they have next to no experience of, I may as well myself. That's also like saying a straight person's opinion on gay marriage isn't as valid as they aren't gay themselves and so couldn't fully understand.

I never said anyone has a right to a job, but hey, surely it's better for everyone to be in one, no? If we're just going to go about sacking people willy nilly and putting more power in the hands of employers, organisations and the market, especially when there's unemployment problems in this country, then as long as tax payers are happy footing the bill for their welfare support, I'm all for it. Sack people or refuse people jobs for posting questionable material on their personal online profiles all you want, but you're only going to give yourself more problems in the end.

On the point of employers looking at your Facebook page to see who 'you really are', I refer you to a post I made a bit earlier in the thread about how I question whether social networking sites actually are an accurate representation of one's true self, character and personality, for better or worse. I'm not entirely convinced a few static images and lines of text on a web page can truly reflect what somebody is like as a person in real life, or, more importantly - an employee.