If you're looking for a job, delete your Facebook account

[ex]

This is why:

http://www.allfacebook.com/facebook-password-2012-03

[soh]

Next thing you know EMPLOYERS are going to want our passwords to our email accounts.

[fdrjk]

If you don't want something to be seen by your employer in the first place, don't fucking put it on the internet FOR EVERYONE TO SEE.

[ex]

If you don't want something to be seen by your employer in the first place, don't fucking put it on the internet FOR EVERYONE TO SEE.

That's just the problem though.  With this ability, not only will employers be able to admin your account, but also look under and see every friend you have under your account, and research their account with the full availability as if the employer was YOU.  Basically, it's big brother going haywire.

[Arm0r]

Or you could say you don't have a facebook, make your account private and unsearchable during ur application process.    OR you could tell the employer to get fucked and apply somewhere that doesn't support this bullshit.

[peewee_RotA]

Or you could say you don't have a facebook, make your account private and unsearchable during ur application process.    OR you could tell the employer to get fucked and apply somewhere that doesn't support this bullshit.

QFT

I think this is really going to bite those companies in the end. They may use it now as a "tool" to select applicants, but once the best applicants wise up, they'll just take all of their skills to a competitor. People should really start recording these kinds of requests and posting them to a website. Force any company that would do this to make a public apology. (but it will still drive away the best talent regardless lol)


However, when I first heard this story on the wall street journal radio program I assumed it couldn't be true. I think it's far more likely that the people asking for this are trying to commit some kind of fraud. "Give us your password so we can fix your ebay account" is what first pops into my mind.

[The Happy Friar]

I don't use facefeces or twatter, but they already can do a fingerprint check, a credit report, have access to your SSN,  background check, previous employer check, reference check, name, address, phone number, e-mail, etc.   They already have everything they need to assume your identity.  Once  you sign up for the job you'll be a total dip-tart and give your our facefeces/twatter name to all your coworkers, they'll use it on work computers, the employer has the right to see what you're doing with their computer equipment and they'll see you trying to hump that dog at the labor day parade.

Solution is to not post stuff online you don't want others to see.

[yahoo]

Its one of the consequences where someone just doesnt think of what they will be putting out in public. Hey its ok to have a facebook, twitter or whatever social networking account but you should also think what you will be posting.

If I am an employer, its normal that I would also like to know more about a person I am considering to hire. For sure, I would stay away from hiring someone who bitches about their previous or present employer.

[peewee_RotA]

If I am an employer, its normal that I would also like to know more about a person I am considering to hire. For sure, I would stay away from hiring someone who bitches about their previous or present employer.

I think there's a difference between doing that at work vs. not at work. Someone who drives the morale down by doing it at work bothers me. In fact I also try to never badmouth a former employer in private except in extreme cases. For example one employer (5 years ago) asked me to do something that would probably had their current insurance company pull coverage had I reported it. I joked about that last night.

What someone does outside of work, even in a public forum, I think is still off limits unless it's an obvious risk for the company. I wouldn't agree with not hiring someone just because he has been to an "occupy" rally. But I would agree with not hiring someone who is a regular at westboro baptist church protests.

[The Happy Friar]

A simple solution would be to give your facefeces/twatter/etc. name on the application, just like your cell phone & e-mail.  Then the employer can go look it up.  Nothing private about that, it's no more private then your e-mail, etc.  Then you just make one up for work (like an e-mail that's just for business).   While I'm against giving away personal information unnecessarily, if I were an employer I'd want to know who I'm hiring.  People just don't want employers to know anything about their personal time because employes (wrongly) assume that when they're not at work anything they do doesn't have an impact at their job.  Once you're hired somewhere & people know they connect you with the job you have.  If someone working at Microsoft uses an Apple computer at home, that's a bad image for the company.  Car manufactures have an easily see-able lot where only employes with cars made by the manufacture can part, all other car makes & models are out of sight.

I wouldn't agree with not hiring someone just because he has been to an "occupy" rally. But I would agree with not hiring someone who is a regular at westboro baptist church protests.

Both are legal though and one has had it's members caught steeling, vandalizing, disobeying direct police orders.  The other is highly distasteful and disrespectful.  What someone does on their free time shows their character and moral standing.

[peewee_RotA]

Both are legal though and one has had it's members caught steeling, vandalizing, disobeying direct police orders.  The other is highly distasteful and disrespectful.  What someone does on their free time shows their character and moral standing.

I don't think any of this should be illegal. It's even less the governments business than it is business' business. I just think it's wrong and that participants of the job market should react to it.

...

Oh no, not THOSE participant of Occupy. Those stinky hippies will never have a job anyway.

...

Is it right for an employer to visit your church and start asking your church members about you? Is it right for an employer to follow you in a car to see how you drive or where you shop? This is where we start to tread into this area:
http://www.pennlive.com/midstate/index.ssf/2010/01/western_pennsylvania_teacher_s.html

[The Happy Friar]

Oh no, not THOSE participant of Occupy. Those stinky hippies will never have a job anyway.

In the era where PETA members purposely get hired at a company to find something to cause an investigation it's conceivable that an occupy protestor could do the same thing.  Also, would a for-profit company be comfortable with someone protesting them handling their profits the way they see fit to be working in their offices?  It's like a hippie protesting outside a military base in the 60's & 70's then saying they're being discriminated against when they apply for a job there. 

Is it right for an employer to visit your church and start asking your church members about you? Is it right for an employer to follow you in a car to see how you drive or where you shop? This is where we start to tread into this area:

A) Wouldn't a church member be a personal reference?    When I applied for the USPS I had to complete a driving test with a USPS employe in the car with me.  Lots of companies (and I know almost all public schools) have a moral clause in their contract.  The teacher did something that violated the clause, she got disciplined.  The solution would of been to not violate the contract you signed to get the job. 

However, if you're being hired to be a stripper then I'd consider that job research. 

[peewee_RotA]

In the era where PETA members purposely get hired at a company to find something to cause an investigation it's conceivable that an occupy protestor

Alright alright. I meant to use Tea Party in my first example, but I wanted to pick something on the other side of the fence so that people wouldn't have a crazy knee jerk reaction.

...

The teacher didn't do anything publicly to violate any code. Plus, if I remember the case correctly, there was no code to violate. She committed no action that caused the problem. Somebody else posted a picture.

Here's the results:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/08/17/facebook-stripper-photo-c_0_n_685095.html

Bachelorette parties are a normal part of society. Forbidding a woman from hosting one or visiting one is just ridiculous. No employer, government or not, would survive the legal storm of codifying something like that into the rules. Which is why they caved and paid out without even being sued.


As for driving for schoolbus or deliveries, that's part of the job. It's the same as a programmer doing a technical interview or a graphic artist keeping a portfolio. The work itself is the company's business. That's also something performed during the interview process, or before the process for the sake of the interview itself. It's in no way a part of that person's personal life.

[The Happy Friar]

If something is posted in public then it's public.  Facebook is pretty public unless you tell it otherwise.   Look at is this way, how are the parents & kids going to see the teacher now?  As teacher A or B?  Come on, be honest.   

The reason schools cave is because a lawsuit is millions of dollars.  They don't want to take the risk even if they're 99% right.  When they do it's never a good thing for them as, no matter what, they're going to piss a lot of people off.  Also she never contested the punishment (according to the article), the ACLU did it on their own.

I also never said there couldn't be bachelorette parties shouldn't be allowed, but that a specific job where image is important normally requires you to keep that image as best as possible.  Just like teachers shouldn't be posting with strippers, mailmen shouldn't be throwing mail in the river, paramedics shouldn't be seen playing cards on a corpse, firemen shouldn't be playing with torches and gas can's, etc.

[|iR|Focalor]

It's simple. DON'T USE FACEBOOK. If someone needs to talk to you, they can email you or call you on the phone or, GASP, talk to you in person. Seriously, a bunch of idiots go volunteering to use a medium that keeps track of EVERYTHING you say in a public setting, and then they expect it to be "private". If you want certain things about your life to be "private", then DO NOT talk about it. But no one can do something that simple anymore. No, everyone has to show their "pride" in whatever lifestyle or heritage to the point that EVERYONE MUST SEE IT, KNOW ABOUT IT, RECOGNIZE IT, AND GIVE IT A NOD OF APPROVAL!

I'm not supporting the idea that an employer should have the right to access your personal "e-property". I think it's going overboard... but on the other hand I can understand completely why they might want to. Hiring you makes you a representative of whatever image or message the company wishes to convey. Furthermore, the company can be liable for things that you do while on the job. With the way everyone is so sue-happy these days, they must take every step they can to protect their interests.