Skip to main content

Employers pre-scan your name on Facebook, to determine whether or not they will hire you. Science Daily covered the release of study results that delved into this most interesting and disturbing question.

Your inappropriate Facebook profile, posts and photos could lose you your next job, according to an in-depth study of employers from six different industries. Science Daily
Now would someone like to make a list of behaviors in photos, that constitute "Inappropriate". Because that is quite a departure from behavior that would be deemed *Unlawful.

This is how the plutocracy will eventually have a profound chilling effect on American Freedom of Expression.

Basically Americans are "free" to get paid, as long as they toe the line of the person scanning their social media.

Now I don't have an facebook account, but thanks to the Aurora Colo, massacre perp, who incidentally, *also didn't have a large online presence, that too is now considered a questionable trait. A notion that was brought up in conversations past in similar diary entries, oddly enough.

If you are on, don't show anything some random person might believe is inappropriate, but don't be absent, because that could be the sign that you are a *dangerous deviant, as opposed to a simply, embarrassing one.

Wow. Talk about molding and shaping.

There have, of course, been numerous celebrated instances of a person's Facebook activity allegedly leading to summary dismissal because it was perceived as compromising the integrity of their employer and their company brand. Ibid
Maybe sometimes it might be compromising, but where does that interlock with protected speech? Should employers now hold the powers that Churches held during the Elizabethan era over the social lives and social viability of citizens?
"While employers are using Facebook to monitor their employees, they have also begun to use it as a screening tool when considering potential candidates," says de la Llama and colleagues, "Because this is a fairly new trend, a standardized set of guidelines has yet to be established, with employers often assessing job applicants in a subjective manner. Ibid"
Subjective is not a good word to use in a situation that is supposed to be the very paragon of objectivity, ethics and fairness.

This last block quote indicates that subjectivity could revolve around issues that are not supposed to be used when screening job applicants, such as race, religion, gender, pregnancy status, political affiliation or speech, nationality or creed, and no doubt in some cases, sexual orientation.

Employers should be restricted to using resumes and interviews for their hiring practices.

Background checks should be restricted to legal records such as arrests, or convictions etc.,

 They have no business poking their long, unnecessary noses into the private lives of law abiding citizens.

Or do we have to start reversing this trend and looking up the interviewers on social media and bringing our own dossiers of damning inappropriate evidence?

The notion of *Inappropriate could cover a lot of things.

Did you mix plaid with stripes? How you do you hair? Do you have a lazy eye? Were you caught with a beer in your hand? A risque or tasteless Halloween costume? Did you ever participate in what you [subjectively] thought was a righteous rant? Share a personal experience online? Over share? Perhaps you are not the right color, or too fat, or in a wheel chair, or you have a photo of you hunting. Maybe you went to Burning Man or Comic-Con--in character! Did you ever confess to being a victim of a violent crime? Or discuss your medical conditions online?

GASP!   You Cad!

Well it's a life sentence for you! No more employment, you will never work in this town again! Perhaps these employers should dig up Joseph McCarthy and reanimate his corpse, so they can have the benefit of his expertise in the matter of arbitrarily blackballing citizens from a decent living while violating their rights and scaring them shitless with the threat of a lifetime of poverty regardless of past accomplishments, or expertise.  

Only this time we can call it the House-of-Unemployable-Citizens. Your private life is now put on trial to see if you are worthy to lick the boots of a burgeoning plutocracy.

In the mean time I leave you with this rather salient music video regarding patriotism and weirdos.

The point isn't to protect the business from weirdos. Ultimately what this does is force conformity on individuals using *implied and direct threats. Corporate Micro-Management of your very life, right down to who you talk to online, when and how and what you claim to like, this is a direct threat to personal authenticity. In addition to that, political activism online has been a huge thorn in the side of the parties and the corporations. Using the internet to monitor our activities and then reward or punish us with professional prestige and a pay check, based on their desires is awfully convenient.

Lines are being set up here. Will you fit in?

The thing I am most interested in, is when you get sick of this, will you be willing to create a new separation clause? One that creates a Wall of Separation between Corporation and State?

Companies wouldn't be so bold, if they didn't feel that our federal government has indicated that they--the corporate powers can act any old way they want to, with impunity.

With this topic, it doesn't matter if you are on the left or on the right. What matters is how your personal activities please and comfort whomever is interviewing you for a job, or how those activities conform with the unofficial, corporate policies with regards to "proper individual comportment," in your off time.

Originally posted to GreenMother on Wed Jul 25, 2012 at 06:27 PM PDT.

Also republished by Community Spotlight.


Your Future Boss Should Have :

2%6 votes
97%204 votes

| 210 votes | Vote | Results

Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags


More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Tip Jar (126+ / 0-)
  •  I am honestly not sure of a good answer here. (27+ / 0-)

    On the one hand, I agree that one's private life should be one's own, yes. But what are the practical measures that could possibly be taken to stop that, beyond the one everyone has - privacy settings? By the same token, companies have always cared what their employees do - a bad reputation with an especially swift currency could always be considered a "distraction" or some other such. If someone makes a lot of waves online and they can be easily tied back to their company, that could be bad for the corporation.

    The only hard line that can be drawn easily, I'd say, is that lack of presence or unwillingness to "friend" your employers should never ever become factors. I don't use any social media system really; I use a facebook almost entirely for commenting at news sites, and I accept that I'm gonna have a hard time getting hired by any particularly right-wing employers. If I don't let them snoop in my account, that shouldn't be an issue.

    I'm more concerned with corporate astroturfing via social media - there's no privacy setting that can cut that out. Though that's a side issue for this diary.

      •  Public Squares Are Not Databases. (36+ / 0-)

        Even Mal*Wart would go broke scanning the nation's public squares to monitor and analyze their employees' activities.

        There is no analogue to facebook in our cultural traditions.

        We are called to speak for the weak, for the voiceless, for victims of our nation and for those it calls enemy.... --ML King "Beyond Vietnam"

        by Gooserock on Wed Jul 25, 2012 at 06:56:36 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  And if you dare not use it, (27+ / 0-)

          you are suspect. There are more than a few fields where not having a Facebook account automatically disqualifies you from being hired, but you wouldn't know that unless you were chummy with the HR folks.

          I have a facebook and linkedin and use them almost entirely for the purposes of creating the illusion of a "normal" person with a "normal" and healthy social life with work experience and "friended" former bosses and co-workers.

          We are falling into a bit of an abyss I fear.

          •  ....Shudder..... (12+ / 0-)

            Figures don't lie, but liars do figure-Mark Twain

            by OregonOak on Wed Jul 25, 2012 at 08:38:52 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  The Illusion of Normal? I apologize if I entirely (19+ / 0-)

            reject any given corporation's ability or authority to determine "Normalcy". I also reject the authority of churches or political parties to do the same.

            Those are not good places to look to, for objective notions of normal or healthiness.

            Paycheck, power, prestige.

            That's not about normalcy, that is about conspicuous consumption and politics--plain and simple.

            If those were good places to find definitive normalcy, somehow I doubt the 2008 crash would have happened, and our current crop of political candidates might actually be worth something other than a lobbyist's shriveled soul.

            •  "Normalcy" very closely matches "privileged" (8+ / 0-)

              ... in the minds of a lot of "job creators".

              Look at the portrait of the person a lot of us hold up as an exemplar of social skill and emotional intelligence. More often than not, it's a privileged person who happily dedicates their life and career upholding the status quo. Because discontent with the way things are is a sign of low EQ.

              Also, "confidence". How many people have not been hired because they didn't exude sufficient confidence? Well, I'll tell you what the "confident" person looks and feels like. It's a person with enough dough burning a hole in their pocket at any given time, to afford the personal and image upkeep.

              It's a sneaky way to discriminate against the middle and working classes-- by painting us as not willing to make the investment in ourselves.

              Real Democrats don't abandon the middle class. --John Kerry

              by Lucy Montrose on Thu Jul 26, 2012 at 09:38:16 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

          •  I think that's (4+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Nulwee, sockpuppet, fuzzyguy, sb

            the smart way to use them.

            We decided to move the center farther to the right by starting the whole debate from a far-right position to begin with. - Former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay

            by denise b on Wed Jul 25, 2012 at 10:09:38 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  The Russians typically have two fb accounts: (9+ / 0-)

            one for the watchers and a fake name that is the real account.

            •  That seems like a good idea. (9+ / 0-)

              Should have been blindingly obvious, but since I have refused to get a FaceBook account, it hadn't occurred to me.

              I'm wondering, though, about this

              There are more than a few fields where not having a Facebook account automatically disqualifies you from being hired
              Fuzzyguy, what fields would that be?  To me, taking such an approach borders on psychotic.

              I am become Man, the destroyer of worlds

              by tle on Thu Jul 26, 2012 at 05:46:19 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  This article might shed some light... (6+ / 0-)

                "In a time of universal deceit - telling the truth is a revolutionary act." - George Orwell

                by commanda on Thu Jul 26, 2012 at 08:10:51 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Fascinating (10+ / 0-)

                  And the end of the article makes one of the most important points about the whole issue.

                  At first, I marveled at the folks with scores soaring up into the seventies and eighties. These were the “important” people—big media personalities and pundits with trillions of followers. But after a while I noticed that they seemed stuck in an echo chamber that was swirling with comments about the few headline topics of the social media moment, be it the best zinger at the recent GOP debate or that nutty New York Times story everybody read over the weekend.

                  Over time, I found my eyes drifting to tweets from folks with the lowest Klout scores. They talked about things nobody else was talking about. Sitcoms in Haiti. Quirky museum exhibits. Strange movie-theater lobby cards from the 1970s. The un-Kloutiest’s thoughts, jokes, and bubbles of honest emotion felt rawer, more authentic, and blissfully oblivious to the herd. Like unloved TV shows, these people had low Nielsen ratings—no brand would ever bother to advertise on their channels. And yet, these were the people I paid the most attention to. They were unique and genuine. That may not matter to marketers, and it may not win them much Klout. But it makes them a lot more interesting.

                  from a bright young conservative: “I’m watching my first GOP debate…and WE SOUND LIKE CRAZY PEOPLE!!!!”

                  by Catte Nappe on Thu Jul 26, 2012 at 09:49:21 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                •  And my Klout score is ..... ZERO! (0+ / 0-)

                  We really are a nation of idiots, aren't we?  

                  I am become Man, the destroyer of worlds

                  by tle on Thu Jul 26, 2012 at 02:50:05 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                •  Holy Shit on a shingle, are they serious? (3+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  ColoTim, bluedust, mrkvica
                  Partly intrigued, partly scared, Fiorella spent the next six months working feverishly to boost his Klout score, eventually hitting 72. As his score rose, so did the number of job offers and speaking invitations he received. “Fifteen years of accomplishments weren’t as important as that score,” he says.
                  Yea, that's like going back to the 4th grade.

                  What a fucking sad statement that is about our entire culture. I am officially ashamed, on pare with the shame that I felt when Shrub verbalized his participation in the apocalyptic narrative to a French Leader.

                  Excuse me I have to projectile vomit now.

          •  Which fields? FB never came up... (5+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            sockpuppet, llywrch, kyril, sb, Dirtandiron

            ...when I was hired for my current position.

            The road to Hell is paved with pragmatism.

            by TheOrchid on Thu Jul 26, 2012 at 05:56:07 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Anecdotal: (7+ / 0-)

              Research, promotions, marketing, several sales/commission jobs.

              Really though it is about the HR department and what they "think" should be necessary for candidates to be considered.

              •  Research? As in scientific research? (3+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                kyril, sb, Dirtandiron

                I want to go into that field.

                Can I just be on LinkedIn, not Facebook? Will that be good enough for them?

                Real Democrats don't abandon the middle class. --John Kerry

                by Lucy Montrose on Thu Jul 26, 2012 at 09:43:05 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  It depends upon the personality type (3+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  kyril, sb, mrkvica

                  of the person in charge of the lab or department you are going in to. If for example you are applying as a grad student or post-doc the first thing that would be checked after your publications and CV would be your facebook to see what your social life is like because hiring such positions is a significant investment in the scientific research, especially at universities. What is or is not found on Facebook will carry more weight with some profs than others. A phenomenal interview will get you a better position, but if two candidates have about the same level of knowledge and likability in interviews I wouldn't be surprised to see the one with an active facebook page to get the job over the other. Scientific research is a highly political field with lots of subtle social politics going on in the background. How well a person promotes themselves and makes themselves popular will have some impact on getting hired. It is kinda messed up, but that is the rule of thumb for most folks who are managing labs and doing hiring to try and get the best candidates. Again though, your mileage may vary.

                  •  That's what I'm afraid of. (3+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    fuzzyguy, kyril, sb

                    My past was not very socially auspicious. It was about 15 years ago, but I still worry about it haunting my career path now. I'm in my early 30s and I've finally gotten a job that may really break from my past. Unfortunately, it's still not managerial so I need to wait a little longer to prove I have leadership ability.

                    How many friends do I need to have to be considered "having a good enough social life"? I have worried for years that I'd have to get married or join a church to prove my likeability-- especially concerning my past, and the fact I didn't spend my 20s very well. I've worried that my choice not to have children would be seen as lack of empathy and warmth. Now, of course, mothers are even more discriminated against, so all women are screwed, though in different ways.

                    I've even worried that my never having played team sports could be held against me-- even though that was years ago.

                    So-- what should I do?

                    Real Democrats don't abandon the middle class. --John Kerry

                    by Lucy Montrose on Thu Jul 26, 2012 at 11:07:41 AM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  Truth be told. (3+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      Lucy Montrose, kyril, sb

                      It is so subjective depending upon who is looking at hiring you that anything at all could be misconstrued. That I think is one of the biggest problems.

                      I generally post harmless but fun "food" pictures because I like to cook and do nice presentation, cute pictures of my dog, pictures of my garden to show I like getting my hands dirty and can understand long term investment and returns, pictures of the surrounding area to show that I like to be social and hike, and/or go outdoors as well as showing a potential "artistic" side, I'll occasionally "check in" at local eateries with other folks to again show that I go out and socialize with people at "hip" local joints.

                      A lot of it depends upon the politics of the region and the field you are going in to as well. What works in upstate NY won't necessarily work for east TX. I've had the good fortune to be able to read over and review some of the things that are gone over at HR summits and conferences; so as a result, I tailor my social media profile to be more attractive.

                      •  The whole idea of pastimes and hobbies... (6+ / 0-)

                        ... being used as merit badges to prove good social adjustment bothers me. It nudges us in the direction of seeing people, relationships, and personal pleasures as means to an end, and it potentially takes the joy out of them to have them turned into cultural job requirements.

                        It's really not so different from breast implants being an unspoken job requirement in Hollywood.

                        Plus, the expense of all these social "merit badges" falls squarely on us, out of our already dwindling paychecks. This is another way in which the wealthy have an edge: they can afford the personal upkeep. They can afford a "facelift fund" when they hit their 50s, so as to keep looking energetic and professional.

                        I am 6 figures in student debt. That alone might cause some universities to balk at me. Because there is no way I'm going to be able to afford a personal and social upkeep fund any time soon. I'd rather spend my money on paying down my debt, saving up for a house, and putting money in my small IRA. Not enough an investment in myself, no doubt.

                        Real Democrats don't abandon the middle class. --John Kerry

                        by Lucy Montrose on Thu Jul 26, 2012 at 11:41:17 AM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  Oh I agree whole heartedly. (3+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:
                          Lucy Montrose, kyril, sb

                          I find the whole charade completely and totally unacceptable especially for those of us with outrageous student loan debt. I'm back in the university saddle again myself after almost 10 years thanks in part to a lack of other opportunities due to the recession. I was part of the Regional Management Team for a multinational retailer and saw just how messed up hiring is for folks right now. My blood pressure goes up considerably thinking about how misused and under regulated the whole credit score market is in this country.

                          I game the social media system to the best of my ability. For example, I only go out to eat maybe once a month, I can't afford to do it more that. I'm going to make sure to use it to show I interact with the world though and continue to be a good little social worker bee, despite how unsettling I find the necessity of doing such things. It is demeaning, but until there are enforceable protections in place for us serfs in regards to social media I don't see a better solution. :( I only wish people like my sister would understand that maybe the reason she can't find a better job or get interviews despite having a degree is because her very public facebook is full of rather compromising photos, inflammatory posts, and politically charged statements.

                          •  What I want to know is, for your sister... (3+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            kyril, sb, fuzzyguy

                            She can take that page down and/or make it private, of course. But once a company makes a decision to fire you, or not to hire you, because of your Facebook profile-- is that forever? Are you never again to get a chance with that particular company?

                            And what if they person making that decision goes to a different company-- are you screwed there, too?

                            Yes, the Internet is forever but does that mean the  consequences of something you did in your past are also forever? Especially given the short attention span of a lot of us?

                            Real Democrats don't abandon the middle class. --John Kerry

                            by Lucy Montrose on Thu Jul 26, 2012 at 12:08:56 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Truth be told currently, (2+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            kyril, Lucy Montrose

                            while a persistent person could likely find all of her posts again if she took them down or adjusted her privacy settings, most companies get so many applications that unless it was the same HR person reviewing it and, there was something particularly memorable compared to other applicants, or the company has a database of rejected applicants, some companies do keep such a database and flag certain people as unemployable, that with a few months of waiting time after adjusting the view ability of those posts that she likely wouldn't have any further problems on that particular front.

                            Her biggest issue is that she doesn't view the internet as "real" so she doesn't treat what she says or does on the internet seriously or consider it to have any real consequences despite my trying to tell her otherwise.

                          •  This is the concept I keep trying to teach people (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:

                            The Life Sentence.

                            This is a big deal--hence the issue of subjective inappropriate-ness vs actual unlawful behavior.

                  •  Seriously? Professors are in on this bullshit? (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:

                    What is the point of going to college if its all a big fake popularity contest?

                    So much for a meritocracy.

          •  That's scary. (10+ / 0-)

            I have a FB, but I use it almost exclusively to talk to my children in the military, to coordinate volunteer activities, and to connect with various volunteer organizations. As innocuous as all that sounds, I would still not want my employers to spy on that.  They only own me from clock-in at work until I clock-out.  What I do when I'm off their clock is none of their business unless it involves committing a felony crime. If I want to go to DragonCon and spend $800 or more in hotel, food, and trinkets, dressed as a gay Klingon spouting romantic poetry (wanna read some of my Klingon love poems - I'll translate them into English), that's my business and I'm pretty proud of the photos.

            I can say the same thing for how I spend the money I earn from them.  I resent potential employers digging into my financial records - it is none of their business at all to know how I spend my paycheck. I have given them my time, skills, expertise, and efforts in exchange for that paycheck.  Once that money transfers from their hands to mine, they no longer get to determine what is done with that money. If I want to order a nice glass of wine with my steak dinner, they don't have the right to tell me I can't eat steak or drink wine using money they "gave" me. They didn't give me that money - I earned it.  If I want to blow it on a Star Trek Collectible Figurine or give it to the domestic abuse shelter or buy a quad of sandals for my dog, that's my choice because it's my money. Not theirs.

            All knowledge is worth having. Check out OctopodiCon for steampunk learning and fun.

            by Noddy on Thu Jul 26, 2012 at 06:15:27 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  Really??? What "fields" require a person to (4+ / 0-)

            have a FB account?

          •  Might you know what those fields are? (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            fuzzyguy, kyril

            And nice to know they're already determining what a normal and healthy social life is. Let's see; do they have a minimum number of Facebook friends we must have, too?

            I've already wondered if I'd have to get married, join a church, etc. to prove to an employer I have people skills and a positive attitude. Because of all the studies saying that religious people are more positive and married people are happier.

            Real Democrats don't abandon the middle class. --John Kerry

            by Lucy Montrose on Thu Jul 26, 2012 at 09:41:18 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  How about reading lists? (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:

            Little has happened in the public arena that has not been written by Tom Clancy, Barry Eisner, Christopher Reichs, Pat Cornwell, even the Holy Bible has been inspiring people to violence.

    •  I applied for a job and one of the (22+ / 0-)

      requirements to apply was open access to your FB account.

      I didn't apply because of this, but I was in a decent place employment-wise.  However, I could see someone who really needs a job, doing anything to work.  

      What people do in their free time, their friends, their holiday pics, aren't an employer's business.

      Also, I can kill you with my brain.

      by Puffin on Wed Jul 25, 2012 at 09:15:38 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  How do I deny employers the right to read (20+ / 0-)

      my Daily Kos postings?

      While Facebook was the prime example, the reality is that any online presence at all that can be linked to you is a risk to employability, simply because you have no idea what that random HR person will consider 'bad'.  I would likely be rejected out of hand by any strongly partisan RW'er for posts I've made on here, despite the fact that they would have no impact on my ability to perform whatever task needed done for the job.

      We should not have to 'hide' behind pseudonyms simply to be protected from discrimination based upon our thoughts or actions that in no way effect job performance and occur outside the sphere of work.

      •  "Good fit"-- the magic phrase. (6+ / 0-)

        When the judgments are subjective, they can spin anything into an indictment of your character. And so your not sharing the boss' favorite hobbies magically becomes a statement of your inability to relate to others.

        Part of the problem is that we've all defined "relating to others" as BEING just like others.

        Real Democrats don't abandon the middle class. --John Kerry

        by Lucy Montrose on Thu Jul 26, 2012 at 09:49:36 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  I wonder sometimes about that too (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        kyril, Dr Erich Bloodaxe RN

        My profile here is pretty minimal.  I use a throw-away mail account with no personal information on it as my POC for my profile. I don't use any type of mobile apps to access anything (sometimes sucks to not be connected, but that's my choice).

        I suppose I am anonymous enough, unless they start allowing employers to get ISPs to give them connectivity logs for my home systems.

        I finally got a FB account (using completely separate throw-away accounts to get it) and have nothing more than a pseudonym on it and no personal pictures or information.

        The Golden Rule isn't so golden if you don't polish it with every soul you meet. (-6.5,-4.1)

        by minidriver on Thu Jul 26, 2012 at 09:56:25 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  So... What if you sock-puppet your way into a job? (6+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      bluedust, Nulwee, GreenMother, llywrch, kyril, sb

      Create an alt-account with alt-friends.  I wonder if it would be considered fraud, especially if the corporate snooping isn't disclosed and they never ask you to verify anything they find.....

      and their contempt for the Latin schools was applauded by Theodoric himself, who gratified their prejudices, or his own, by declaring that the child who had trembled at a rod would never dare to look upon a sword.

      by ban48 on Thu Jul 26, 2012 at 04:59:30 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  A $1,000,000 fine (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      dilutedviking, kyril, sb, GreenMother

      for every time an employer is caught accessing a prospective employee's facebook account.  Everything on the internet is documented and recorded.  So what they do, so what we do, so what everyone does is all there.

      Make the fine fucking stiff as a granite rock, and they'll fucking stop doing it.  Make the fine weak and pointless, and there will be no risk in going around the safeguards and getting caught.

    •  As an Employer.... (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      First things first, the First Amendment only applies to government action.  Private parties can and routinely do take negative action without violating the First Amendment.  If you want a really simple example, if you say something stupid and your boyfriend/girlfriend breaks up with you that is not a violation of your right of free speech.

      Specifically in the employment context, the only Facebook problem I had was an employee who called in saying she was sick and then posted on Facebook that she was having a wonderful time at an amusement park.  No spying on my part.  She was Facebook friends with a number of other employees.  

      When an employer is trying to figure out which of several strangers would be the best fit it's understandable that an employer who has the opportunity to know what somebody is really like when he or she is not all cleaned up for an interview would want to know that.  If's just a fact of life that if you choose to put something out on the World Wide Web then people might see it.  They don't call it the "World Wide" Web for nothing.

      •  Which isn't the same as (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        asking for logins and passwords for accounts so they can go inside and muck about.

        •  True Enough (0+ / 0-)

          The one thing I'd say is that at least if a prospective employer asks up front then the employee knows about it and can decline or explain the embarrassing photo.  That may be better than the case where the employer just Googles the potential employee and decides to hire someone else without the potential employee even knowing why.

        •  It is still unethical. (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:

          The internet has become a political tool for organizing, it has also become the primary means of personal communications.

          People are trained all the time, not to read e-mails that are mistakenly sent to the wrong addresses, because it's unethical.

          This is right up there with that.

          First they have to look for it because there are so many people on line.

          And what they are looking for obviously isn't material they are willing to ask during the interview because it would be illegal.

          This is just another way in which bigots and racists and misogynists prevail.

      •  It's all fun and games Tod, til you get caught (0+ / 0-)

        in your own webs.

        I love watching people gather up more and more rope, as if they have convinced themselves entirely, that what they allow to happen or what they perpetrate on others, "righteously" will never ever, in any way apply to, nor affect them.

        Those red hot dancing shoes you forge for everyone else, will eventually be stuck on your feet too. By then the sympathy will have run clean out, and you had better be in shape to go the distance.

        •  Which is Why...... (0+ / 0-)

          That's why I never discuss work on Facebook, because I have had opponents Google me and anything you say can be used against you.

          That rule applies to a lot more than just employer/employee relationships.   People's Facebook accounts have turned up in lawsuits, and in at leat one case it was a very big deal.

      •  OK with me, but (0+ / 0-)

        it's not OK if an employer wants me to friend them or wants my FB password or doesn't hire me because they can see that I have a FB account but they can't see my posts because they're not public.

        working for a world that works for everyone ...

        by USHomeopath on Thu Jul 26, 2012 at 03:42:09 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  Poked around a bit and found these things (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      ConfusedSkyes, mrkvica, GreenMother

      In March, apparently the House took a stab at this :

      House Republicans blocked a measure Tuesday night that would have let the Federal Communications Commission prevent employers from forcing workers to reveal their Facebook passwords.
      From the WSJ:
      In the Senate, Facebook passwords have gotten the attention of lawmakers too. Senators Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) and Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.) have asked Attorney General Eric Holder to investigate whether employers asking for passwords in job interviews is a violation of federal laws, such as the Stored Communications Act or the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, the New York Times reported.

      Schumer and Blumenthal said they were also calling on the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission to begin an investigation, and indicated they were writing a bill to bridge any gaps in existing laws, NYT noted.

      In its statement, Facebook indicated they would initiate legal action to protect the privacy and security of its users.

      Sounds like this issue is still alive.

      Re the privacy slant, I found this on

      Employees of government and public entities have a constitutional right to privacy that protects them from most employer monitoring of, or even inquiring about, their off-the-job conduct. For public employers, then, this type of monitoring is largely off-limits.

      In the private sector, a number of laws prohibit employers from intruding into their employees' lives outside of work. Some state constitutions specifically provide for a right to privacy, which prevents private employers from looking into their employees' off-duty activity. Some states, including California, have laws prohibiting employers from taking any job-related action against a worker based on that worker's lawful conduct off the job.

      There's more but I didn't want to quote too much. I can't tell if this applies to job applicants as well as employees.

      We decided to move the center farther to the right by starting the whole debate from a far-right position to begin with. - Former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay

      by denise b on Thu Jul 26, 2012 at 06:23:54 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  However .... (32+ / 0-)

    And it's a big however:

    Among my friends on Facebook, I have a number of students in my classes.

    I have had some of these students tell me they were unable to make it to class because: they had food poisoning; their grandmother (mother, etc.) was in the hospital; they were the victim of a hit and run accident; they had to work late; etc.

    Simultaneously, these same students have posted pics of themselves drunk/stoned/whatevered out of their mind during the time they were supposed to be in my class, such pics landing on my FB wall because we are friends on FB.


    People really need to be a little smarter about what they put out there. Yes, some employers will do searches, and they probably shouldn't---but some FB users, esp. 20 somethings, really have no sense at all when it comes to social media.

    If I weren't all worn out, I'd go off on the foolishness of going to bars that regularly update their FB with pics of patrons doing all kinds of things. ±A±nd other such stuff.

    There's a reason I don't patronize businesses with a FB presence.

  •  First they came for our pee... (34+ / 0-)
    should keep his nose out of your private life--You are an American Citizen with Rights damnit!

    The path of the righteous man is beset on all sides by the inequities of the selfish and the tyranny of evil men.

    by xxdr zombiexx on Wed Jul 25, 2012 at 06:55:49 PM PDT

  •  Anyone who FBs or blogs without an alias (25+ / 0-)

    is drawing their own bullseye, afaic. Of course there are circumstances under which one wants to or has to use their Meatspace Name, but imo it should be avoided as much as possible precisely because of this kind of problem.

    IMO, it's also advisable to set up multiple email accounts (again using aliases) for different uses, e.g., one for workplace/business correspondence, one for correspondence w friends, creditors, physicians, teachers, etc.; another for political correspondence and LTEs; another for e-commerce receipts and marketing spam; etc.

    If I can't keep the NSA, FBI, and local gendarmes out of my e-affairs, at least I can keep prospective employers, people who object to my LTEs and blog comments, and other less powerful interlopers, at a remove.

    •  I blog only under the 'Doc' moniker (12+ / 0-)

      and only have a facebook acct w/my real name for keeping up with friends.

      I believe I will use it to start my private practice and perhaps finally dispatch with this 'suck up to your employer' bit....

      The path of the righteous man is beset on all sides by the inequities of the selfish and the tyranny of evil men.

      by xxdr zombiexx on Wed Jul 25, 2012 at 07:07:15 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Honestly, I don't think it's that big a deal. (9+ / 0-)

      I made a conscious decision 12 years ago to present most of my face in public on the internet and I have only once had it had any effect on my life except in a positive way - the exception was unfortunate, but far from the rule.

      That's for boring old me, but I tend to think more are boring like me than exciting. No frat party pictures and the like. If you're going to be the consummate party hog or something, then, by all means - take care.

    •  What Raincrow said: Compartmentalize! (15+ / 0-)

      Compartmentalization is how "the agencies" keep the secrets that really do need to be kept.  You can practice it in your own life.  

      And nobody "has to" have a Facebook account.  Just don't do it.  Mark Zuckerberg's world is one in which he and the rest of the plutocrats have a one-way panoptic view of all of us worker-bees.

      Knowledge is power.  

      When they know all about you, but you don't know doodley-squat about them, who has the power?

      "Minus two votes for the Democrat" equals "plus one vote for the Republican." Arithmetic doesn't care about your feelings.

      by G2geek on Wed Jul 25, 2012 at 08:21:47 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Actually... (5+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Nulwee, raincrow, llywrch, fuzzyguy, kyril

        I've heard that nowadays not having a facebook account can be a black mark against you.  It comes down to a combination of 'what are you hiding' and 'how are you so technologically unsavvy as to not have a facebook account.'  (Of course, most of the people I know without a facebook account are either utterly technically illiterate ... or very technically literate and concerned about their privacy.  Either way, not someone most big corporations want.)

        •  What am I Hiding? My Privacy (20+ / 0-)

          Nothing more, nothing less.

          I live a pretty dull life. But I get all up on my hind legs when someone tells me something to the effect of:

          "If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear."

          That's a bullshit line and I predict class action suits and big labor department complaints about this one in the near future. It's going to cost some companies big money and most likely they will be boycotted or protested--and they should be.

          They are not the Law Enforcement and I am not a criminal, therefore they got no business pretending that I should have to lift my electronic skirt to the world just based on their desires.

          •  Oh yes! (8+ / 0-)

            I hate, hate, hate people telling me "if you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear" and they totally forget that not everyone will use the data kindly.

            I can name a few reasons I want my privacy:  Identity theft. Burglars casing my residence. Scammers stealing my account information and then my funds. Employers getting a back door into my health conditions against HIPAA rulings.

            I could go on, there are many more reasons why I don't want others prying into my information.

            All knowledge is worth having. Check out OctopodiCon for steampunk learning and fun.

            by Noddy on Thu Jul 26, 2012 at 06:31:13 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  And sometimes the nothing to hide (3+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              ConfusedSkyes, raincrow, G2geek

              IS something to hide.

              In some communities, anything showing you are online doing ANYTHING, even so much as watching legally posted clips of the Muppets, during local Sunday morning nine-noon is very much something to hide.

              Prayers and best wishes to those in Japan.

              by Cassandra Waites on Thu Jul 26, 2012 at 08:18:20 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Pre-Crime Unit--where's your crystal ball? (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                G2geek, Cassandra Waites

                Presumption of innocence.

                Even bad stuff on the internet in most cases, would be circumstantial without some serious backup work done to irrefutably prove that the material does indeed belong to the "Perpetrator" and not to someone using a dummy ID or to someone with the same name or initials.

                Now days, with facial recognition software, even the most cautious of individuals do not have total control over pictures going online.

                Any pictures.

                Discretion isn't the issue here. Facial Recognition software being used as a social-conformity tool, and what basically amounts to 10 ways for a company to practice cyber stalking and cyber bullying comes into play.

                People can take your picture anywhere in the public without your permission and post it online. Elderly relatives kick over and their photos and scrap books end up in thrift stores and guess what?

                Your image could be used.

                People transcribe hand written notes from the garbage onto special sites for fun, and people upload those as well.

                Your information could end up on the internet in a thousand ways and you don't even have to put it up there yourself, but it could affect your employment status.

                Meanwhile you got about a billion naive 20 somethings out there wagging their finger at you as if they know a damn thing about the rights they are so willing to sell out from under all of us.

                It sucks for me right now, but the schadenfreude I will experience when it finally hits them en masse might make up for some of it.


                •  the garbage: shred everything. (0+ / 0-)

                  Ever seen some homeless guy digging through the trash & recycle bins in the neighborhood?  Think he's only looking for bottles & cans to turn in for the deposit or sell for scrap?  

                  Guess again.

                  Identity theft rings pay those guys for anything they bring in that has a name and an account number on it.  

                  Therefore: shred everything:   The only thing that should be going into your paper bin, are shreddings, and cardboard that doesn't have your name on it (the package you just received after you stripped the address info off it, the box for the product you just bought, etc.)

                  A "cross-cut" shredder is the minimum specification.  But better is a "micro-cut" shredder.  The smaller the "particle size" the better.  You can buy a decent one for about $100 or a little less.  These less-expensive machines with small particle sizes typically only shred a few pages at a time, and it's best to only shred one page at a time.  But none the less they provide essential household security.  

                  "Minus two votes for the Democrat" equals "plus one vote for the Republican." Arithmetic doesn't care about your feelings.

                  by G2geek on Thu Jul 26, 2012 at 04:16:36 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

            •  add to that, stalkers. n/t (0+ / 0-)

              "Minus two votes for the Democrat" equals "plus one vote for the Republican." Arithmetic doesn't care about your feelings.

              by G2geek on Thu Jul 26, 2012 at 04:10:41 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

          •  Hey, I completely agree with you... (0+ / 0-)

            Just trying to shed some light on what I expect is the psychology behind it.

        •  anyone who wouldn't want to work with me (8+ / 0-)

          because I don't have a facebook account is someone who I would not want to work with in the first place.

          I guess this is why I am allergic to big corporations as workplaces.

        •  My answer would be (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:

          "Google my name." They'd learn a surprising amount about me.

          I don't do FB because I consider it a time sink & I have enough of those in my life. I don't do Twitter becauee I'm waiting to find 3 people to follow there & I'm only up to 1.5. I stopped blogging because I found it took too long to write posts.

          In all fairness, though, no one's ever implied I'm hurting my career by not being this or that social media site. Then again, I haven't had a permanent job since 2001.

        •  the creeping fascism of "you must." (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Praxical, mrkvica

          And when asked why you don't have a Facebook account, you have to basically lie about it:  "Oh, my family & I keep in touch via email and phone calls," or "Meh, that's for teenagers," or "My last employer's IT manager told us Facebook was a security risk to the company."

          There have been "you musts" in the past that were intrusive and obnoxious: such as company cultures in which after-hours consumption of large amounts of alcohol is de-facto required, or company cultures where women were treated as sex-objects for grabbing or worse.

          I suppose one of the great things about the geek trades, is that it's considered normal and perfectly OK to not-participate in certain kinds of intrusive socializing.  One can just be nerdy and get away with it.  

          None the less, a general solution is needed for everyone else.

          Creeping fascism progresses from "everything that is not allowed is forbidden" to "everything that is not forbidden is required."  

          "Minus two votes for the Democrat" equals "plus one vote for the Republican." Arithmetic doesn't care about your feelings.

          by G2geek on Thu Jul 26, 2012 at 04:09:55 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  I keep my Facebook page for one reason only - (4+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Nulwee, raincrow, G2geek, mrkvica

        so that people I've lost touch with can find me. I've put up one photo and the year of my birth to distinguish me from others with the same name. And that is all.

        And even at that, the place annoys me so much that I'm constantly tempted to delete my account.

        I'm getting daily emails from them starting a few weeks ago telling me what all my friends are doing. This one said something. This one put a picture up. This one likes something. Give me a break. It makes me want to scream. What makes them think I want this crap in my inbox?

        But I've been resisting going in there and figuring out how to turn it off, because I don't want to go there at all.

        Urgh. Hate. It.

        We decided to move the center farther to the right by starting the whole debate from a far-right position to begin with. - Former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay

        by denise b on Wed Jul 25, 2012 at 10:22:11 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  You should turn it off if you don't want (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Nulwee, raincrow, G2geek

          The email notices.

          I have two fb accounts, and one for my cat. One is personal, my family and a few friends. The other is totally work. Coworkers, a former student or two, etc. I get the notices only on my cat account and my work one, and my cat has few friends.

          I have most of my personal stff set to only be visible to friends. People who have found me have found me through my family/friends. Which is fine, since they're people I know irl.

        •  You can block those emails (4+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          cybersaur, JVolvo, raincrow, G2geek

          in your preference settings. Or set up a free (google or hotmail) email account just for FB that you don't have to check (what I did). I also use that other email for any site that wants my email to send me things because I don't want my inbox cluttered with their spam.

          All knowledge is worth having. Check out OctopodiCon for steampunk learning and fun.

          by Noddy on Thu Jul 26, 2012 at 06:34:38 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  Thanks a lot :P (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Nulwee, raincrow, llywrch, fuzzyguy

      But yes, I'm aware that I've set myself up for potential discrimination based upon my political stances.  I just think your words have more power when they're coming from a recognizable and unique human, rather than one who is possibly nothing more than account 4,328 of a PR flack sockpuppet.  (Not you personally, that's a general statement.)

    •  Bullseye. (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Nulwee, blueoasis, raincrow

      It's been said so many times, but it's just crazy to broadcast information about yourself on the internet, and then expect it to be private.

      I for one would think long and hard about telling real-world associates my dKos name.  We all know a few Kossacks have been outed and harassed and some generally bad stuff has happened.

      As for Facebook, they have a long history of violating their users' privacy and, when caught they say sorry and promise it will never happen again - and then they go right back to selling your information.

      The one thing I don't get is why it's us old-timers who are uncomfortable with this, and the young'uns who are so much less internet savvy.  Wasn't it supposed to be the other way round?

      Early to rise and early to bed Makes a man healthy, wealthy, and dead. --Not Benjamin Franklin

      by Boundegar on Thu Jul 26, 2012 at 05:13:54 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  During the Red Scare Activities 30, 40 Years Prior (24+ / 0-)

    were getting people thrown out of careers, associations and other opportunity.

    Think how crazy this place could be 30 years from now. Doing anything online anywhere under your own name other than running a business is insane. And yes, it's possible for everybody to be insane.

    We are called to speak for the weak, for the voiceless, for victims of our nation and for those it calls enemy.... --ML King "Beyond Vietnam"

    by Gooserock on Wed Jul 25, 2012 at 06:59:12 PM PDT

  •  I notice a (14+ / 0-)

    real aversion from a lot of Daily Kos posters to FB.  In truth, if you're vigilant about your privacy settings (way too many people are wide open to the world on FB), this includes not posting to your entire friends list but using customized "safe" lists, and ensuring that you're not posting all your personal business, you'll be fine.  I am pretty locked down, and thoughtful about what I post... which is how I am in my regular life as well.  I am locked down and careful;  I stay away from posts about how tipsy I got on drinks, and I do express my socio-political views, but hopefully in a thoughtful manner that I would with a stranger I met at the local Starbucks.

    I vote Democratic because I am a woman with self-respect , who rejects bigotry of all kinds, subscribes to science, believes in universal health care, embraces unions, and endorses smart internationalist foreign policy.

    by Delilah on Wed Jul 25, 2012 at 07:08:00 PM PDT

  •  You mix up so many things here (17+ / 0-)

    First this:

    This is how the plutocracy will eventually have a profound chilling effect on American Freedom of Expression.
    The only entity that has to respect your freedom of expression, that can't impose negative consequences for the way that you express yourself, is the government.  Not private individuals, or companies owned by private individuals.  

    When it comes to a private individual or a privately owned company, they also have a right to hire whomever they want for whatever reason they want - with the sole exception of the boundaries set by the civil rights laws.  That is, private employers cannot discriminate on the specific bases in the civil rights laws -- race, ethnicity, gender, etc. at the federal level.  Other than the specific areas identified in the civil rights laws, private individuals and companies can discriminate.  If you walk into my law firm and want a job, and you have your hair dyed bright red, and I don't like that, I can say I'm not going to hire you because I don't like your hair color.  or your shoes.  Or what you say about your favorite TV show when you interview. Or the fact that you slump in your chair and look inattentive during the interview.  (this has happened.) Or the fact that you never looked me in the eye during the interview when you answered my questions. (again, this has happened.)  Or even your politics (unless you live in a state where the civil rights laws protect that) (I personally have never based a hiring decision on that.)  

    So, yes, the employer gets to decide what criteria he or she wants to use as a basis for a hiring decision, as long as it doesn't run afoul of the civil rights laws.  And if I am hiring someone for a position where he/she has to interact with the public on behalf of, and representing, my business, I may well decide, based on something that I see on Facebook or elsewhere, that a particular candidate is not the person I want to put out to the public as a representative of my business.  

    Facebook is not a private communication.  Saying something on Facebook, or publishing a picture there, is like going to a party and announcing that fact, or circulating copies of that picture, to 300 hundred (or however many friends you have) people, with no control over whether they tell others or make copies for others.  You have every right to do that.  But as long as it doesn't run afoul of the civil rights laws, an employer who sees one of those 300 copies of the photo you passed around can use that as part of his/her hiring decision.  And, unless you have an employment contract, you are generally an "at will" employee.  An at will employee can quit for any reason, or be fired for any reason, as long as it does not run afoul of the civil rights laws.  

    It's a two-way street, of course.  If you are a potential employee with skills in high demand, you too can look up your potential boss on Facebook or elsewhere in making a decision as to whether you want to work there.  

    •  I believe that it is unethical to ask for (8+ / 0-)

      applicants' FB information, or even to look for it on your own.

      Maybe they left the curtains open, but you still don't peek into their bedrooms.

      'Betting against Facebook since 2012'

      by VictorLaszlo on Wed Jul 25, 2012 at 08:47:00 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  That's a misconception. (8+ / 0-)

        It's not a bedroom, it's a public forum. Unless you set your privacy settings so the employer can't see your page, Facebook is absolutely fair game. (But if it's private, it's private, and that's fine.) I get about 500 resumes for each job opening I post. I can't possibly find the time to interview more than 8 applicants for each position. So before I call in an applicant to interview, I want to be as sure as possible that I'm not wasting my time. I will use everything in my arsenal to avoid having to sit and interview someone whom I can see is wrong for the job in the first minute. You can tell a lot about a person's judgment and maturity by glancing over their Facebook page. They may have had someone smarter vet and puff up their resume, but they're going to be their real selves on the internet... and that's the person who's going to show up to work every day.

        "In a time of universal deceit - telling the truth is a revolutionary act." - George Orwell

        by commanda on Wed Jul 25, 2012 at 09:04:58 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Do you drive past their houses? (14+ / 0-)

          That's public, too. You could learn a lot.

          'Betting against Facebook since 2012'

          by VictorLaszlo on Wed Jul 25, 2012 at 09:07:44 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  What would they think if someone mailed this (8+ / 0-)

          comment to them?

          Honestly we have no idea what you are looking for Commanda and neither do you.

          That's a fishing expedition based on subjective matters that are not necessarily lawful to consider when hiring a person.

          I am not impressed with your lack of ethics in this regard.

          •  Most people expect it these days. I would. (5+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Bailey, emelyn, VClib, llywrch, coffeetalk

            And I do know what I'm looking for — sloppy grammar and spelling, poor judgment, and inconsistencies with the claims on their resume. It's due diligence to verify someone's credentials when hiring them to represent your company. Honestly, if someone leaves an unfiltered Facebook profile open to the public, that's another sign of poor judgment, in my opinion. It's easy enough to keep your profile private, and it's something would I highly recommend to everyone who who uses Facebook for their personal (non-professional) life.

            Your assertion of some sort of standard of ethics for looking up a job applicant on the internet is a little antiquated... and there's nothing "unlawful" about it, unless you're accusing me of some kind of bigotry. Maybe it would help if instead of thinking of the internet as a secret diary, you think of it as a huge library of free information, just with a much better catalog than the ones filled with books.

            "In a time of universal deceit - telling the truth is a revolutionary act." - George Orwell

            by commanda on Wed Jul 25, 2012 at 10:43:47 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  How would I possibly know you weren't a bigot? (13+ / 0-)

              You go surfing for that? How do you even know you have the right person? How do you know some crazed ex didn't put up a dummy page just to get that person into trouble online?

              Sloppy Grammar or spelling? Really? That's your criterion? That could be their first post of the day before coffee. You could deny a person a job because they typed an entry while taking flu or cold meds, or a finger cast.

              Holy crap on a cracker.

              This excuse to pry is simply that. The internet is how people keep in touch. It's where they debate and organize and argue, because people don't have time for bars any more, because neighbors don't talk, because land lines are expensive and day time minutes too. Because it's instant communication with everyone next door or an ocean away.

              It's not a secret diary, but what you use if for? It's also not your very own psych profile, regardless of what you tell yourself.

              Some day you will probably realize what you are doing is very wrong and come to regret that you have abused your position in life with such impunity. I hope mindfulness and compassion come to you soon.

              as for the rest,

              There is nothing antiquated about holding onto your civil rights.

              There is a lot to be said about the lack of ethics though that abound in Corporate America.

              If it weren't so, then explain to me where the Occupy Movement came from?

              •  I understand your anger. (3+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Bailey, emelyn, VClib

                But when you post something on the internet, is has been published, just the same as if you printed it in a book or magazine. It is no longer private information, and everyone in the whole world has access to it, possibly forever. If you want to restrict access to your thoughts, you need to post under an alias or privately message with your friends. That's the long and the short of it. I don't like it any more than you do, which is why I advocate always using the strongest privacy settings available.

                "In a time of universal deceit - telling the truth is a revolutionary act." - George Orwell

                by commanda on Wed Jul 25, 2012 at 11:14:06 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

        •  Actually it isn't. In many cases they will settle (4+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          NoMoreLies, cybersaur, fuzzyguy, Tonedevil

          for nothing less than your facebook password itself (as there are ways to limit even what certain friends can see).

          There is no saving throw against stupid.

          by Throw The Bums Out on Wed Jul 25, 2012 at 10:41:11 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Yeah... (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:

            That's not right at all... (unless you're trying to get into the CIA or get some kind of top-secret clearance, in which case I think they also check your underwear drawer and interview your first-grade boyfriend) ...and it sounds like it would be a terrible environment to work in!

            "In a time of universal deceit - telling the truth is a revolutionary act." - George Orwell

            by commanda on Wed Jul 25, 2012 at 10:55:38 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Sure. When I sighned a military contract, I went (7+ / 0-)

              through an extensive background check. People contacted highschool friends and teachers. But that was the military. I was literally, contractually obligated to be on call 24-7, 365.

              But I also got decent pay, was provided with a place to live, guaranteed certain rights, I had medical care [better than nothing], and had the opportunity for advancement and travel.

              And if you looked at the UCMJ post you will note that my bosses regardless of rank were legally prohibited from forcing me to adopt certain political or religious positions, and also legally prohibited from forcing me to give donations to said entities.

              Here, in the intertubz--I haven't even been hired yet. You offer me N-O-T-H-I-N-G but a potential of maybe a job. You cannot even offer me the job security of a military contract or even care after the fact. The only way I could possibly get the same benefits I had then would be if someone hired me to be a CEO of something.

              Because as a regular worker-bee, I would be hard pressed to take even earned vacation days, or maternity leave, whereas in the uniform I am required to use that time WITH PAY.

              And then there is what I do when active duty. A regular job out there isn't going to prop up National Security with few exceptions. So there is no reason for it.

        •  If you ignore someone who is otherwise qualified (6+ / 0-)

          based on this nonsense, where you can't even be sure you've got the right person, where you are making interview decisions based on quick communications that often have poor grammer or typos coming from Apple's Siri dictation, for example, you should let that person know why you overlooked them for the position. That would be ethical and it would help them understand the issues that are hurting them. It would also give them the opportunity to correct you if you have the wrong person's FB (or whatever) page.

          If you lost your HR job you might have trouble finding employment if the HR person evaluating you for an HR position doesn't like DKos. And you've got a fairly low UID, that is even worse. "Just how radical a liberal is this person? Perhaps he/she is a communist, I'd better round file this application."

          •  There are a gazillion qualified people. (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            VClib, coffeetalk

            As I mentioned, in this scenario I'm looking to hire one person from an applicant pool of about 500. If I have 25 applications in that pile that look particularly promising, I simply use other criteria to thin it down to the number of people I can reasonably interview. That might include the distance you live from the office, the prestige of your alma mater, the grammar error you let slip in your cover letter, or your vibrant and engaging online presence.

            Since I have always used aliases and privacy protection in my sensitive online interactions, my internet activity doesn't impact my professional life. Frankly, it's the only way to go in this day and age.

            "In a time of universal deceit - telling the truth is a revolutionary act." - George Orwell

            by commanda on Thu Jul 26, 2012 at 08:32:27 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  That is precious. (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Tonedevil, ChemBob
              Since I have always used aliases and privacy protection in my sensitive online interactions, my internet activity doesn't impact my professional life. Frankly, it's the only way to go in this day and age.
              And you think this will save you?

              All they need is an IP Address and you are in the same boat as the worst FB user.

              Man are you in for a big surprise.

              Not to mention, it would only take one person who is mad at you, making a phone call to out you, or a post card.

              Nothing more.

              •  Condescending much? (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:

                I've been active on the internet for 25 years, from long before most people had even heard of it, and my methods have worked just fine for me so far. So I'll take your paranoid threats with a grain of salt.

                "In a time of universal deceit - telling the truth is a revolutionary act." - George Orwell

                by commanda on Thu Jul 26, 2012 at 08:39:09 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

          •  A counter argument to the low UID thing (0+ / 0-)

            could be that back then, people didn't know just HOW BAD this site was!   And thus joined up out of naiveity or ignorance - not because of having a maleovent commie/socialist streak.  

    •  They are taking on powers of a government, and not (12+ / 0-)

      a good one.

      If I am employed, it is when I am on their clock.

      THEY DON"T OWN ME. And therefore have no business sticking their nose into my private life and that especially means, during my down time, when I am off the clock.

      •  AMEN! (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        We need a good, solid argument to smack down the "in the reputational interests of the company" message which is the main thing used to justify such intrusions. Right now, I'm afraid I don't know what that would be.

        Real Democrats don't abandon the middle class. --John Kerry

        by Lucy Montrose on Thu Jul 26, 2012 at 10:23:51 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  That's easy, these entities are assuming (0+ / 0-)

          assuming government powers while abridging rights.

          I would be willing to bet that a reasonable case could be made that most are either THE usual suspects or their subsidiaries.  I am sure we could show evidence of Bad Actors all the way around.

  •  They can look at whatever they want to (10+ / 0-)

    if it's public information. I really don't get your point.

    Yeah, well, you know, that's just, like, your opinion, man.

    by NMDad on Wed Jul 25, 2012 at 07:35:00 PM PDT

    •  Right (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      This isn't a question of a company being able to fire you for non-work activities or speech. That has always been the case.

      This issue is more of an issue of everyone having access to a much louder microphone than they have had previously. Things you thought were a whisper are actually a roar, or more like things you thought no one could hear because they were too far away, everyone can hear if they turn an ear.

      (-5.50,-6.67): Left Libertarian
      Leadership doesn't mean taking a straw poll and then just throwing up your hands. -Jyrinx

      by Sparhawk on Wed Jul 25, 2012 at 08:57:55 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Not exactly (4+ / 0-)

      What's public is public. I can't see how anyone can complain about anyone looking at it.

      But what's private should be private. Employers are demanding that you give them access to things that were intended to be seen only by friends. People have a right to feel outraged by this. Unfortunately, I think they had better learn to live with it.

      We decided to move the center farther to the right by starting the whole debate from a far-right position to begin with. - Former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay

      by denise b on Wed Jul 25, 2012 at 10:37:00 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  If I have gone to the trouble to create aliases (10+ / 0-)

        then that is a Nome de plume. Asking that I reveal that, or trying to actively connect me to that is the same as trying to get my FB password.

        I am not hiding because I am afraid to be associated with what I say as a person or citizen.

        But I recognize the new dangerous political environment that has handed over way too much power to corporations that basically also run our country.

        To me, trying to uncover that is no better than cyberstalking.

        It serves no viable purpose other than to punish me or others for holding a view that is counter to a corporate policy in a business that doesn't pay me for any services at all, much less to be silent as a citizen.

        It's not as if they won't turn right around and sell that info to someone else and then what? It affects my job search across the board.

        That's harassment.
        That's intimidation.
        That's stalking.

      •  Don't learn to live with it. (5+ / 0-)

        Anyone asks me for a password to anything and I tell them that they are unethical to ask. I point out that they want me to keep thier corporate infomation private and if I can't even protect my own passowrd, how will I protect the data in their databases or the passwords to their systems or thier corporate infomation. Anyone who gives such a password should be unhireable just because he was willing to be intimidatedinto giving away information that should not be shared.  I tell them I wouldn't work for them in a million years and immediately end the interview. The practice will stop if people stop being sheeple.

      •  I agree (0+ / 0-)

        Demanding a prospective employee's FB password is, in my opinion, inappropriate.  I have no idea if discrimination based on such a criteria would be illegal (if a case went to court), but I do think it's over the line as far as privacy goes.

        "You must be the change you wish to see in the world." -Gandhi

        by Triscula on Thu Jul 26, 2012 at 08:33:29 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  Your facebook password is absolutely not (8+ / 0-)

      public information but that is what they usually want.  In fact, facebook is looking at taking legal action against such companies for tortious interference over it.

      There is no saving throw against stupid.

      by Throw The Bums Out on Wed Jul 25, 2012 at 10:42:42 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Good thing I lie like a lump of roadkill (5+ / 0-)

    when it comes to that kind of question, and my rarely-visited Facebook page is relatively sanitized and under an obscure hybrid of my real name and a nickname.

  •  HR people claim they only spend 20 seconds looking (7+ / 0-)

    at resumes and most have no experience in the specialties they are hiring for. And they look for reasons  to not hire VS reason to recommend.  Two large companies I worked for  refused to allow HR to even look at R&D position resumes because they did such a terrible job. People who work in HR aren't terrible  people as long as they are not the ones making all those bad policies. No wonder the stories about CFOs and CEOs without claimed  degrees keep making the news.

    I'd tip you but they cut off my tip box. "There is more stupidity than hydrogen in the universe, and it has a longer shelf life.” - Frank Zappa

    by OHdog on Wed Jul 25, 2012 at 08:21:49 PM PDT

    •  At the CFO and CEO level (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      Hr isn't nearly as involved.

      Those decisions are normally made at the board level, not hr. and it's very possible that the only input hr has is doing the required employment paperwork and asking them where to send the check(s).

  •  OK, there is another side to this (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    FG, Nulwee

    I've never been an actual employer, but I have helped search for candidates for various research positions in our lab. In some cases, googling a candidate has been very helpful. Sometimes in a positive way, but sometimes in a negative way. Now, I did this before FaceBook, and I realize that there is a lot more shite there than there used to be on the regular Internet, but I think the principle is the same.

    It is true that some of the stuff you find that way is personal and irrelevant, but other stuff—like having been in lawsuits with previous employers, for example—can be highly relevant.

    •  You have to disclose those lawsuits on your (5+ / 0-)

      application or resume anyway or be fired.  Every position I've ever applied for going all the way back to the 60s required I disclose that legal information. If an employer finds out after hiring that the applicant lied - that's a lawsuit and a lost job.

      Searching professional publications to find research papers an applicant wrote is different than doing a search for personal information.  It's not really any different that reading up on them in those print versions of the journals and publications.

      All knowledge is worth having. Check out OctopodiCon for steampunk learning and fun.

      by Noddy on Thu Jul 26, 2012 at 06:56:31 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Well (0+ / 0-)

        in our case, this was a federally funded research grant, so the actual technical hiring would be done by the HR office, and in fact they had the final say. What we did was to go through the applications, CVs, and so on, to choose the people we would “recommend” for the position. And in fact, I can think of at least one instance where a candidate that we wanted was not accepted by HR because of an education level mismatch, and we had to change the job description slightly and put out the advertisement again in order to hire that person. I don't recall ever seeing anything like legal disclosures in the paperwork we looked at.

  •  I know for certain I was denied a job (9+ / 0-)

    ... due to my political activity - because they told me that was the reason.

    I didn't sue, partly because the organization does good work, and partly because their primary concern was that under the then-Bush administration, it would not be beyond the realm of possibility that their federal funding would be cut if it became known that I was working there in a managerial capacity.  I had to admit, it was possible, and since the money was about 1/2 their budget, it would have shut them down if it happened. So....

    I have no idea how many other jobs were not offered as a result of my political activity, but my work is all out there for the world to see, so, it wouldn't surprise me if there were more instances.

    •  Probably good that you didn't sue (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Nulwee, emelyn

      It is perfectly legal to not hire someone for political activity. Only the government is restricted in this manner (I guess it is possible that organizations like defense contractors might be restricted similarly, but I wouldn't count on it).

      (-5.50,-6.67): Left Libertarian
      Leadership doesn't mean taking a straw poll and then just throwing up your hands. -Jyrinx

      by Sparhawk on Wed Jul 25, 2012 at 08:54:50 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I smell BS Here. (12+ / 0-)

        Political speech is protected.

        Corporations are not the government and have no business telling people who they can vote for or support or what they can protest. Just like churches have no business doing that.

        •  You're right (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:

          Businesses don't have any right to tell you who to support.

          However, they can also hire or fire you for any reason excepting narrowly defined civil rights categories, including for political advocacy.

          And no, this is not a 'Citizens United' thing, it's just the way it has always worked.

          But hey, if it makes you feel any better, it's a two-way street. You can also refuse to buy products from or work for a business for any reason you want also.

          (-5.50,-6.67): Left Libertarian
          Leadership doesn't mean taking a straw poll and then just throwing up your hands. -Jyrinx

          by Sparhawk on Thu Jul 26, 2012 at 05:46:09 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  The problem with "other fish in the sea"... (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            fuzzyguy, GreenMother

            ... is, where are they?

            A lot of these "other fish in the sea" have the same business philosophy, whether through mergers and acquisitions, or the simple copycatting they see as necessary to stay competitive. And added to that, the members of these companies all sit on each other's boards, so they're all chummy with each other and share information about how best to run their companies...

            If you have fifty newspapers in an area, but they're all owned by Rupert Murdoch, that is effectively ONE voice. If you have fifty companies in an area and they're all owned by the same parent company, or they're trying to fit in with each other to stay viable, that's effectively ONE "fish in the sea".

            Fifty flavors and brands of salad dressing, all made by WishBone.

            Real Democrats don't abandon the middle class. --John Kerry

            by Lucy Montrose on Thu Jul 26, 2012 at 10:20:51 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

      •  Oh--It appears you are right thanks to Citizens Un (7+ / 0-)


        But another problem has gone largely unnoticed. Employers can also use their financial power to pressure employees vote the way the company wants. This is already standard practice in union organizing campaigns. Employers hold a "captive audience" meeting which workers are required to attend. At this meeting, the company presents a stew of well-polished anti-union arguments and threatens (subtly or not) to close the company if the workers vote for the union. The union is not allowed to attend and has no comparable ability to tell workers the other side. Management closely monitors who speaks, who asks questions, and who exhibits pro-union sensibilities for later retribution.

        So as I ended this diary--Who is up for creating a new Separation Clause--A Wall that Separates Corporation from State?

        Congress is currently working on legislation to address problems caused by the Citizens United decision. It's critical that the legislation not only restores campaign finance reform but also prohibit employers from attempting to dictate the political views of their employees. The power that employers already have over their employees has been drastically expanded by Justices Alito, Kennedy and their allies on the Supreme Court. Congress must restore our rights as citizens not to have our political rights -- or our political choices -- determined by those who employ us. That's what we mean by "us."
        Suuuuure they are.

        Yea, I will believe that when rainbows and leprechauns come dancing out me arse.

        I haven't seen anything about this? Anyone know of any diaries we should be looking at?

        Even the military is prohibits authority figures from forcing subordinates to vote for a specific candidate or give to a specific campaign.

        Once again, the military [of all things] is way ahead of it's time.

        Nothing in the rules prohibits or restricts a military member registering to vote or voting, or donating to politicians or political parties; that is the personal choice of each member. What the rules do restrict or limit is how an individual may advocate on behalf of a political party, candidate, or elected official. The greatest restriction is that Active-duty service-members are strictly prohibited from military voting including campaigning for political office or actively taking part in a political campaign — even behind the scenes. This is generally known as partisan political activity: an “activity supporting or relating to candidates representing, or issues specifically identified with, national or State political parties and associated or ancillary organizations.” UCMJ Primer on Military Voting & Politics
        DoD Directive 1344.10

        4.1 A Member of the Armed Services May: Promote and encourage others to exercise their voting franchise,  if such promotion does not constitute use of their  official authority  or influence to interfere with the outcome of an election.

        Wow--they are even allowed to write letters to the editor or put bumper stickers on their cars!

        I can see how this is going to cause a lot of returning vets problems.

        The corruption of this country and the loss of our civil rights and freedoms to corporate powers, is truly disgusting.

        It's one thing for them to make money.

        This is a whole other thing.

        You can read this section of theUniform Code of Military Justice Here

        You will need a Adobe PDF to read it.

        •  Your first comment box is based purely on (0+ / 0-)

          speculation and conjecture. One should never use the blogs of others as a means to base their arguements on.

        •  So... a way to really turn us against CU? (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          fuzzyguy, GreenMother

          So it not only allows unlimited corporate cash to be poured into elections, but it allows corporations to pressure their employees more directly?

          That may actually be the more powerful effect of Citizens United. Much more than the obvious one.

          Because average Americans will do whatever it takes to keep their jobs and remain employable. And if the boss is Republican (as most CEOs are), and he's watching your personal life... well, I think I may have just hit on another reason so many states went red in 2010! And maybe even the most important reason.

          Real Democrats don't abandon the middle class. --John Kerry

          by Lucy Montrose on Thu Jul 26, 2012 at 10:16:34 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

  •  It's not just about corporations. Or Facebook. (18+ / 0-)

    It's a general facet of our culture.

    We are expected more and more to take on the faceless characteristics of any institution with which we are associated.

    I teach at public universities, but I know very well:

    - Not to put any bumper stickers on my car
    - Not to wear any t-shirt logo to a grocery store
    - Not to go to concerts in my area
    - Not to join a political party
    - To be careful about which public events I attend

    This wasn't so true when I taught in NYC, but now that I'm teaching in "Middle America" it's become very clear to me that as a professor at a university I'm a marked man.

    I'm being watched for even the tiniest hint of anything objectionable to a variety of constituencies, who will then be happy to interfere with my career path very publicly.

    Facebook or not, it is becoming increasingly difficult in this country to survive as a person. Instead, everyone must be bland cogs in machines, or risk not being given a spot in any machine at all.

    -9.63, 0.00
    I am not a purity troll. I am a purity warrior.

    by nobody at all on Wed Jul 25, 2012 at 08:35:43 PM PDT

    •  And don't breathe in public (11+ / 0-)

      and never check out a book at the library.

      Don't order any magazines unless you can have them sent in a plain brown wrapper--even if they aren't porn.

      Holy shit man, what's the point?

      What kind of life is that?

      And who the fuck are they to make these demands of you or anyone.

      Do they tell you what church you have to attend to?

      I know you are probably doing the best you can and you are glad to have a job, but this is simply awful. I hope you keep a diary of this for posterity and have it published when it is safe to.


    •  Nobody, and certainly not a college, (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Nulwee, Noddy, cybersaur, Cassandra Waites

      can tell you not to join a political party. Thats pretty extreme. You might not want to be openly partisan, but they can't keep you from joining.

      Hell, even the military can join political parties. They just can't do political activities in uniform.

      Same with the concerts. They don't control your personal life. You might not want to go to a concert that's likely to have drugs and drunken brawls, but once you get out of college and work anywhere, that becomes a concern.

      •  The college won't tell you not to. (6+ / 0-)

        But student course evaluations, certain dimensions of tenure review, etc. are subjective and require the input of others around you.

        And people here love to "report you to the hierarchy" for being biased/partisan in your teaching, and you have to answer to those complaints. I teach on subjects like China, Marx, and poverty.

        Every semester I am defending myself against accusations that I'm running a political propaganda machine, not a classroom because I don't stand at the front of the classroom and simply say "What you need to know is that China is hell on Earth, Marx was the devil, and poverty is what happens to the lazy."

        It's not about "official" policies. It's about the very real chilling effects of hyperpartisanship and activism in this country and the strong suspicion in many communities that colleges are "hotbeds of liberal indoctrination."

        If people disagree with what you say or how you say it, they will look for any way they can find to try to have you fired and/or to hurt your career and get you out of the system.

        It's very similar to what happens in the corporate world. There may not be a policy, but those that are identical to the company in their personal lives will advance better and have better job security. Those that are individuals are much more likely to experience problems.

        -9.63, 0.00
        I am not a purity troll. I am a purity warrior.

        by nobody at all on Thu Jul 26, 2012 at 08:16:59 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  And THAT is why "don't say it if you don't... (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:

          ... want your mother to see it" doesn't work.

          Because there's no predicting what the person in power will find subjectively appealing or not.

          I don't want to work for a company where everybody thinks identically. I don't want workplaces to become quasi-religious cults, where buying into the "mission" supersedes everything else, and my personal life is monitored for "fit".

          We have to stop this tendency before it becomes too entrenched!

          Real Democrats don't abandon the middle class. --John Kerry

          by Lucy Montrose on Thu Jul 26, 2012 at 10:13:32 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  Wow. The only time I ever reported a professor (0+ / 0-)

          One for giving a lecture that indicated anyone who used the GI Bill was a slug sucking on the government teat--and it just went down hill from there--real teabag type shit.

          And this was his Rant [as in yelling at the top of his lungs] to the class, first day of class.

          As a Vet who worked damn hard and invested in her own GI Bill, you can imagine that I might have taken that personally.

          And the fact that he was completely wrong. I invested in my own GI Bill. It wasn't free, not in terms of the payments into it, nor in terms of what I rendered by contract [and then some].

          Other than that, Bias is expected to some degree or another, but then so is professionalism.


    •  In Oklahoma, if you want to vote at all (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      blueoasis, fuzzyguy, GreenMother

      you have to declare a party affiliation.  Not being able to join a political party, even if in name only, is just wrong.

      All knowledge is worth having. Check out OctopodiCon for steampunk learning and fun.

      by Noddy on Thu Jul 26, 2012 at 07:00:32 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Gotta keep selling your university! (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      fuzzyguy, mrkvica

      And THAT, my friends, is the true meaning of privatization. It means that every job becomes a defacto salesperson's/spokesmodel's job. Which means most of your time and energy on the job will be spent polishing the image of your organization, and hustling for funds. Which means truth, individualism and thinking for ourselves are not welcome; because all that ruins the sales pitch.

      Real Democrats don't abandon the middle class. --John Kerry

      by Lucy Montrose on Thu Jul 26, 2012 at 10:08:09 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Just say "No Thank You" to Facebook. You'll be (6+ / 0-)

    the better for it.

    “The object in life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane.” — Marcus Aurelius

    by LamontCranston on Wed Jul 25, 2012 at 08:44:44 PM PDT

  •  No. If you make your information public, (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    grollen, nancat357, mmacdDE, emelyn

    anyone can view it and make decisions based on it. If you don't want it to happen, don't make your FB page visible to non-friends.

  •  Loved the video. (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    GreenMother, QDMacaw, Lucy Montrose

    Rest of the diary pretty good, too.  Tipped and rec'd.

  •  I figure eventually the free flow of information.. (3+ / 0-)

    … will have the opposite effect. When every qualified candidate has "unprofessional" content on their FB page, more people will start to get a sense that this is real life, and anyone who pretends otherwise is a phony.

    Those who ignore the future are condemned to repeat it.

    by enigmamf on Thu Jul 26, 2012 at 12:11:25 AM PDT

  •  What about the opposite scenario? (0+ / 0-)

    A company hires a young man and does not look at his Facebook page.

    The young man works as a driver for his new employer.

    A month later, wile completely intoxicated, while in the service of his employer, he broadsides a car and kills a mother and child.

    On his Facebook pages are several photos of him driving while drinking, accounts of drunken "Road Trips" and near encounters with the law while speeding and drinking.

    Would the victims of his recklessness be able to use this in court to demonstrate the HR failed to excercise due diligence in hiring the driver?

    I'm curious.

    Disclaimer: Weapons of Mass Destruction and terrorists may vary according to region, definition, and purpose. Belief systems pandered separately.

    by BlackBandFedora on Thu Jul 26, 2012 at 03:35:02 AM PDT

    •  If grasshopper carried 45s birds wouldn't mess (6+ / 0-)

      with them.

      What ifs fall under pre-crime.

      •  So a FB check would not be considered (0+ / 0-)

        a part of due diligence?

        I think that would be a good thing.  I happen to have to hire from time to time and I am not a fan of Facebook - it is just not something I find personally useful.

        I just don't want to be in a position where I am in court and some attorney says, "You knew, or should have known your employee's behavior by simply clicking on his Facebook page."

        I also don't see how drug testing is very useful since it doesn't show what the person necessarily does on the job, which is all I'm interested in.


        Disclaimer: Weapons of Mass Destruction and terrorists may vary according to region, definition, and purpose. Belief systems pandered separately.

        by BlackBandFedora on Thu Jul 26, 2012 at 09:39:15 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  If the person has a record, then that's one thing (0+ / 0-)

          Clicking on someones off-time social media is none of the bosses business.

          You and I are not on call 24 hours a day. The "boss" isn't paying you and I for every hour of the day.

          There is on time and there is off time.

          When I am off the clock, I am going to go and do my own thing. It's none of the bosses business.

          I might go skydiving, I might go to a religious function, I might go to a party or a bonfire with friends.

          I might go on a vacation in a foreign land.

          I might campaign for a political candidate, or speak out on a special issue, I might protest something.

          These are things as an American I am allowed to do. The government isn't allowed to stop me from doing these things--so why pray tell should we give such sweeping police powers to an employer?

          •  I wish for privacy off the job (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:

            I have zero interest in what my workmates/bosses/subordinates do off the job.

            I think even more dangerous is workplace gossip.  At least with FB, one cannot add what is not there - but gossip is a vile and poisonous thing.

            I would never consider working for an employer that demanded I "friend" it on FB. The US Supreme court can declare corporations are people - but they'll never be people's friends.

            Disclaimer: Weapons of Mass Destruction and terrorists may vary according to region, definition, and purpose. Belief systems pandered separately.

            by BlackBandFedora on Fri Jul 27, 2012 at 01:53:04 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

  •  Speech is not protected. (0+ / 0-)

    Indeed, the whole designation of the first series of amendments to the Constitution as a Bill of Rights is a misnomer.  Like the rest of the Constitution, the amendments are addressed to agents of government, but, instead of outlining duties and obligations for public officials (positive instructions), the amendments focus on what public officials are not to do -- i.e. don't deprive individuals of their rights unnecessarily (unless warranted). The ulterior motive may be to protect human rights from disrespect, but the direct injunctions apply to agents of government.  They have nothing to say to ordinary individuals at all. Individual persons can be as stand-offish or snoopy as they like, as long as nobody feels injured and doesn't lodge a verifiable complaint in a civil court. Individuals engaged in commerce face more strictures.  Individuals acting as contract agents for public corporations are mostly under the same strictures as agents of government.  But, because they enjoy a right to privacy and proprietary information, their compliance with contractual obligations is difficult to verify.  Which is one reason public officials hand off their duties (managing the currency is one), so they can't be held to account for how the obligations are performed. Public officials being held to account undermines their belief in their superior status.  If public officials can be called to render accounts, they're nothing more than servants.  What a come down!

    Willard's forte = "catch 'n' cage"

    by hannah on Thu Jul 26, 2012 at 03:45:36 AM PDT

    •  Elected officials are public personas (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Noddy, Lucy Montrose, fuzzyguy

      That being said, I support their right to privacy too.

      •  Every person is entitled to privacy and the (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        blueoasis, GreenMother

        integrity of the person.  However, in the performance of their official duties and obligations, our agents of government are subject to public inspection and review. It's what they get paid for.
        The fact that, until 1947, public officials at all levels were covered by sovereign immunity has left us with a tradition that's been hard to break. Although the Constitution designated the people as governing, the agents of government retained the right of the sovereign not to be questioned, at least not by American citizens.  Sovereign immunity was abrogated in their relations with foreigners in the Alien Tort Claims Act of 1789.
        When Richard Nixon said, "when the President does it, it's not a crime," he was speaking in the context of the law as it was when he entered into public life. That it was changed at the behest of Harry Truman, in response to military contractor bribes of public officials during the Second World War, probably didn't register as applying to him. Besides, Nixon wasn't (initially) acting to advantage himself.  Personal ambition doesn't count.  Even today, prosecutors enjoy absolute immunity by tradition because it is assumed they have no personal interest in the decisions they make.  That rigging evidence to get a conviction and thereby advance a political career is not covered by the law.

        Willard's forte = "catch 'n' cage"

        by hannah on Thu Jul 26, 2012 at 07:50:24 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  This is one of the many many reasons (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    GreenMother, cybersaur, Lucy Montrose

    I only use pseudonyms online.

  •  OK, let's see if I've got this straight: (0+ / 0-)

    a person offers to tell the world about themselves on-line and publicly, but then certain people aren't supposed to look at all that voluntary information?


    You can call it "class warfare" -- we call it "common sense"

    by kenlac on Thu Jul 26, 2012 at 04:49:38 AM PDT

  •  How surveillance state breeds conformity and fear (7+ / 0-)

    Our very national innovation is at stake if we become a country of conformity and fear.

    Not to say our very republic.

    We no longer have privacy.

    And people are rushing head long into giving away more information through social media.

    Here is a speech by Glenn Greenwald that makes the best case I have seen about privacy.

  •  As a former employer, (5+ / 0-)

    It was actually of more interest to me what information employees/prospective employees made public.   If it's locked down to friends, I don't so much care.  But, imagine the case of a child care worker who posts pictures of themselves with beer bottles in hand, status updates with demeaning terms towards women, and abundant profanity.  None of this is on a privacy filter.  Then say the kids you care for/are a mentor to look you up online.   In my view, at that point it is my business as an employer because it interferes with your ability to be effective in your job, and is inconsistent with the values of the organization.

    Want to go out and party on your own time?  Not my business.  Gain public notoriety for your behavior? Maybe my business if it conflicts with work.

    Post the pics, if you must, on a privacy filter and don't let me see them, and we don't have issues.

    My two cents.  

    •  I use abundant profanity. I drink beer (0+ / 0-)

      I don't do it at work.

      It's none of your business.

      I also have sex, I poop, and sometimes become flatulent. It's rare that my socks match, I like to read a lot, especially books about unusual or controversial subject matter. I have been a protester, and worked as an advocate, and I can name a hundred things just off the top of my head that I have done wrong, and learned lessons by as a result.

      Best not hire me, I am too much woman for you.

  •  This is a perfect description (8+ / 0-)

    of what right-wing people did to liberals after Reagan was elected.

    arbitrarily blackballing citizens from a decent living while violating their rights and scaring them shitless with the threat of a lifetime of poverty regardless of past accomplishments, or expertise
    They didn't just threaten lifetime poverty regardless of expertise, they delivered it.  
  •  Not having a Facebook account is a negative? (3+ / 0-)

    Says who?

    The road to Hell is paved with pragmatism.

    by TheOrchid on Thu Jul 26, 2012 at 05:53:18 AM PDT

  •  Facebook is the new Big Brother (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Don midwest, blueoasis

    The new 1984. It's the end result of 30-years of deregulation and the "personhood" of corporations.

    I always say "Imagine in the outcry if Facebook was a government entity instead of a private corporation!". Indeed, can you imagine the hysterical outpouring from the right if that were the case? Instead, nobody gives a peep because it's a corporation and not the government.

    When we start REQUIRING people to have a FB or Twitter account in order to get a job or we start whispering and wondering about people (like me) who choose NOT to have one, THEN we have really crossed the line into Orwellian Hell.

  •  Gods, this is chilling (4+ / 0-)

    Glad I'm too old to get a job.  I post all kinds of politically oriented stuff on my status, including diaries from this site.

    "Religion is what keeps the poor from murdering the rich."--Napoleon

    by Diana in NoVa on Thu Jul 26, 2012 at 06:40:39 AM PDT

  •  Credit reports make for nonemployable (4+ / 0-)

    millions! Yes, millions of people have bad credit which can come after losing a job or a home or having bad health, like me.

    We cannot get jobs after that happens! Then have to apply for Food Stamps, etc. Downward spiral.

    "extreme concentration of income is incompatible with real democracy.... the truth is that the whole nature of our society is at stake." Paul Krugman

    by Gorette on Thu Jul 26, 2012 at 07:15:55 AM PDT

  •  The only reason I'm registered on (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    blueoasis, Lucy Montrose

    FB & LinkedIn is cos I've got friends who only use them for contact purposes. I don't use them; I don't do Twitter nor do I text. I think it's funny in a sad way that people are so obsessed with getting their 15 minutes of fame one way or the other. T and R!

    Inner and Outer Space: the Final Frontiers.

    by orlbucfan on Thu Jul 26, 2012 at 07:41:37 AM PDT

  •  I'm not sure there's a problem here (0+ / 0-)

    Facebook (and the internets themselves) are a public space.  I think people SHOULD make an effort to think about how what they say or post reflects on them.  And is it really so wrong for a business to browse public spaces to help determine if someone is a good or bad candidate for employment?

    Think about how often Facebook or Twitter behavior has led to embarrassment for individuals or organizations.  It's actually fairly sensible to check someone out before deciding to hire them.  

    This isn't a speech issue.  Free speech protections have nothing to do with private entities or employment.  The protections are from persecution by governments and the criminal justice system.  Businesses are free to set standards for public behavior for their employees.  They are private entities.

    "You must be the change you wish to see in the world." -Gandhi

    by Triscula on Thu Jul 26, 2012 at 08:27:12 AM PDT

    •  Here's the problem: it's SUBJECTIVE. (3+ / 0-)

      You could quite literally fail to get a job for not sharing the boss', or the HR manager's hobbies. With everything else going on, it did not use to be so easy to get fired because the boss or HR person personally didn't like you. It didn't use to be so easy to blow up personal disagreements into indictments of people's interpersonal abilities-- and having a reputation for poor people skills is the kiss of career death in ANY field.

      Now I dread criticism, for fear my livelihood is a stake. That nothing I've done with my life will matter, next to this in-the-moment subjective opinion. AND I'll have my character maligned for it, my psychology and morals called into question.

      THAT, my dear Watson, is the problem.

      Real Democrats don't abandon the middle class. --John Kerry

      by Lucy Montrose on Thu Jul 26, 2012 at 09:55:42 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  This is nothing new (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Lucy Montrose

        People have been turned down for jobs (or hired!) for reasons like these for a long time, long before Facebook or the internet.  If you're truly worried about that sort of mixing between personal and professional life then just skip Facebook.  Or use an alias.  

        I understand that it can feel uncomfortable to have to censor ourselves or use caution when posting online.  It's simply the cost of doing business if we want to use public spaces to interact.

        "You must be the change you wish to see in the world." -Gandhi

        by Triscula on Thu Jul 26, 2012 at 11:42:18 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Now, if my business requires a... (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:

          ... social media presence, THEN I will go on Facebook. But only as a BUSINESS page. I do not want a personal Facebook page.

          What we're called upon to do when we see that the most important thing is to be a "fit" for a given company, goes well beyond having to censor ourselves or just be polite. Depending on the boss, we may be asked to be the living embodiment of our company. A lot of businesses talk about how they're in the business of selling a lifestyle or an experience, and that skeeves me out... it makes me wonder if it's code for "we will assume a lot of control of your off-work life".

          If a lot more workplaces are becoming homogeneous of personality, that bothers me. Because the truest diversity is diversity of human experience. And we're are dangerously moving in the direction of standardizing a "best" way to live, a "best" way to think; and as seen by business leaders in Wisconsin last week, we're getting too comfortable with the idea of locking us in to career paths at younger and younger ages.

          That would make us lose the ability to re-invent ourselves, and take away from our freedom or occupation. And even if we are one of the fortunate ones, even if we are a "perfect fit" for our professions, we lose our adaptability. We become occupational one-trick ponies.

          It's the biggest reason I've always been a generalist at heart, and resisted specialization. But do we have permission to merely like a career path anymore? Do we have permission to see a line of work as merely a useful feather in our cap? Or do we have to fall in love completely and unequivocally with every company we work for?

          Real Democrats don't abandon the middle class. --John Kerry

          by Lucy Montrose on Thu Jul 26, 2012 at 12:01:22 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  This is also why I distrust "positive attiudes". (0+ / 0-)

          Why are conservatives happier than liberals? Because, among other things, they fit perfectly into our current psychological picture of the happy life.

          The workplace-personality homogenizers, mega-church-dwellers, and social autocrats have a lot of cultural support: the therapy and pop-health communities have been pushing the "we are social beings" line for many years, and it's well-supported by research that we're more comfortable with people when they're more like us.

          Since the psych community is of the point of view that stress is worse for our health than cigarettes and pure lard combined, it tacitly gives approval to us re-engineering our social environments to make sure only those who make us sufficiently comfortable are worthy. Because interacting with people dissimilar to us causes stress. And in a corporation, stress costs money and decreases morale.

          I want to work for a company-- NOT a cult. And these screening processes, taken to their logical conclusion, can only be described as cultic.

          Real Democrats don't abandon the middle class. --John Kerry

          by Lucy Montrose on Thu Jul 26, 2012 at 12:04:13 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  Oh This should be on a front page somewhere (0+ / 0-)

        Lucy, you are fucking Brilliant!

  •  After reading this diary (3+ / 0-)

    I checked to see what my FB page looks like to non-friends. It is pretty well locked down. However, my main picture is from a Planned Parenthood rally. If someone doesn't want to hire me based on that--I don't want to work for them! I do mention my volunteer work for PP in cover letters when applicable, so it shouldn't be a surprise.

    Thinking of changing the main picture to one of my cat, though.

    "When writing a novel that's pretty much entirely what life turns into: 'House burned down. Car stolen. Cat exploded. Did 1500 easy words, so all in all it was a pretty good day.'" -Neil Gaiman

    by BethyNYC on Thu Jul 26, 2012 at 08:58:57 AM PDT

    •  The only problem is... (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      fuzzyguy, GreenMother

      ... what if the only place in your area that pays a decent wage is a Catholic hospital? Do they now screen job applicants for "baby-killing" or gay-marriage-supporting sentiments? They fired that Catholic school teacher in Minnesota after they got her to answer on a questionnaire that she supported same-sex marriage.

      And Catholic hospitals are growing all over the place, through simple business decisions like mergers. Today no contraception or tube-tying... tomorrow, only people who refuse to dispense medicines of religious grounds need apply?

      Real Democrats don't abandon the middle class. --John Kerry

      by Lucy Montrose on Thu Jul 26, 2012 at 09:59:50 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  If I wouldn't want my mom to see it... (0+ / 0-)

    it doesn't go on my Facebook page. Granted my mom is very open-minded and granted that I'm planning to retire soon but still...

    And I generally (with very rare exceptions) do not friend co-workers on Facebook.

  •  what people will post in a public forum (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    is a way to measure good/bad judgment.

    don't put anything on fb you wouldn't want a future employer to see.  the internet is not private or anonymous.

    "Politics is like driving. To go backward put it in R. To go forward put it in D."
    Mitt Romney is not the solution. He's the PROBLEM

    by TrueBlueMajority on Thu Jul 26, 2012 at 09:33:21 AM PDT

    •  But how do you know (3+ / 0-)

      what a future employer might or might not like?  

      If you went by that measurement, you might as well give up living, because there's always going to be someone who can disapprove of anything - even LOLCats.

      All knowledge is worth having. Check out OctopodiCon for steampunk learning and fun. Also, on DKos, check out the Itzl Alert Network.

      by Noddy on Thu Jul 26, 2012 at 11:28:01 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Disapproving Bun! (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Noddy, GreenMother, TrueBlueMajority


        Disapproves of LOLCats.

      •  there was a time when (0+ / 0-)

        a general standard of public behavior was understood for people who wanted to be taken seriously in the world.

        either you were taught it by your elders, or your own common sense led you to it.

        if you don't have it, then unbeknownst to you, you have selected yourself out of the group of people who get taken seriously.

        it is a question of public reputation.  if you do anything that severely damages your public reputation, you hurt your future job prospects.  the problem with fb is that many people do not realize it counts as part of their public reputation.  they think it is private.

        "Politics is like driving. To go backward put it in R. To go forward put it in D."
        Mitt Romney is not the solution. He's the PROBLEM

        by TrueBlueMajority on Fri Jul 27, 2012 at 07:07:54 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Yea, I know all about those rules. (0+ / 0-)

          There are many of us that learned the hard way, that  even when you followed all those rules, that it didn't work.

          Eventually more and more women found that out, and many men too.

          I know all about public reputations.

          They are *special.

          If those rules are not applied equally, then they are meaningless.

          Hence the backlash against pseudo-Victorian values.

          So the root of the problem isn't with tastelessness, it's with deeply seeded, endemic hypocrisy.

    •  Sure it's not. (0+ / 0-)

      You don't know what people are like until they are pressed into a corner.

      I have seen people I thought were slime balls come to the rescue of damsels in distress, and watched pillars of the community roll in the shit with the pigs cause they thought no one would catch them.

      Good Judgement, bad Judgement also comes and goes a daily basis.

      I tell my kids that the biggest obstacle in avoiding stupid people, is trying not to be one. Because it can happen.

      So is one bad day or two, in a lifetime of good works, worth a life sentence?

      •  one bad day or two is not worth a life sentence (0+ / 0-)

        but if you could see what some young people have on their fb pages you'd know they have no concept of privacy, boundaries, or decorum.

        and some companies want all three of those from their executives and executive trainees.

        "Politics is like driving. To go backward put it in R. To go forward put it in D."
        Mitt Romney is not the solution. He's the PROBLEM

        by TrueBlueMajority on Thu Jul 26, 2012 at 04:41:39 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Well now, be that as it may, does that still give (0+ / 0-)

          you the right to deny them gainful employment?

          You can't very well complain about crime due to unemployment, or the cycle of poverty if you truly believe that keeping people in that cycle is a viable method of shaming them into living your life.

          What happens if an ex-porn star applies for a job? Do we say, "No I am sorry, you have had way too many [fill-in-the-blank], so why don't you just go back to doing what you did before."

          Do we hire ex-sex workers? Or do they get the ex-porn star treatment?

          What about ex-cons? If they served their debt to society, do we give them a second chance or do we throw them out with the bad-credit people who lost homes in the housing crash?

          NOPE! You had your chance!

          What about poor people who were never taught etiquette? Because they don't eat with the right fork--do you deny them a job? No more diamonds in the rough!

          Do you deny them a job, NOT because they are not qualified, but because they do something in their private lives that *YOU don't approve of,but that is otherwise legal.

          How is that different that discriminating against GLBTs, or Women, or Ethnic applicants? Or someone of a different religion?

          I guess at least when we profile those people listed immediately above, we have some kind of recognizable criterion, even if that is beyond unethical and unlawful. But with this, it's mostly nebulous bullshit.

          I suspect that what we see in terms of tastelessness on the web [and I use that term loosely] might be a sort of subconscious backlash against this psuedo-Victorianism that has glommed on to our dominant cultural paradigm. That and kids doing what kids do.  

          That being said, I can show you historical reference after historical reference of erotica, porn, graffiti, tasteless jokes, etc.,

          Tell me, if I visited the red lantern district in Pompei and took pictures of the walkway lined with stone penises and posted that--would you avoid interviewing me for that? Would you assume I am a pervert or would you understand the historical importance of that visit and my fascination with human sexuality and culture as a historical subject?

          What If I also posted a Sheila-na-Gig which is a hag holding her vagina open with her own hands, grimacing. Would you run away screaming for the same reason?

          What if I wrote a review on a book about entheogens? Would you assume that I abuse controlled substances?
          Hey don't bother with a piss test for that one, I mean did you see her FB page? Did you see her book list?

          A picture is worth a thousand words--IN YOUR OWN HEAD.

          An assumption is worth even more and they all come from the same place.

          The attempt to contextualize a person's skills, traits, and innate value based on these assumptions built on snapshots is just another extension of soundbite culture.

          Tasteless--So what. Tasteless can be another term for adventure, for someone who isn't afraid to live outside the box.

          Cranky can be another word for meticulous and detailed oriented.

          Weird is just another word for creative thinker.

          Uncomfortable can be another word that describes a person who causes you to feel emotionally threatened or intimidated.

          •  i think you misunderstand (0+ / 0-)

            by ascribing to me the judgment standards of the employment agency world.

            i have nothing against sex workers, conceptual artists, or the worshipful use of hallucinogenic substances.

            however, i am not an employer who has a hundred people applying for every job and is legally allowed to use all kinds of subjective and relatively trivial information to decide whether to hire person A or person B.

            It is no different than a law firm deciding not to hire the person who comes to the interview wearing flip flops.  She might be the most brilliant lawyer who ever lived, and those might be the only shoes she owns, but flouting acceptable standards of business behavior in that way will not get her hired.

            weird is definitely another word for creative thinker and I myself am proud to be weird by that standard.

            but until you and I run the world, people looking for jobs will have to conform to the standards of dress, comportment, personal judgment and public behavior that their employers prefer.

            "Politics is like driving. To go backward put it in R. To go forward put it in D."
            Mitt Romney is not the solution. He's the PROBLEM

            by TrueBlueMajority on Fri Jul 27, 2012 at 06:56:32 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  It's not about running the world (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:

              It's not about wearing flip flops to an interview.

              It's about judging a photograph of a person in flip flops online before the interview and using that as a filter.

              •  flip flops to an interview (0+ / 0-)

                yes it is the same thing.

                arbitrary clothing standards are part of the way that the executive class (and those who aspire to it) keeps other people out.  The business world has all kinds of unwritten behavior rules, and they exist in order to keep out people who don't know the rules, or who can't afford to follow the rules, or think the rules are archaic and unfair so they deliberately disobey them.

                getting wasted and flashing at Mardi Gras is not illegal.  having a collection of penis sculptures is not illegal.  but posting such a picture on facebook shows poor judgment in the same way that wearing flip flops to a job interview is not illegal but shows poor judgment.  if a future employer decides not to hire you because of it, no amount of "how was i supposed to know" will make a difference.

                and i don't see you taking back your assumption/accusation that I myself am the one making these negative judgments about people based on FB and their other public behaviors.  i am merely advising young people (people of all ages) to recognize that part of the world as it is, even while some of us are working to bring about a more just society.

                "Politics is like driving. To go backward put it in R. To go forward put it in D."
                Mitt Romney is not the solution. He's the PROBLEM

                by TrueBlueMajority on Fri Jul 27, 2012 at 10:07:59 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Nope. If I am letting my freak flag fly at home (0+ / 0-)

                  around like minded freaks, that has no bearing on my outside work.

                  I am not letting my freak flag fly at work.

                  I am not letting fly at the interview.

                  Off Time = Me Time.  I OWN ME. I exchange my services for pay, but I do not sell MYSELF like a piece of property, to be owned as chattel.

                  Anyone who can determine what you do in your off time, either through fear, or coercion OWNS you.

                  If you think that kind of slavery is okay,

                  Then I doubt we will ever see eye to eye on this.

                  What you suggest to me is so reprehensible and offensive to me, as a Free American. It is shocking to me, that anyone who values their citizenship or the national character of this nation as a *Free Nation would ever allow such an awful soul-sucking deal transpire.

                  What you have already given up of yourself has warped your own internal notion of worth. It's a bad deal and I hope some day you reclaim your freedom, to be and speak,  who you are as a citizen.

                  You have allowed perfect strangers to install bars in your own mind.

                  •  I don't think it is OK (0+ / 0-)

                    i think it is the way it is.

                    that's why I chose not to pursue a career in the kinds of jobs and professions among people who do think it is OK.

                    some companies even have a clause in the employment contract that restricts what you can do on your me time.  no second job, for example.  nothing that will create bad publicity for the company.  vague "morals" clauses that can be interepreted to mean whatever the boss wants it to mean.

                    sadly, i agree with you that people in jobs like that ARE owned by their employer and do not realize it.  lots of people make that trade, either out of financial desperation or because they do not know that another way of life exists.

                    and actually, I think you are already aware that this is the way life is for most people.  that is why you prize your freedom so highly and defend it so passionately--you know how rare it is.

                    my internal notion of worth is quite fine, thank you.  I even help other people raise their internal notion of worth, and do it quite successfully.  i've even encouraged some of them to leave jobs like the ones we are describing, for jobs that allow them more freedom in their private lives.

                    all I have given up is several high-paying career opportunities that were offered to me in a system i disapprove of.  there are some restrictions on my behavior in my current job, but most of them are things I would never do anyway, and i still push the envelope in the other areas from time to time.  my boss knows i am a free spirit and puts up with my speaking up and speaking out even when it is out of turn, because he knows he cannot change me.

                    and i predict that one day you will realize that we are already on the same page about how reprehensible and offensive the current system is.

                    "Politics is like driving. To go backward put it in R. To go forward put it in D."
                    Mitt Romney is not the solution. He's the PROBLEM

                    by TrueBlueMajority on Sun Jul 29, 2012 at 08:26:07 AM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                  •  and (0+ / 0-)

                    just as people who are smart investigate a company on line before they decide to apply for a job there, a company will check out a prospective hire before they decide to call you in for an interview.

                    sometimes they do a CORI check.  some jobs do background checks of other kinds that involve interviewing your friends and neighbors, and that definitely involves subjective judgments about what you do on your free time me time, if you do it publicly.

                    sometimes they will google you, or check your fb page.  because anything that shows up on the net is a PUBLIC and not a private action.

                    so the flip flops analogy just acknowledges that. you don't have to flash the interviewer, but if they find out that is something you like to do on your trips to Rio for Carnival, and then post pictures of it on facebook, it is part of what they will use to evaluate you, even though it is perfectly normal behavior for Carnival and lots of other women were doing it.

                    anyone who manages to keep their private life private has nothing to worry about.  But fb postings and even the things we write on daily kos are not private.  and there are young people who do not even understand the concept of "private life" because they have sadly become accustomed to sharing everything they are and everything they do via various electronic means.

                    again, you keep assuming that I think it is right that employers do this.  I do not.

                    But people ought to know that it is being done and it is no different than what big companies have always done to check out the "character" of people they hire.  before facebook, they just did it in other ways.

                    in this day and age where there are so many people applying for every open job, an employer with a good job to offer can get away with using any arbitrary criteria they want to decide who gets the prize.

                    "Politics is like driving. To go backward put it in R. To go forward put it in D."
                    Mitt Romney is not the solution. He's the PROBLEM

                    by TrueBlueMajority on Sun Jul 29, 2012 at 08:37:46 AM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                  •  shorter form of answer (0+ / 0-)

                    being aware of it is not the same as approving of it.

                    "Politics is like driving. To go backward put it in R. To go forward put it in D."
                    Mitt Romney is not the solution. He's the PROBLEM

                    by TrueBlueMajority on Sun Jul 29, 2012 at 08:38:17 AM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

  •  If you post stuff on the interwebs and its (0+ / 0-)

    available to everyone then you must want or don't care if everyone sees it.  It's like killing your parents and then begging the Court for mercy because you are an orphan.  

    The sky is not falling. But it is going to heat up a bit.

    by thestructureguy on Thu Jul 26, 2012 at 09:35:26 AM PDT

    •  Not even close. (0+ / 0-)

      For all these companies claim this goes to show evidence to this or that, about judgement or psych profiles,

      ALL this stuff was going on before, and it will be going on if the internet were to shut down tomorrow.

      These people worked for them back then--so what is the problem again?

      I have a friend who lives in the Netherlands. I envy her. People are people online over there too. Only funny thing is no one cares, except for their government, that is, which doesn't have it's head up a corporate asshole, and they actually impose restrictions on FB and other sites to protect users from such abuses.

      What a concept.

      You would think with all this American Exceptionalism oozing out of every orafice, that we would have thought of it first.

  •  TalkingPointsMedia and other sites mandating FB (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    accounts in order to comment.   No problem but the comments show up in your timeline for friends to then comment on and pie fights ensue.

    So while I appreciate the reasons to use FB non-anonymous accounts for cleaning up the commenting section, I can't participate in those sites any more other than reading.

    See y'all on Twitter!

    Republicans: They hate us for our Freedom.

    by mikeconwell on Thu Jul 26, 2012 at 09:42:15 AM PDT

  •  "paragon of objectivity"?? (0+ / 0-)

    WTF?  Have you ever actually been on a job interview?

    •  Have you ever dealt with discrimination issues? (0+ / 0-)

      Real ones?

      They can be hard to prove, sometimes take months to document, and even if the victim is completely in the right, they could loose their job and sometimes more than that.

      Cry me a river bub. I have seen some shit. And I will never forget it.

  •  But there's this, too: (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Otteray Scribe, livingthedream

    I hereby (fictionally) resign

    It made the rounds a few months ago, but it still relevant.

    Beware the man of one book.

    by fiddler crabby on Thu Jul 26, 2012 at 10:39:28 AM PDT

  •  I recall reading about a guy who (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    fuzzyguy, Noddy, GreenMother

    left the US on business. He was known for his activism on the part of several organizations such as Doctors Without Borders and Amnesty Intl.

    When he got to the TSA checkpoint at the airport, the screener asked to see his cell phone.  He told the screener he deliberately left it at home.  His explanation to the screener was that he did not need it en route, and when he got to where he was going, it would be easy to pick up a throwaway cell phone at a kiosk somewhere if he needed one.  The screener became enraged and almost did not let him on the plane because he did not have his cell phone for them to inspect. They really wanted to see what he had on his phone, and had figured his traveling overseas would be a good opportunity to snag his contact list and saved messages.

    As the comic villain said, "Curses, foiled again!"

    When I first read 1984 shortly after it was published, I thought it was fiction.  I did not realize it was a "how to" manual for government and business.  

    The general who wins the battle makes many calculations in his temple before the battle is fought. The general who loses makes but few calculations beforehand. - Sun Tzu

    by Otteray Scribe on Thu Jul 26, 2012 at 10:50:05 AM PDT

    •  Ye ghods! (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Otteray Scribe, fuzzyguy, GreenMother

      I don't have a personal cell phone.  Or a land line. Or an MP3 player or iPod or iPad.  It's a good thing, I guess, that I can't fly.  At least they don't (yet) have driving check points that demand we show our papers and shake us down for our belongings like they do at airports.

      My daughter went on vacation and mailed her luggage to her friend's house so she wouldn't have to put it all through the TSA.  All she took with her were the clothes she was wearing and the minimal essentials to travel - a small amount of cash, her debit/credit card, and an old kindle that only does the books.

      How sad is it that Americans can't even travel within their own country without being shaken down and risking having their personal property stolen by the TSA?

      All knowledge is worth having. Check out OctopodiCon for steampunk learning and fun. Also, on DKos, check out the Itzl Alert Network.

      by Noddy on Thu Jul 26, 2012 at 11:38:55 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Duh (0+ / 0-)

    The solution is simple. Don't put your real name on your profile, and don't set up your facebook account using your official e-mail address. Employers won't have any information about you that would allow them to even find  your facebook profile (which you've hopefully made private anyway).

    "On this subject, I do not wish to think, or speak, or write, with moderation." William Lloyd Garrison

    by HoratioGalt on Thu Jul 26, 2012 at 12:26:13 PM PDT

  •  It isn't new (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    It's been going on for a while already.  I saw it 15 years ago.

    Corporations own your time when you are in the office and some think they have rights to anything you access while on the clock.

    My previous workplace believed that extended to passwords/logins if you used a work computer.  (An aside, I know bad idea, but still...)  Even bad judgement on my part does not give my employer rights to access my bank account.

    The thing that frightened me was when the company was willing to allow employees to get cell phones through work. They offered a slight discount over what we could get ourselves, but the privacy ramifications scared me shitless! Anyone who didn't want to take them up on the offer was looked at with suspicion.  "Who doesn't want to save money?"

    Right after that, pushed through a no "non company" phones allowed on in the office.

    How far must I go to distance my own FB profile from myself to make sure that I have a chance at getting a job?

    •  Scary, now I am going to have to grill my hubby (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      about the cell phone contract.
      Thanks for posting this LostBuckeye.

      •  This was several years back (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        And now it could be even worse.

        Back then it was more about how many minutes were people using, and what numbers were they calling. Most people were just getting rid of their indestructible Nokia's and Motorola flip phones, maybe the next round after that.

        Now it can extend to GPS tracking, internet usage, and potentially text messages, in addition to who you called, and for how long.

        I don't think that the company would have easy access to listen in on my conversations, texts, or emails, but it was already too much.  Combine it with a murky idea of ownership (see stuff about the computers above), and, um well...

        I'm almost afraid to find out how much a company today could know about someone using only a company smart phone.

skybluewater, Ed in Montana, Sylv, DeminNewJ, Athena, copymark, PeterHug, eeff, WI Deadhead, hubcap, TracieLynn, boadicea, ovals49, antirove, aitchdee, wader, edrie, dejavu, psnyder, sockpuppet, ranger995, texasmom, Diana in NoVa, zerelda, mungley, solesse413, xxdr zombiexx, oortdust, Gowrie Gal, sb, G2geek, kbman, NoMoreLies, Tonedevil, ccasas, Simplify, ChemBob, EJP in Maine, FutureNow, majcmb1, Ice Blue, xaxnar, CJnyc, barbybuddy, martini, esquimaux, cybersaur, Russgirl, tonyahky, kestrel9000, Son of a Cat, raincrow, blueoasis, StrayCat, twigg, The Hindsight Times, JVolvo, CA Nana, doingbusinessas, Texdude50, Statusquomustgo, OHdog, AntKat, DBunn, out of left field, devis1, ColoTim, gloriana, linkage, sfbob, bnasley, puzzled, jayden, millwood, bewild, cynndara, rogerdaddy, BethyNYC, Old Lefty, treesrock, hwmnbn, smartdemmg, Gemina13, Lucy Montrose, enufisenuf, Fiddlegirl, Dirtandiron, nchristine, Carol in San Antonio, Ohiodem1, CamillesDad1, DefendOurConstitution, strangedemocracy, nancat357, Former Chicagoan Now Angeleno, commonmass, angelajean, DerAmi, elengul, Otteray Scribe, redlum jak, Mistral Wind, kiwiheart, kevin k, Hohenzollern, zukesgirl64, seattlebarb, terabthia2, Ravoon, bluedust, No one gets out alive, anodnhajo, Siri, FloridaSNMOM, Horace Boothroyd III, Free Jazz at High Noon, Arahahex, Margd, redstella, Noddy, Vote4Obamain2012, Kinak, Canis Aureus, idbecrazyif, dear occupant, 84thProblem, weck, Jollie Ollie Orange, QDMacaw, Icicle68, The Angry Architect, blue91, ConfusedSkyes

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site