April 23, 2012 at 7:41 am
Straight up, I wouldn't consider a job that required special access to my Facebook account (I don't have one) or personal life. That's just a red flag... coming from the employer.
"Do not seek to follow in the footsteps of the wise. Instead, seek what they sought." - Matsuo Basho
April 23, 2012 at 7:55 am
Yeah that would be an interview ending request for me. I have facebook and there is absolutely nothing on there that would in anyway shape of form be offensive to a potential employer. The face that the company does not trust or respect their employees says loud and clear to me that is not a place I want to work. At this point in my career the interview process is a two way wooing. They have to sell themselves to me as much as I have to sell myself to them. I actually think I would stand up and walk out if that were asked of me.
_______________________________________________________________
Need help? Help us help you.
Read the article at http://www.sqlservercentral.com/articles/Best+Practices/61537/ for best practices on asking questions.
Need to split a string? Try Jeff Modens splitter http://www.sqlservercentral.com/articles/Tally+Table/72993/.
Cross Tabs and Pivots, Part 1 – Converting Rows to Columns - http://www.sqlservercentral.com/articles/T-SQL/63681/
Cross Tabs and Pivots, Part 2 - Dynamic Cross Tabs - http://www.sqlservercentral.com/articles/Crosstab/65048/
Understanding and Using APPLY (Part 1) - http://www.sqlservercentral.com/articles/APPLY/69953/
Understanding and Using APPLY (Part 2) - http://www.sqlservercentral.com/articles/APPLY/69954/
April 23, 2012 at 8:01 am
"if all companies were to ask for this, employees would essentially have no choice but to comply" - well, if all candidates refused companies would have not choice but to relent.
That said, you are relying on facebook to safeguard your privacy - do you know what security measures are in place? Do you know if Facebook employees have access to your information? Even the 'private' section of Facebook is less private than a face-to-face conversation in a remote location. It is relative.
I recommend you review and maintain your public presence carefully and for truly private matters keep it separate by either using a different persona (were allowed) or keep it out of that medium.
April 23, 2012 at 8:08 am
"If I were asked in an interview, I would politely decline and state that I have set up privacy for a reason. There are things I post to share with friends and family that are not meant to be available for the general public. In my mind, these are akin to photo albums or letters I've written that I store in my house. Anything that I post publicly I take responsibility for, but private posts are private. "
I undertand your feelings, Steve. However, one question does come to mind. Why would you post "private" information on the Internet in the first place? Particularly, on a "security hole" like Facebook?:-D
"Technology is a weird thing. It brings you great gifts with one hand, and it stabs you in the back with the other. ...:-D"
April 23, 2012 at 8:12 am
andrew gothard (4/23/2012)
The issue with this is as well as asking for you to breech your terms and conditions and compromise your own confidentiality, they are also asking you to compromise the confidentiality of your friends and family. If you have been privately messaging a friend/family member about a private matter which they do not want made public, then you are releasing this information to strangers. That's apart from the situation where someone posts something uncharacteristically assenine.In all honesty, merely being asked this would be an instant "Thanks for your time, hope you find someone suitable" situation for me - although I've not heard about this being practice in the UK.
Personally I have nothing I've posted there I would regard as a skeleton in the closet, but this kind of intrusive nonsense is not the sign of a reasonable employer
Exactly. A colleague of mine raised this point, and I think it will probably form the strongest part of a legal challenge (or a proposed law) against the practice of demanding Facebook user names and passwords. Even if one accepts the ethically questionable premise that prospective employers are entitled to rummage through your accounts, they have absolutely no right to rummage through the accounts of people you are linked to who aren't applying for the job and are in no way responsible for your behavior. Facebook works precisely based on these connections, so I don't see how this practice can withstand such a legal objection.
I agree with those who see echoes of 1984 in this trend.
- webrunner
-------------------
A SQL query walks into a bar and sees two tables. He walks up to them and asks, "Can I join you?"
Ref.: http://tkyte.blogspot.com/2009/02/sql-joke.html
April 23, 2012 at 8:12 am
Anyone that is for giving their FB credentials to either an employer or potential employer is a fool. Why don't you give them a key to your home and if you do any banking online, give them that information too. Because it is a tight job market employers can obviously be more selective but there is a line and this crosses it. How about an employer simply insist as a condition of employment that no employee shall write, publish, etc disparaging remarks of said employer during the duration of employment and after. Basically the employee agrees to never bad mouth the company publicly and if they do they are subject to termination and/or civil penalties.
Cheers
April 23, 2012 at 8:31 am
I would have to be seriously desperate for a job to even consider giving them my details. As other's have said, it's not just my privacy but all my friends and family that would be compromised. And what would they be hoping to (not) find?
I don't have anything on Facebook I'm ashamed of, there are few, if any, photos of me really drunk, for example. But that's more to do with my age. If Facebook have been around when I was a teen, there'd be loads. But so what? And what makes an employer feel they have the right to know what I do and what I'm like 24 hours a day. My references should be enough for them to know that I know how to conduct myself in a professional way during working hours, and whatever I've got up to outside work hasn't impinged on my ability to do my job.
April 23, 2012 at 8:38 am
Personally, I would excuse myself from the job interview and would no longer consider taking a job for that employer.
April 23, 2012 at 8:45 am
Freddie-304292 (4/23/2012)
...I don't have anything on Facebook I'm ashamed of, there are few, if any, photos of me really drunk, for example. But that's more to do with my age. If Facebook have been around when I was a teen, there'd be loads. ....
It need not be anything that you would be ashamed of. Your political opinions, religious or social connections (of you or even of your friends), your discussions of family or medical issues can alter a potential employer's perception in ways that are simply not legitimate.
There have been reports of major employers who invite people to apply for jobs through facebook actually go and look at their FRIENDS' profiles to see what THEY look like.
...
-- FORTRAN manual for Xerox Computers --
April 23, 2012 at 8:45 am
Greetings All,
it is interesting to see how everybody agrees that prospective employers shouldn't be allowed to ask for an interviewee's FaceBook account info. Some say that, due to many security holes, no private information should be put on FaceBook anyhow. That can certainly be true, but also some may not have much choice. When a family, or friends, lives "literally" all around the world, then FaceBook becomes the standard that can be used to keep in touch with many others. Some personal information will go on there regardless of whether you want it to or not. It makes the "Just Don't Do It" mantra very hard to impossible to follow.
The other option of just signing a non-defamation contract with the company can also bring about problems. First, I know of one person that is being sued by a seller from E-bay only because he put a negative comment on the seller. Nevermind the information that the seller had also sold a box of junk instead of what was advertised. In E-Bay, there isn't even a non-defamation contrat to be signed. This seller was just not happy about losing their perfect status. Let's put that in the view of a non-defamation contract with a company. If the same company does something illegal or if they treat you poorly, like force you to have to work extra overtime hours every week. If you say anything negative about this practice, especially to outside authorities, then you are in a position to be fired / sued by the same company. Also, would a "Reason For Leaving" entered on a new prospective employer's application be considered a contract breaker? If the prior company found out that you had entered "Difference Of Opinions" as the reason and they decided that was too negative, then what would stop them from coming after you? If seems a bit far-fetched to think that could happen, but after learning about the E-Bay incident, I am not so sure.
Have a good day.
April 23, 2012 at 8:54 am
You never write anything negative in the reason for leaving section of an application anyway. And if you did write something such as difference of opinion and then it lead to litigation, I'd say man up and tell them you will see them in court. File a counter claim for all fees and cost and any other recourse that the law(s) in your state may allow. Sure it is nice to not be sued in the first place but there is no rule that says anyone simply must tolerate being pushed around.
Cheers
April 23, 2012 at 9:01 am
OTOH, I can think of a situation where it could form a valuable part of the screening process. "Well, you're here for the DBA job, first thing, could you provide us with your FB login?" "Hey, sure!". (Ok, this one's not getting access to our systems) ... "NEXT!"
I'm a DBA.
I'm not paid to solve problems. I'm paid to prevent them.
April 23, 2012 at 9:12 am
Greetings jfogel,
Sometimes what is considered "negative" and what is "sanitized" is completly a matter of opinion. That is the point I was trying to make about the reason for leaving part. If what you say can be possible be interpreted as being either negative or false then that could give them grounds for their action. I am certain that others here either know of, or have experienced, how others can take what they say and twist it around so much that it doesn't even come close to what they had meant.
As for just saying that you would take them to court too, that is also a hard choice for some to make. What you do can also affect your family and friends. Hiring a good lawyer also takes a lot of time, effort, possibly money, and a ton of luck that you might not have. There is also the concern that if a judiciary committee does not follow their own rules and supports the aggressor, will you continue to fight? Would it be worth the potential cost and loss to continue? If you truly have nothing to lose, then sure go for the fight, but many do have more to lose and may find that trying to do battle would cost more than what they would win in the end. This cost is not just monetary either. There is the cost to health, life, happiness for you, your immediate family and friends. The cost of stress and worries too. Just because you are right, does not mean that you will win.
The easiest way I can put that is to consider a car accident involving a car and a motorcycle. It doesn't matter if the motorcycle rider was right or wrong - they still lose.
April 23, 2012 at 9:25 am
Well said.
April 23, 2012 at 9:30 am
terrance.steadman (4/23/2012)
Greetings jfogel,Sometimes what is considered "negative" and what is "sanitized" is completly a matter of opinion. That is the point I was trying to make about the reason for leaving part. If what you say can be possible be interpreted as being either negative or false then that could give them grounds for their action. I am certain that others here either know of, or have experienced, how others can take what they say and twist it around so much that it doesn't even come close to what they had meant.
As for just saying that you would take them to court too, that is also a hard choice for some to make. What you do can also affect your family and friends. Hiring a good lawyer also takes a lot of time, effort, possibly money, and a ton of luck that you might not have. There is also the concern that if a judiciary committee does not follow their own rules and supports the aggressor, will you continue to fight? Would it be worth the potential cost and loss to continue? If you truly have nothing to lose, then sure go for the fight, but many do have more to lose and may find that trying to do battle would cost more than what they would win in the end. This cost is not just monetary either. There is the cost to health, life, happiness for you, your immediate family and friends. The cost of stress and worries too. Just because you are right, does not mean that you will win.
The easiest way I can put that is to consider a car accident involving a car and a motorcycle. It doesn't matter if the motorcycle rider was right or wrong - they still lose.
The price of freedom is constant alertness, constant willingness to fight back.
For far too many people, their willingness to fight back boils down to financial issues. There are good and valid reasons for this, but anyone who doesn't fight back against an intrusion like this needs to recognize that they are giving up their liberty in exchange for money. Might still decide the money is more important, but it's something to take into account in the decision.
- Gus "GSquared", RSVP, OODA, MAP, NMVP, FAQ, SAT, SQL, DNA, RNA, UOI, IOU, AM, PM, AD, BC, BCE, USA, UN, CF, ROFL, LOL, ETC
Property of The Thread
"Nobody knows the age of the human race, but everyone agrees it's old enough to know better." - Anon
Viewing 15 posts - 16 through 30 (of 200 total)
You must be logged in to reply to this topic. Login to reply