Login or Join Now

Upload your photos, chat, win prizes and much more

Username:
Password:
Remember Me

Can't Access your Account?

New to ePHOTOzine? Join ePHOTOzine for free!

Like 0

Instagram to sell photos commercially without compensation.

Join Now

Join ePHOTOzine, the friendliest photography community.

Upload photos, chat with photographers, win prizes and much more for free!

55% OFF new PortraitPro 12 - use code EPHZROS414.
JJGEE
JJGEE  96103 forum posts England18 Constructive Critique Points
19 Dec 2012 - 3:33 PM

I see elsewhere that National Geographic have stopped posting images to Instagram and have made it quite clear that they will close their account if the proposed new conditions remain.

It mentions they have 600,00 followers, whatever that means.

Sponsored Links
Sponsored Links 
19 Dec 2012 - 3:33 PM

Join ePHOTOzine for free and remove these adverts.

lemmy
lemmy  61675 forum posts United Kingdom
19 Dec 2012 - 3:35 PM


Quote: So based on that, if I was an employer and I misjudged what someone said (often out of context) I'd be wrong and they would potentially lose the chance of a job.

Nevertheless, if you formed that opinion, it would be my fault, not yours. And in these days of fierce competition for jobs, silly of me.


Quote: never put anything on any social networking site that you might not want everyone - and I do mean everyone - to know at some time in the future.

That hits the nail on the head. The funny thing is, it's a statement of the bleedin' obvious, really and hard to believe there is still anyone around too dumb to understand it. Having said that, I wouldn't want to employ anyone that dumb so I'd have made a sound decision. There's more to most jobs than just pushing a button at the right moment - most require a bit of common sense which making damning public statements rather suggests someone doesn't have.


Quote: If I formulated the opinion that you liked an argument then I'd be wrong

That was a joke. In fact I illustrated that you would have been right by saying it would be settled outside Wink

paulcookphotography


Quote:
So be careful about what you put on social sites. Simple answer.

You seem to be denying that the applicant has no responsibility and giving the impression that companies screen FB for everyone who answers a job ad. it just does not happen like that.

So, in reference to an earlier point, what if my facebook page is set so that only friends (including businesses i have marked as friends) can read, or, i dont have a facebook account?

Can i then act in any way i choose as the potential employer cannot see it (and please dont reply with another 'bitching about employers', as i have already stated its a wider issue than that) and therefore do nothing. It doesnt change what my activities are, just that its invisible to them.


Quote: I'm referring to things like sexuality, beliefs, political views etc that are not generally asked in an application, but may be found on someone's Facebook page.

If you don't like people who have those views, it seems a good job that they don't give you the opportunity to join them and you hate being there.



You are not seriously suggesting that those against discrimination should not be recruited? Or is discrimination ok as long as nobody complains? Shocked at that response

paulcookphotography

Ok, so now i'm 'dumb' for seeing how a system can be abused? Nice

Good luck with ephotozine folks. In the last couple of weeks i have seen a lot of posts here that are becoming offensive, rude, and obnoxious, but enough is enough.

lemmy
lemmy  61675 forum posts United Kingdom
19 Dec 2012 - 3:49 PM


Quote: So, in reference to an earlier point, what if my facebook page is set so that only friends (including businesses i have marked as friends) can read, or, i dont have a facebook account

Most people have no idea who can read or can not read their Facebook pages. But you are wilfully obscuring the argument there. Of course, if your pages can only be read by you and close friends, you have no problem. So long as you can absolutely trust the friends.

But most folk pride themselves on the number of 'friends' they have. More are better, more prestigious, they show you are popular. When you have 150 or more followers, it can hardly be called private.

If you have particularly obnoxious or silly views or were bad-mouthing your employer, would you expound them loudly in a pub with 50 people hearing every word you say? You should be able to but you can't. Common sense is all.

mikehit
mikehit e2 Member 45766 forum postsmikehit vcard United Kingdom9 Constructive Critique Points
19 Dec 2012 - 4:02 PM

I don't think anyone has said FB can't be abused, which is why people need to be careful how they use it. Just as if I am talking about work, I am careful who I talk to and where.



Quote: So, in reference to an earlier point, what if my facebook page is set so that only friends (including businesses i have marked as friends) can read, or, i dont have a facebook account?

Can i then act in any way i choose as the potential employer cannot see it

You can behave however you want to, but all the time be aware that your (potential) employer may see it. How is that different to any other part of your life?
Don't also forget that your potential co-workers will also read FB - if there is anything embarassing on their then the applicant may never get the respect they need to do their job. In that respect the employer pre-screening is pre-empting these problems.

The fact is, these things happen - you may not like it but there is nothing we can do about it. And anyone who falls foul of that really has no-one else to blame but themselves.



Quote: You are not seriously suggesting that those against discrimination should not be recruited?

Not at all (I should have added 'flippant' smilie).

mikehit
mikehit e2 Member 45766 forum postsmikehit vcard United Kingdom9 Constructive Critique Points
19 Dec 2012 - 4:07 PM


Quote: Ok, so now i'm 'dumb' for seeing how a system can be abused? Nice



I do not see why you see yourself ad being called' dumb'. Lemmy's comment was about people who don't understand it - you do so you are not dumb.
Are you putting on your website things you do not want everyone to know?

adrian_w
adrian_w e2 Member 63201 forum postsadrian_w vcard Scotland4 Constructive Critique Points
19 Dec 2012 - 4:27 PM


Quote: I am a man of peace and love, a purveyor of harmony and pacifism.

& there was me thinking you were a press photographer!

Anyway, as interesting as this conversation has been aren't we getting a long way off the original theme?
Time to step back a bit & cool off.

paulcookphotography

Right plain and simple terms

Say someone is gay. They might have that on their facebook page. Why shouldnt they? they are comfortable with it and their friends know and the folk down the pub and thats all great.

They apply for a job. They cant be asked if they are gay, as that would be discrimination. They are perfectly suitable and qualified for the job, and they have glowing references. The boss checks FB to 'see if they bitch about bosses', but they are homophobic.

The applicant gets a letter of refusal.

THAT is a clear and simple example of how personal information (that is not private) can be abused.

If someone in employment was fired and it was found to be on the basis of them being gay, lawyers would have a field day. And it doesnt have to be about someone's sexuality, it could be all manners of things that are not against the law or prevent them from doing a satisfactory job that they DO NOT have to declare on a contract of employment

And sadly, i'm sure even in this day and age, there will be a lot of cases such as that. Possibly more than folk bitching about a boss. Or saying their job was boring (and then getting fired)

oldblokeh
oldblokeh  2722 forum posts United Kingdom
19 Dec 2012 - 4:48 PM


Quote: Right plain and simple terms



..except that you never answered my point. Say someone is black. They turn up at the interview and they don't get the job because the employer is a bigot. In what way is this any different?

Last Modified By oldblokeh at 19 Dec 2012 - 4:50 PM
paulcookphotography

Its still discrimination and should not be accepted either

The only difference really would be that in the case of the person that is gay, it is their decision to tell their employer (or anyone) if they are gay. Not for their employer to find out information through facebook.

Last Modified By paulcookphotography at 19 Dec 2012 - 4:59 PM
oldblokeh
oldblokeh  2722 forum posts United Kingdom
19 Dec 2012 - 4:56 PM


Quote: Its no different, and should not be accepted either

Quite, so we have to credit most employers with the sense not to discriminate on such criteria in face-to-face interviews, and if we do, then I see no logical reason why the same should not be true for other public domain information.

mikehit
mikehit e2 Member 45766 forum postsmikehit vcard United Kingdom9 Constructive Critique Points
19 Dec 2012 - 4:58 PM

That is discrimination and it is illegal. I agree with your concerns about how hard it is for the employee to prove anything but if you want to make such extra-curricular vetting illegal, how do you police it?
I don't think we disagree on the basics of it all - you can either rail against it to no effect or accept it may happen and work round it.

(by the way: if the applicant thinks they are being discrriminated against, they can claim discrimination and it is up to the company to prove that the candidate was not discriminated against).

paulcookphotography


Quote: That is discrimination and it is illegal. I agree with your concerns about how hard it is for the employee to prove anything but if you want to make such extra-curricular vetting illegal, how do you police it?
I don't think we disagree on the basics of it all - you can either rail against it to no effect or accept it may happen and work round it.

(by the way: if the applicant thinks they are being discrriminated against, they can claim discrimination and it is up to the company to prove that the candidate was not discriminated against).

I dont know how it should be policed, but there should be some sort of legislation.

For example, if a company made it policy that all employees must give details of facebook accounts, then an employee signs a contract and agrees (or disagrees and refuses the job/leaves). Should a potential employee have to delete their sexuality (for example) from their facebook page in case it effects their application? NO! They may choose to do it if they get the job, but nobody should be in a position where they have to hide who they are in order to GET a job (providing they are not breaking any law in doing so).

oldblokeh
oldblokeh  2722 forum posts United Kingdom
19 Dec 2012 - 5:12 PM


Quote: Should a potential employee have to delete their sexuality (for example) from their facebook page in case it effects their application? NO! .

Youe still haven't answered my point:


Quote: Quite, so we have to credit most employers with the sense not to discriminate on such criteria in face-to-face interviews, and if we do, then I see no logical reason why the same should not be true for other public domain information.

Add a Comment

You must be a member to leave a comment

Username:
Password:
Remember me:
Un-tick this box if you want to login each time you visit.