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!

New PortraitPro 12 SALE + 10% OFF code EPZROS814
paulcookphotography


Quote:
That's totally beside the point. Discrimination in either case is illegal as we are both agreed. A candidate might choose to go for interview in drag. Same argument applies.

Ok, so basically we are agreeing that discrimination is illegal, but because people get away with it in face to face scenarios, you think it should be ignored or it is no longer valid?



Quote:
Let me ask you this: do you think that a prospective employee should have the right to investigate his or her prospective employer though public domain material? Financial position via Companies House, perhaps? Or by looking to see how many employees have claimed unfair dismissal? Perhaps they might be interested in the views of the personnel director in his or her public Facebook presence to se if they match what they tell you in the recruitment material? If so, why should the company not have the right to, for instance, check whether your public domain information agrees with, or contradicts your CV? It's been estimated the lying on CVs costs British industry upwards of 2 billion per year.

A person should be free to look at a company's background, yes, but looking at the background of employees (remember, the person interviewing you, the boss, or manager may not be the company owner) i dont agree with unless they give permission. Personally i see it as a form of stalking.

You have to remember that although its YOUR facebook page, your friends and family are likely to post things there too, so its not only information about you they are finding. Which is why some keep their info visible to 'friends' only (which could be a handfull of people or hundreds) and (in my view) asks the question of should every employee have a facebook page and have it visible to make it fair to everyone? The ones that dont have it visible could be hiding something (or not)

Sponsored Links
Sponsored Links 
19 Dec 2012 - 6:51 PM

Join ePHOTOzine for free and remove these adverts.

lemmy
lemmy  71838 forum posts United Kingdom
19 Dec 2012 - 7:03 PM


Quote: Its what you then do with it that involves human error and ethics

I agree with everything you said in that post. Some employers are just pond life, though and wouldn't know what ethics were, let alone apply them.

There was a piece in the Sunday Times a while back about an employer who got interviewees to sing a song to him, completely out of the blue, the job was in IT. One of the interviewees mentioned it to a friend, how difficult it had been. Do you sing and look a fool or do you refuse and hope the employer sees it as a sign of character? The friend mentioned it to a journalist who was told by the employer that they 'liked to 'ave larf' when people came in for a job.

The ST published my comment that while everyone understood there was huge competition for jobs and employers had interviewees at their mercy, that was no excuse for what amounted to ritual humiliation of job seekers.

oldblokeh
oldblokeh  3795 forum posts United Kingdom
19 Dec 2012 - 7:04 PM


Quote: That's totally beside the point. Discrimination in either case is illegal as we are both agreed. A candidate might choose to go for interview in drag. Same argument applies.

Ok, so basically we are agreeing that discrimination is illegal, but because people get away with it in face to face scenarios, you think it should be ignored or it is no longer valid?

No. What I'm saying is that your argument that employers should not look at Facebook because it could be used as a basis of discrimination is spurious.


Quote:
A person should be free to look at a company's background, yes, but looking at the background of employees (remember, the person interviewing you, the boss, or manager may not be the company owner) i dont agree with unless they give permission. Personally i see it as a form of stalking.


Why? If your Facebook settings are such that you allow anyone to see the information you are implicitly giving that permission. Do you not understand that?


Quote: The ones that dont have it visible could be hiding something (or not)

Oh for goodness sake. In my view, anyone who publically broadcasts information that they would not like a prospective employer to see is not displaying the sort of judgement that most employers would like to see.

mikehit
mikehit  56338 forum posts United Kingdom9 Constructive Critique Points
19 Dec 2012 - 7:09 PM


Quote: you think it should be ignored or it is no longer valid

You keep on mentioning this - but who has said we should ignore it? All I (and I believe oldblokeh) are saying is that it happens.


Quote: should every employee have a facebook page and have it visible to make it fair to everyone?

If I was forced to have a FB page (my God, FB would like that) I would make it inaccessible to everyone refuse to put anything on it. Back to square one.


Quote: The ones that dont have it visible could be hiding something (or not)

So instead of drawing incorrect assumptions about comments on FB, you acknowledge the possibility of (and seem to accept as reasonable) incorrect assumptions about people who don't have FB account? Or maybe someone who has FB account and makes it totally private really has something to hide?

It seems to me that you have had a bad experience on the gossip grapevine and are proposing solutions that impact the whole of society.

paulcookphotography


Quote:

The ones that dont have it visible could be hiding something (or not)
So instead of drawing incorrect assumptions about comments on FB, you acknowledge the possibility of (and seem to accept as reasonable) incorrect assumptions about people who don't have FB account? Or maybe someone who has FB account and makes it totally private really has something to hide?

It seems to me that you have had a bad experience on the gossip grapevine and are proposing solutions that impact the whole of society.

No, what i am saying is that some people will say things they shouldnt. There is no denying that. Some may say it in an 'open to everyone' account and the boss gets to see it. Some may say it in a 'friends only' setting and the boss doesnt see it. Everyone else in your friends list does though (including businesses, other employees, etc that you have added on FB. The only difference between the two scenarios is the boss. The information posted still gets out. And of course, there will be those with either setting (and the vast majority) who say nothing wrong or do nothing that would effect a working relationship.

However, their may be things you or your friends post that is totally irrelevant to work, but that SOME bosses could find uncomfortable and use against you which in my view, is unfair. It happens all the time. Not just with bosses. Some people get offended or upset by things they see, or disagree and even though they werent part of a conversation or situation, it causes issues. So it seems the only way to avoid that is to have everyone on FB or twitter only communicate through individual private messages incase something offends? Thats not the nature of Facebook or how it works (whether you like it or not). Most companies ban the use of facebook (rightly) on their computers, so why should your personal time be brought into the workplace by your boss?

And no, i dont have any direct experiences with 'gossip' on facebook (nothing serious at least), but i have seen the effects of stalking on facebook and its misuse leading to serious consequences. I wouldnt agree that people should have to keep their lives private (facebook or otherwise though) because of the actions of some, but i do believe if you have no reason to look at someone's post that you havent been 'invited' to, you shouldnt be looking. Similarly if i was in the pub talking to my mates and somebody sat eavesdropping, there would be words said.

mikehit
mikehit  56338 forum posts United Kingdom9 Constructive Critique Points
19 Dec 2012 - 8:29 PM


Quote: i do believe if you have no reason to look at someone's post that you havent been 'invited' to, you shouldnt be looking.

I'm sorry Paul but that is entering fantasy land. I made reference earlier to people who have been brought up for making potentially libellous or otherwise risky comments on FB/Twitter and their (rather pathetic) defence was 'it was a discussion between me and my friend. I didn't think anyone else would read it'.
If I leave a bank statement in the pub and someone manages to raid my account, I am sure the bank would refund my money on the basis that people should not have read my details and stolen my money. [irony mode off]



Quote: of course, there will be those with either setting (and the vast majority) who say nothing wrong or do nothing that would effect a working relationship.

Make sure you are one of those. I really don't see what is so complicated.

oldblokeh
oldblokeh  3795 forum posts United Kingdom
19 Dec 2012 - 8:38 PM

Here's what Facebook themselves say:


Quote: What does "Public" mean? .

If you're comfortable making something you share open to anyone on the internet, you can choose Public from the audience selector before you post. Public includes people who are not your friends on Facebook, people who are not in your school or work networks and anyone on the internet.

Sounds like an open invitation to me.

paulcookphotography

I assume neither of you use facebook?

So what, for talking sake, if someone posted something on any one of the other social network sites, forums, blogs, etc on the internet? Are we to assume that we must then give all potential or current (or previous) employers a record of ALL our internet activity?

Facebook is not the company website. People posting on their own pages are not representing that company, and (usually) not posting on company time. So please explain how anything you or i post on there becomes an interest of said company unless its directly about them. All other information is none of their business, whether its posted publicly or not

mikehit
mikehit  56338 forum posts United Kingdom9 Constructive Critique Points
19 Dec 2012 - 10:59 PM


Quote: Are we to assume that we must then give all potential or current (or previous) employers a record of ALL our internet activity?

I'm confused - why are you asking me? I think it was you who first proposed this. I don't think we should have to tell any employer about our internet habits.


Quote: All other information is none of their business, whether its posted publicly or not

How do they know it is about the company unless they read all things.
We have diametrically opposed views: you think a company has no right looking at publicly available information that people post about themselves. I think that if someone has posted it online they accept any consequences of doing so.
Believe me, the number of companies doing this is in the minority, but for you it seems that is not good enough and you are being exercised by anyone doing it.

paulcookphotography


Quote: Are we to assume that we must then give all potential or current (or previous) employers a record of ALL our internet activity?

I'm confused - why are you asking me? I think it was you who first proposed this. I don't think we should have to tell any employer about our internet habits.

All other information is none of their business, whether its posted publicly or not

How do they know it is about the company unless they read all things.
We have diametrically opposed views: you think a company has no right looking at publicly available information that people post about themselves. I think that if someone has posted it online they accept any consequences of doing so.
Believe me, the number of companies doing this is in the minority, but for you it seems that is not good enough and you are being exercised by anyone doing it.

I didnt start the tangent, only replied to the comment about employers using Facebook as a form of background check/reference

With regards to your second (main) point. They would only know if they looked obviously, and that is where the issue lies

It was said if you post publicly then its open to everyone. True to a point

My issue, as has been stated repeatedly is NOT about information posted about said company, but them having access to information about you that is irrelevant, but some employers MAY hold against an applicatant or employee. This seems to be largely ignored, for some reason

However, if a FB user sets their profile to private, then only those marked at friends can read the posts. However, if a company/employer wants/demands to monitor/view that person's page, they would have to either make it public, or add the company/employer as a friend meaning they could see every post, link or picture on your page unless you individually marked selected items as private. That, in my opinion would be an invasion of privacy, and a pain in the ass if you had a FB account spanning several years. You then have to decide what information may or may not paint you in the wrong light (if any) to a potential employer in order to get a job

It may be a minority, Mike, but that does not make it right.

As much as i agree with freedom of information, not all info is relevant and I also agree with freedom of expression and free speech

mikehit
mikehit  56338 forum posts United Kingdom9 Constructive Critique Points
19 Dec 2012 - 11:35 PM


Quote: However, if a company/employer wants/demands to monitor/view that person's page, they would have to either make it public, or add the company/employer as a friend meaning they could see every post, link or picture on your page unless you individually marked selected items as private.

Now I'm really confused. I have never suggested they should be allowed to do that, and someone posted about a court finding that such a request should not be made.
My comment has always been that if the person posts on the public area of FB, they accept any consequences of doing that: and if the information posted on a public area of FB shows a behaviour or personality that the potential employer decides makes them unsuitable to work with them then so be it. If that decision is based on illegal discrimination then that cannot be condoned.

Last Modified By mikehit at 19 Dec 2012 - 11:36 PM
paulcookphotography

Which has always been my point, Mike.

If you post something wrong and get caught, tough. If you discriminate against someone, face the consequences (although very hard to prove). But the idea that facebook profiling (or vetting) potential employees in such a way seems to outweigh the benefits and can be VERY dodgy.

Personally, if an employer or client demanded access to my info (even though it is set to public on both accounts on fb and all other social networks i use), i would have to question their reasoning given the fact i can provide them with a full employment history and references

paulcookphotography

Interestingly...

Just looking at a friends FB page and there is a recurring selection of posts at 4.30am on a sunday morning to the likes of:

"Just getting to bed. Head is pounding. What a night! Same again next week?"

How could that appear to a potential employer or casual onlooker?

a: Is out every saturday getting drunk/on drugs
b: Has recurring health issues
c: Possibly noisy neighbours reducing his sleep
d: Works in a noisy environment
e: Plays in a band
f: Participates in sports such as boxing

etc, etc

Without context, any of the above could be true and/or misconstrued

Last Modified By paulcookphotography at 20 Dec 2012 - 12:14 AM
User_Removed
20 Dec 2012 - 12:18 AM

Would you "Facebook vet" the guy your daughter brings home?

Why wouldn't you vet the same guy in the same way before bringing him into your business and letting him mix with your employees?

mikehit
mikehit  56338 forum posts United Kingdom9 Constructive Critique Points
20 Dec 2012 - 12:26 AM


Quote: Personally, if an employer or client demanded access to my info (even though it is set to public on both accounts on fb and all other social networks i use),

If the FB is set to public and you are identifiable as the person they are wondering about, they do not need to ask your permission. So I am not sure what you are getting at.
If you use a pseudonym - there is no problem (they cannot demand you tell them which pseudonym any of your accounts are under)
If you are one of many Paul Cooks and they cannot tell which you are - no problem (they cannot demand you tell them which one you are)

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.