You mean the part I quoted? Where you said
You stated that
The opposite of choosing not to work for an employer is choosing to work for an employer.
Ok fine. What I meant was that a person can also choose to not hire another person based on factors not strictly related to job dutiesan and I don’t see any problem with that.
I know, I know… it’s hard to deal with people who ask follow-up questions, do fact-checking and have an incessant need to figure out what your words mean and why ya put them in that order.
But this is GD, and that’s how it works here.
Thanks for playing; come again!
:eek:
This sort of thing is exactly why I don’t have a MySpace, FaceBook, or Blog page. The last thing I need is having an employment application nobbled because the HR officer has an ethical problem with hunting or something like that and took exception to photos of me and my hunting mates out in the field.
Fortunately, most Employment checking here that I’ve encountered consists of either A) Taking your word for it or B) Calling the references listed on your CV to verify that you did actually work at Bob Fossil’s Zooniverse or wherever.
It’s still a disturbing trend, though, having HR trawling through the net to see what they can dig up on someone who doesn’t even work for them yet.
In my heart I’m all for the “What you do off duty is nothing to do with your employer” mindset.
But playing devils advocate thats not always the case.
If you have a sensitive job in government,the armed forces,law enforcement,the judicary etc.you are always a target for blackmail(I’m not talking for money here)
So yes off duty activities can be of relevance to your boss.
Likewise if you have a job handling money Banking,stores etc.
Are you in serious debt? or are you repeatedly sliding into minor debt?
And particulary in Banking,do you include amongst your friends and social set habitual or proffessional criminals?
Do you have a gambling habit?
Are you an habitual heavy drinker?(Not necessarily an alcoholic)
Unscheduled time off and coming in still under the influence from the night before could well be a possibility here.
Recreational drug use?
Some drugs are still having a psychological or physiological effect sometimes several days after use.
I myself have seen someone trancing at work or operating with reduced cognition/reaction time on a Tuesday as a result of smoking dope at the w/e.
Highly active sportsman?
Can result in a high frequency of sports injuries with resulting high frequency of unscheduled time off.
Everything I have posted here totally goes against the grain for me but its cold hard truth.
Thing is, in right to work states, those are valid reasons to deny employment. If your HR department or future supervisor does not think you’ll be a good fit with your team because of your hobbies, do you really want to work there, especially if you mention that you went hunting the last weekend and suddenly find half the management team thinks you are barbaric? Now, I was working as an investigator for a background check company (not in HR) and I did not know what decisions were made based on my reports, so I don’t know if anyone was ever denied work because of hunting pictures on their Myspace page, but if they were, I think it would be justified.
Remember that these detailed background checks were almost always for people in management positions. We didn’t do the full background investigation for people in lower positions, these were people with a lot of responsibility who had to mesh well with the existing employees. I can understand an employer turning down someone for a position like this for a lot of reasons that wouldn’t make sense for most workers.
Our customers are increasingly mandating that background checks be run on any of our employees who work on their projects. This is pretty much forcing us to run BG checks too, otherwise we could hire employees that we then find out we cannot deploy.
I’m sure these clients aren’t doing the level of investigation I’m talking about here, where they look for pictures and postings by the person on the internet. We probably only did about 5 of those a month, while we did hundreds of the more typical search where we did education/employment verification, credit report, and criminal background check. I don’t want to make people paranoid that they are going to have a P.I. reporting their message board posts for non-management positions (though I’ve heard plenty of stories of people in HR looking for stuff like that on their own, there are legal issues with that if they are not licensed private investigators).
Correct - I was meaning background checks in general, not the extreme type that you mentioned. It is just criminal BG checks and credit checks.
The Very Large Company ™ that I work for can (and does) fire people for off-hour impropriety. Their internal policy is that, because they are a company very sensitive to public and political image, all employees are considered to be “representatives” of the company even when off the clock. Perhaps it’s because we sign a company policy stating we understand the rule as such that we absolve ourselves of the right to, e.g., strip naked and cover ourselves with PETA stickers and handcuff ourselves to a McDonalds cash register.
I don’t know if it’s absolutely legal or not, but that’s my data point.
Say … uh … not for nothing, but … any chance you can score me some of that two-day-trance-ganj?
I don’t think I’m getting the good stuff.
Any company that seriously believed in equitable at-will employment would pay their people enough money to leave the job. Any employee that seriously believed in equitable at-will employment would work hard enough to not encourage the employer to fire them. In practice, what we have is not equitable, relative to this particular point. Pretending that companies and their employees are on the same ground is a bit silly. In some cases it might even be reversed. A small company might not be able to realistically afford turnover, and to keep people it might have to pay them more than they are worth. Here, the employee is extracting profit from an employer in a tight spot.
Work relations are strained, period. At-will employment strains things even more, because it encourages people–bosses and employees alike–to look for and exploit advantages. The laissez faire solution is to flood everyone with information. To what extent does this practically balance out the power distribution to both sides of at-will employment? I don’t see it. Businesses like contracts with each other, but at-will status with their employees? Hmm. Seems clear where the balance of power is there.
Part of it is supply and demand. I have an acquaintance who was hired at a VP level at a Fortune 500. Mandatory drug testing. No way he passed it. At that point - 1998 - unemployment was very low, this guy was very talented and the right fit for the job, so they were willing to overlook his off hours activities.
Now, when jobs are scarcer than the employees applying for them, you can afford to be a little pickier in your hiring process. There may be four people who are good fits, and why hire the one who uses recreational drugs - even if it doesn’t impact his job.
Likewise, when jobs are plentiful, I might select a job that gives me flexible hours with a company that shares my social values. When jobs are scarce, I might end up doing something I don’t want for a company I don’t like.
Having been a hirer, I can say often its a tiebreaker. Two candidates, both equally qualified, one job, you need to find something.
My question is how deep can they get into your FB or whatever.
If I set it to friends only, and not networks, will they track down someone on my list for a look at my profile? Or just give up?
Will they be able to find from my real name the tenuous connections to my various online handles?
We would do a google search on the person’s name, email address, and phone number, as well as searching MySpace (which is one of the best resources for this). If the person’s email was something like jssmith@company.com or jssmith@isp.net, we would do searches for jssmith@ by itself to find alternate emails. We would always try first initial last name and first name last initial, with or without periods, and with birthdate or last two digits of birthdate on the end. Frequently you’ll find a user details screen on a message board with a variant of their email address and you can get an online handle from that and search for that to find other boards where they used that same name. From that you can get anonymous email addresses - if I used jssmith@isp.com to register PugLover1972 on the Pugsareawesome.com, I would then search for PugLover1972, and might find a PugLover1972 on the ILoveDiscoPirates.com board with the email address glenpoolfairy@yahoo.com, then I’d start searching for glenpoolfairy@ to see if there are any likely hits. How far we took this was often limited just by how busy we were, how unique the handles we found were, and how many links we could find. We’d usually end up with a few alternate emails and usernames from just the initial email address or from their Myspace username in a half hour or so, then we’d use those to look around for photos and message board/networking site posts that might be of interest. Of course, photos were best.
I heavily doubt this to be true.
What’s funny is that I changed my name on this message board precisely to avoid having potential employers look me up by name to see what stupid things I type. Or at least make it harder. It doesn’t help that I keep signing my posts with my real name though! :smack:
In an almost throw away debate statement, McCain said he is for having your health records on line. If that happens, your employee will know all your health info. I do not believe it would be safe . I do not know why people were not shocked at that. Of course many of your xrays are being read in India. Your info is already soaring around the world. So maybe it is too late.
I’m not sure about Tuesday, but I have definitely felt a slowness and absent-mindedness the Monday after a weekend of smoking. When I quit I felt a noticeable improvement in my mental functioning throughout the week, even though I didn’t smoke on weekdays very often. Smoking pot, even if it’s semi-regularly (i.e ever week, not every day) does effect you on the days you don’t smoke.