Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Job applicants asked to turn over their Facebook passwords
New York Daily News ^ | Shannon McFarland

Posted on 03/20/2012 7:18:33 AM PDT by bjorn14

When Justin Bassett interviewed for a new job, he expected the usual questions about experience and references. So he was astonished when the interviewer asked for something else: his Facebook username and password.

Bassett, a New York City statistician, had just finished answering a few character questions when the interviewer turned to her computer to search for his Facebook page. But she couldn’t see his private profile. She turned back and asked him to hand over his login information.

Bassett refused and withdrew his application, saying he didn’t want to work for a company that would seek such personal information. But as the job market steadily improves, other job candidates are confronting the same question from prospective employers, and some of them cannot afford to say no.

(Excerpt) Read more at nydailynews.com ...


TOPICS: Business/Economy; Culture/Society; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS:
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-200201-206 next last
To: jonno
It's not much different in business. Once an individual is hired - they're IN - they have ACCESS. Wouldn't you rather know if they had a history of drunkenness, philandering, racism - or worse yet, that they voted for Barrack Obama?It's not much different in business. Once an individual is hired - they're IN - they have ACCESS. Wouldn't you rather know if they had a history of drunkenness, philandering, racism - or worse yet, that they voted for Barrack Obama?

That just bolsters my point -- if the individual would give up confidential information about themselves to get the job, why would I trust them not to give up confidential information about the job to someone else for some reason?

Thee are lots of ways to vet someone for a job. Asking them to violate proper safeguards of information is not -- because it sets exactly the wrong precedent.

151 posted on 03/20/2012 10:34:48 AM PDT by kevkrom (Note to self: proofread, then post. It's better that way.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 149 | View Replies]

To: CodeToad
Oh and...

...Colorado has a law that stipulates an employer may not use activities outside of work to determine employment status.

So don't don't have the check-box on your intake application: "Is not a philandering drunk".

152 posted on 03/20/2012 10:35:11 AM PDT by jonno (Having an opinion is not the same as having the answer...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 137 | View Replies]

To: kevkrom; Nervous Tick
My only (supportive) position on this thread:

Therefore when I hire I want to know A-B-S-O-L-U-T-E-L-Y EVERYTHING about that candidate I can POSSIBLY know.

I never suggested that an individual should give up confidential information about themselves to get the job. And in defense of Nervous, he only mentioned that he would - if he HAD to...

Is there a problem?

153 posted on 03/20/2012 10:45:51 AM PDT by jonno (Having an opinion is not the same as having the answer...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 151 | View Replies]

To: CodeToad

FWIW - Once upon a time I knew a guy who had a VP position in a successful business. He was a large part of the success of the company. His boss was a hard-nosed business type that had enjoyed success in many of his business endeavors over the years.

For some reason the boss decided to start intruding heavily into the personal lives of his employees. And when I say heavily I mean into places where NO ONE, much less an employer should go. Within a few months time, he has utterly wrecked the working environment that had been previously ideal for all involved.

Confronted by his employees, he took the “I am King” position with men that had been with him since day one and sacrificed years of their (personal) lives into building ‘his’ business (and their own company stocks).

Eventually he went so far over the edge that his No. 1 guy said ‘enough’ and walked. The fallout of that proved to be highly damaging to the company, which was put up for sale some time after. At a significant personal loss to his Majesty.

The moral of the story, if there is really one, is that business owners have the absolute right to do what they will with their company. They can hire who and for whatever reasons they want and set whatever terms of employment they choose. Likewise, they free to make the most asinine and self destructive business decisions imaginable to feed their egos and call it a ‘good business practice.’

Personally, I can say that every person that has hired me has gotten more than they paid for. I’ve walked out of interviews and took a couple serious financial hits over my unwillingness to work for the above type bosses. Life is too short to suffer fools, even high paying fools...and most aren’t high paying to begin with.

So is it fair game to ask for a FB password? IMO, yes. It’s also a good way to have great employees never work for (the general sense) you since that type of boss obviously is not smart enough to separate the boundaries between employment and private life.

FWIW/YMMV ETC


154 posted on 03/20/2012 10:48:29 AM PDT by Norm Lenhart
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 137 | View Replies]

To: jonno
Knowledge is power. And if you're the smart business owner, you protect yourself first and foremost by the accumulation - and wise use of - the knowledge of who are your employees.

And knowledge of what can get you sued is an important part of keeping your business. Check out someones facebook page would be a good move. Read the profile if it is marked public, also a good move. Any public information is fair game. But if the profile is marked private you can go no farther because several of the fields on the profile are on the big NO NO list of questions you can't ask. If they volunteer the info by not marking it private that's fine. But if you ask you end up facing Obama's National Labor Relations Board. A smart business owner doesn't pick that kind of fight.
155 posted on 03/20/2012 10:50:06 AM PDT by GonzoGOP (There are millions of paranoid people in the world and they are all out to get me.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 149 | View Replies]

To: kevkrom

>> the point is that anyone who will turn over this information about themselves, for any reason short of a legal court order, is not someone who would make a trustworthy employee.

Huh? This is what I mean by “your dogma is loopy”. (And it IS dogmatic and egotistical to say “I” [the great kevkrom] deem you unemployable for any reason. That’s not ad hominem; it’s a conclusion based on observed evidence.)

The key concept isn’t the damn password, it’s the information on the page. I give you the password to my account because you demand it as a condition of employment for a position I feel I must try to obtain. As soon as I’m out of your presence I change the password. So what? I don’t care how loudly you and your sycophants here twitter that this proves I can’t be trusted. That’s bunk.

Now, let’s set the scene. I am flat broke. Haven’t eaten for days. My beloved Mrs. Tick is ill, resting as best she can in our barely running car outside the restaurant because we have no home. I’m not applying for Vice President In Charge Of Dogma, I’m applying for dishwasher. The interviewer requires of me my facebook password. I wince inside, not really wanting to give it up... but I REALLY NEED THIS JOB. I’ll change the password at the library after I leave.

And you insist it’s not high-handed in such a scenario to sniff disdainfully and proclaim that I am unfit to wash dishes or hold ANY job because I answered the interviewer’s demands?

Well, I think your position is not only high-handed but also absurd — and I’m calling you out on it.


156 posted on 03/20/2012 10:52:27 AM PDT by Nervous Tick (Trust in God, but row away from the rocks!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 148 | View Replies]

To: Durus

The census has Gen X as 1965 to 1976.


157 posted on 03/20/2012 10:53:25 AM PDT by Ratman83
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 143 | View Replies]

To: autumnraine

10 years ha spring chicken, of you hubby is just a little younger than me.


158 posted on 03/20/2012 10:55:09 AM PDT by Ratman83
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 150 | View Replies]

To: reegs

LOL
What you said on steroids in post 11


159 posted on 03/20/2012 10:55:56 AM PDT by Rome2000 (Rick Santorum voted against Right toWork)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Nervous Tick
The key concept isn’t the damn password, it’s the information on the page. I give you the password to my account because you demand it as a condition of employment for a position I feel I must try to obtain. As soon as I’m out of your presence I change the password. So what? I don’t care how loudly you and your sycophants here twitter that this proves I can’t be trusted. That’s bunk.

That's not bunk, that's grounds for losing a security clearance. YOU NEVER GIVE UP YOUR PASSWORD TO ANYONE, for any reason, no matter how temporary.

And as I stated upthread in my first post, if providing this password was a condition for employment, I sure don't want to work there, because the company clearly has no clue of how confidential information is to be treated.

This isn't '“I” [the great kevkrom]' (I note how you keep resorting to snide comments to try and defend your weak position, though), this is simple common sense. People who don't respect their own property aren't going to respect mine, and vice-versa. The same standard applies to both prospective employee and prospective employer. So while I've been talking about this from the perspective of the employer, it's as true for the employee -- making this type of demand as an employer means that you're unfit as an employer and submitting to the demand as an employee means that you're unfit as an employee.

You will never build a proper working relationship with someone if your first major interaction involves someone being forced into a breach of trust.

160 posted on 03/20/2012 11:07:12 AM PDT by kevkrom (Note to self: proofread, then post. It's better that way.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 156 | View Replies]

To: GonzoGOP

agreed


161 posted on 03/20/2012 11:29:00 AM PDT by jonno (Having an opinion is not the same as having the answer...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 155 | View Replies]

To: kevkrom

>> That’s not bunk, that’s grounds for losing a security clearance.

It is conceivable in this life that there *might* come a time when a security clearance is about the least of your or my concerns. Would you agree?

>> YOU NEVER GIVE UP YOUR PASSWORD TO ANYONE, for any reason, no matter how temporary.

That’s a great rule of thumb, but it’s dogma. Remember it though if someone ever puts a gun to your loved one’s head and demands your password; I’m sure quoting it will cause them to reconsider their position. Sorry, I’m being snide (to make a point).

>> This isn’t ‘“I” [the great kevkrom]’ (I note how you keep resorting to snide comments to try and defend your weak position, though), this is simple common sense.

I’ll cop to snide; you deserve it. And I note with confidence that my position isn’t weak merely because you insist it is. But thanks for acknowledging that common sense plays a role. Common sense is what I’m leaning on to insist that there might exist a situation in which giving up a password or personal information in exchange for employment might be the best (or only) acceptable course of action.

>> if providing this password was a condition for employment, I sure don’t want to work there, because the company clearly has no clue of how confidential information is to be treated.

That’s fine, and I agree, but it’s not relevant to our original point of contention. I’ll remind you of that point of contention: I say your claim that *anyone* who gives up their password *automatically* renders themselves untrustworthy and unemployable is dogmatic, high-handed, and absurd; you say otherwise. Please stick to the argument, ‘k?

>> You will never build a proper working relationship with someone if your first major interaction involves someone being forced into a breach of trust.

Again, that’s all well and good — I agree with that statement, even — but it’s irrelevant to our point of contention. If you want me to take you seriously you need to stick to the argument at hand and not try to change the subject.


162 posted on 03/20/2012 11:29:31 AM PDT by Nervous Tick (Trust in God, but row away from the rocks!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 160 | View Replies]

To: Niteranger68

I order to apply for a job you have to put your SSN and birthdate on hte application so they have this info before they make an offer or reject you anyway.
Should be illegal


163 posted on 03/20/2012 12:05:47 PM PDT by mom4kittys (See you in another life, brotha)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: autumnraine
You must not be aware of that windows function that can recall passwords typed in. Even after logging out.

You probably mean the browser feature, not the Windows feature. Of course I'm aware of that, and I also know how to clear that data with a few keystrokes.

164 posted on 03/20/2012 12:51:13 PM PDT by Constitutionalist Conservative (I'm a constitutionalist, not a libertarian. Huge difference.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 132 | View Replies]

To: bjorn14
When you create a Facebook account, the Terms of Service (also known as a Contract) that you agree to include keeping your password secure and not revealing it to anyone. When a prospective employer tells you to give them your password, they are telling you to violate a legal contract to which you are a party.

I smell a Class Action on the horizon.

165 posted on 03/20/2012 12:52:36 PM PDT by 10mm
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Constitutionalist Conservative

Riiiggghhhttt, and you would insist to your interviewer that they clear their cookies immediately.

It’s still a lame argument.


166 posted on 03/20/2012 12:58:19 PM PDT by autumnraine (America how long will you be so deaf and dumb to the tumbril wheels carrying you to the guillotine?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 164 | View Replies]

To: autumnraine
Riiiggghhhttt, and you would insist to your interviewer that they clear their cookies immediately.

Seriously if you cause your interviewer to loose their cookies during the interview, Facebook is the least of your problems.

167 posted on 03/20/2012 1:18:52 PM PDT by GonzoGOP (There are millions of paranoid people in the world and they are all out to get me.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 166 | View Replies]

To: kevkrom
You've just disqualified yourself from ever working for me. Anyone who will abrogate account security for any reason is not someone I will trust with my company's information.

That's another thing I was thinking, but forgot to include in my earlier posts. I deal with a lot of sensitive information in my work. I do other work besides practice law where confidentiality is codified, but even in that other work, there's bad consequences when things are leaked, both to me, and my clients. If I'm going to cave at the first sign of pressure information like that, then how can you trust me? The only way I'd leak anything is through a court subpoena and even then I'd spin it the best I could in an attempt to dodge it.

168 posted on 03/20/2012 1:19:44 PM PDT by Darren McCarty (Time for brokered convention)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 133 | View Replies]

Comment #169 Removed by Moderator

To: autumnraine
Riiiggghhhttt, and you would insist to your interviewer that they clear their cookies immediately.

In Firefox, you can clear just an hour's worth. I don't know about the other browsers. If they object, I walk -- since it proves bad faith on their part.

Then again, all I really need to do is change my password as soon as I walk out the door.

170 posted on 03/20/2012 1:43:25 PM PDT by Constitutionalist Conservative (I'm a constitutionalist, not a libertarian. Huge difference.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 166 | View Replies]

To: Tzar
Don’t be so quick to throw your inferiors under the bus

Who needs who more - the employer or the employee?

171 posted on 03/20/2012 1:54:47 PM PDT by jonno (Having an opinion is not the same as having the answer...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 169 | View Replies]

Comment #172 Removed by Moderator

To: Tzar
They need each other equally

Really.

I'm the owner of a coal mine; I've made enough money and no longer need the headaches associated with unions - so I decide to close my mine. What are you as the miner going to do about it?

/hypothetical

173 posted on 03/20/2012 2:35:00 PM PDT by jonno (Having an opinion is not the same as having the answer...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 172 | View Replies]

Comment #174 Removed by Moderator

To: Tzar

No doubt. But the question was: who needs who more (”more” being the operative word)?


175 posted on 03/20/2012 3:15:36 PM PDT by jonno (Having an opinion is not the same as having the answer...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 174 | View Replies]

To: jonno

“Access” is a stupid excuse to violate privacy. They are hiring me to perform a job not to be their gaurdian of their life. Jeez you’re really a liberal about this aren’t you?

To you an employer has the right not to hire based on political affiliation, personal activities, not liking your freinds, marital status, etc. To you there are no personal privacy or property rights. To you the employer is your slave master. Sorry there sweet pea, but we don’t have slavery any more. You have right to privacy. You have the right not to have someone demand your personal life be what they want or else they do not hire you.

We have laws in this country to protect ourselves from fools like you. If you suck that bad at hiring people, then go out of business like the rest of the idots that do.


176 posted on 03/20/2012 4:07:34 PM PDT by CodeToad (I'm so right-wing if I lifted my left leg I'd go into a spin.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 149 | View Replies]

To: Scotswife

“but how would they even know about forums w/ anonymous usernames?”

They could just as easily demand that you bring in all computers that you own and trace everything on it. Any attempt to erase that information would be easily detected.

I think any company demanding such information deserves a return treatment. Find all information about all executives and owners of the company and destroy thier lives by making their entire life public.


177 posted on 03/20/2012 4:11:55 PM PDT by CodeToad (I'm so right-wing if I lifted my left leg I'd go into a spin.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 108 | View Replies]

To: jonno

“- so I decide to close my mine. What are you as the miner going to do about it?”

Go to the federal government and lay claim to the mine that is no longer being used and re-open it. Rare is it that a mine is completel on private property or on property that cannot be claimed once the mine shuts down.

My family owns a gold mine (for real, no kidding) and if we do not mine it per federal schedule then the claim can be jumped.


178 posted on 03/20/2012 4:14:52 PM PDT by CodeToad (I'm so right-wing if I lifted my left leg I'd go into a spin.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 173 | View Replies]

To: Nervous Tick

“but those are NOTHING compared to the pain of letting an evil corporation peek at your sacred Facebook account.”

You mock private property rights and personal privacy but I bet you’d cry like little school girl if a law were made that stated the same employees get to see the company books and all your personal information.

What’s next, a company representative in our bedrooms so we don’t do anything the employer finds nasty?

You still don’t get that you are hiring someone to do a job and that doesn’t entitle you to anything and everything. Because if it does, then the employee is extending you credit as the employer and can demand the same rights of investigation for credit purposes.


179 posted on 03/20/2012 4:23:27 PM PDT by CodeToad (I'm so right-wing if I lifted my left leg I'd go into a spin.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 141 | View Replies]

To: jonno

“Knowledge is power. And if you’re the smart business owner, you protect yourself first and foremost by the accumulation - and wise use of - the knowledge of who are your employees”

Sure, but there are laws about the collection and use. Violate it and you won’t be an employer anymore.


180 posted on 03/20/2012 4:25:46 PM PDT by CodeToad (I'm so right-wing if I lifted my left leg I'd go into a spin.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 149 | View Replies]

To: Tzar

Wait until Facebook sues these employers for tortious interference. Employers making public that they are demanding such information in violation of the Terms of Use, read: Licensing, of Facebook can harm Facebook the company as people refuse to use the service, giving Facebook the right to claim damages from interference by these companies between Facebook and its customers.

The information collected by Facebook is also private property of Facebook. The data is highly valuable and the company demanding rights to it is theft.

Also, any copyrighted materials on Facebook placed there by the candidate is also compromised when the company demands access to it. That is a violation of copyright law.

There are all kinds of Intellectual Property rights issues with demanding access to private electronic accounts these company HR bimbos don’t know or think about.


181 posted on 03/20/2012 4:35:38 PM PDT by CodeToad (I'm so right-wing if I lifted my left leg I'd go into a spin.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 169 | View Replies]

To: CodeToad
...lay claim to the mine that is no longer being used and re-open it...

Great, wonderful Idea!! Now that you are the owner, are you going hire everybody on their word and resume?

Or - are you going to:
"... want to know A-B-S-O-L-U-T-E-L-Y EVERYTHING about that candidate [that you] can POSSIBLY know."?

182 posted on 03/20/2012 4:47:21 PM PDT by jonno (Having an opinion is not the same as having the answer...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 178 | View Replies]

To: CodeToad

You can build strawmen and spin fantasies like no freeper I’ve ever known! I’m impressed. I counted no fewer than seven in the last round of puke you spewed.

Sucks to be an incompetent wanker at the mercy of a demanding world, doesn’t it? Like I said, if you find employers so evil, get off your lazy bitchy ass and start your OWN endeavor.

But you can’t, can you? That would take effort, skill, guts, and hard work, and your current account is a bit short on all of those, isn’t it?

Although you accuse everyone who doesn’t agree with you of being a *liberal*, the reality is you’re much more at home with that 99% Occupy Something Someone Else Struggled To Build commie crowd. Because — by Gawd, you are so ENTITLED to your fantasy!

FOAD, wanker TOAD.


183 posted on 03/20/2012 4:47:51 PM PDT by Nervous Tick (Trust in God, but row away from the rocks!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 179 | View Replies]

To: Nervous Tick

What are you 12?? You sound like a juvenile little kid.


184 posted on 03/20/2012 4:53:26 PM PDT by CodeToad (I'm so right-wing if I lifted my left leg I'd go into a spin.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 183 | View Replies]

To: bjorn14; a fool in paradise

Sure, Shirley, they can have my Facebook password. They can have my Bunny Teens password, too!


185 posted on 03/20/2012 4:54:55 PM PDT by Revolting cat! (Let us prey!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: CodeToad

Nice try. As I recall, they term that tactic “projection”.

By the way, you need a comma between “you” and “12” to form a proper English sentence. Maybe you should have repeated that grade.


186 posted on 03/20/2012 5:00:15 PM PDT by Nervous Tick (Trust in God, but row away from the rocks!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 184 | View Replies]

To: CodeToad

Reading an article that a company has the right to “wipe” your personal phone

http://www.broadbandreports.com/forum/r25112641-Wipeout-When-Your-Company-Kills-Your-iPhone

Also, my cousin told me had to agree to GPS tracking (not the portable kind but hardwired into his engine)on his PERSONAL truck or he would be fired. It was a new company policy and applied to everyone in the company—not just him. this means they can track him 24/7 if they want to and it is perfectly legal. (barf)

Where will this end? It is extremely frightening!


187 posted on 03/20/2012 5:25:01 PM PDT by mom4kittys (See you in another life, brotha)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 181 | View Replies]

To: mom4kittys

Does you cousin drive for the company in any way, such as errands?


188 posted on 03/20/2012 5:27:41 PM PDT by CodeToad (I'm so right-wing if I lifted my left leg I'd go into a spin.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 187 | View Replies]

To: CodeToad

yes but not 24/7 and there is no way to turn it off when he is not working


189 posted on 03/20/2012 5:30:11 PM PDT by mom4kittys (See you in another life, brotha)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 188 | View Replies]

To: apillar
entire books will be written and web sites will be created on how to create the perfect dummy facebook page.

Brilliant! A new growth industry.

190 posted on 03/20/2012 5:34:51 PM PDT by Veto! (Opinions freely dispensed as advice)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

Comment #191 Removed by Moderator

Comment #192 Removed by Moderator

To: mom4kittys

My wife has a fleet vehicle as she drives 25,000 miles a year for the company. They don’t require GPS. They give her the car and pay everything for it; gas, insurance, lease costs, maintenance, car washes, etc. She is even to drive it on the weekends for personal use and they even pay for the gas. For that, she is taxed $30/month State and federal for the benefit. They do it right. It probably costs the company an extra $1,000/year for her to drive it personally, but they more than make up for it through savings in simplified financial accounting and asset management costs. The company is also a CPA firm so they really know their accounting.

Those companies that are penny wise and Pound foolish usually suffer. Competition is getting tighter by the day. Those companies that act badly won’t be around much longer. People are simply tired of putting up with it.


193 posted on 03/20/2012 5:57:51 PM PDT by CodeToad (I'm so right-wing if I lifted my left leg I'd go into a spin.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 189 | View Replies]

To: CodeToad

That sounds like a great company to work for.


194 posted on 03/20/2012 6:11:24 PM PDT by mom4kittys (See you in another life, brotha)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 193 | View Replies]

To: bjorn14
The smart candidate would gently remind the hiring company that they would be asking the candidate to violate the terms of agreement with Facebook by revealing their password to third parties who would then also be in violation of Facebook by logging into an account not their own.

The smart candidate would ask the hiring company if that is what they'd like their employees to do with company passwords, and if not, then what makes them think it's okay to ask others to do the same?

-PJ

195 posted on 03/20/2012 6:16:58 PM PDT by Political Junkie Too (If you can vote for President, then your children can run for President.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Revolting cat!; Slings and Arrows

As long as my bosses are willing to turn over the annual employee reviews their supervisors gave them for the past 5 years so I know the sort of anal retentive prying boss I may soon be working for.


196 posted on 03/20/2012 6:22:37 PM PDT by a fool in paradise (Barack Obama continued to sponsor Jeremiah Wright after he said "G.D. AMERIKKA!"Where's the outrage?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 185 | View Replies]

To: a fool in paradise

Some jobs aren’t worth having.


197 posted on 03/20/2012 9:18:27 PM PDT by Slings and Arrows (You can't have Ingsoc without an Emmanuel Goldstein.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 196 | View Replies]

To: motor_racer; Repeat Offender
I know you didn't ask me, but to address your post: To which the employer replies:

“Prove to me that you aren’t lying.”

or

“No Facebook page? What are you hiding?”
"An outwardly dull life of my own with no ambition to serve as a non-chemical narcoleptic agent for free to total strangers."

I guess that's one I'll be facing soon as I hope to find better/additional employment, so I'd best practice. Google me if you wanna prove the negative, Mr. Prospective Employer. How'm I to prive a negative when you can do it yourself?

I don't 'get' the whole FB (and other social media) phenomena. If I'm doing something interesting I'm too busy DOING to type about it, and most of the people I care for already know 'cause they were there, too.

Or, heh, they're reading what my screen personna wrote.
198 posted on 03/21/2012 6:58:09 AM PDT by Titan Magroyne (What one person receives without working for, another person must work for without receiving.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 104 | View Replies]

To: Nervous Tick
I say your claim that *anyone* who gives up their password *automatically* renders themselves untrustworthy and unemployable is dogmatic, high-handed, and absurd; you say otherwise. Please stick to the argument, ‘k?

That's correct. We have a difference of opinion on the subject -- that doesn't make me dogmatic or wrong.

It's a dangerous slippery slope -- applicants already provide a lot of personal data to prospective employer, but there has to be some limit. Where does the line get drawn?

"Mr. Smith, we're please that you came to our interview today. In order to proceed, I need your Facebook and Google+ passwords so I can examine your private profiles."

Later... "Well, so far everything checks out. While Clarice shows you around, please leave your cell phone behind so we can look through your call, text, and photo logs. Don't forget to leave a list of passwords for any apps you currently have installed, and your store password so we can look over your app purchase history."

Still later... "Did you enjoy the tour? We still have some questions, so Gary here will accompany you home so you can let him dig into all of your computer files. After that he'll want to rummage through your mail, look in your drawers and closets (and under your bed), and read any personal diaries, journals, or logs you might keep. Then we'll need a copy of your bank statements for the last three months to look for suspicious... Mr. Smith? Are you going?"

Seriously, is someone who is going to comply with all of that really going to be a better employee than someone who puts their foot down early and say, "no, that's not information that's necessary or relevant"? I say the latter would be more likely to be a good employee than the former. As a prospective employee, an employer who demands that sort of information isn't going to be good employer.

And for this, I'm "dogmatic"? No, just correct.

199 posted on 03/21/2012 7:19:58 AM PDT by kevkrom (Note to self: proofread, then post. It's better that way.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 162 | View Replies]

To: mom4kittys
I order to apply for a job you have to put your SSN and birthdate on hte application so they have this info before they make an offer or reject you anyway.

Typically, that info is for verification purposes and not requested until a job offer has been made.

200 posted on 03/21/2012 7:41:48 AM PDT by Niteranger68 (Quit poking holes in the life raft!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 163 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-200201-206 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson