# Be careful when you post on Facebook!



## EvilHorseOfDoom (Jun 17, 2012)

>.< How could anyone be that stupid? I carefully vet every post I write, decide the appropriate level of privacy, and double check my spelling and grammar before I post. I'm even more careful on Twitter because I have a public account there and both senior colleagues and high profile clients follow me.

It's not hard and you'd hope that your children's teachers would not be this stupid...oh well...
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Skyseternalangel (Jul 23, 2011)

Yeah facebook isn't the best place to say everything on your mind haha..


----------



## Horse Poor (Aug 20, 2008)

I've also heard of employers using Facebook to see what their employees and/or job applicants have posted.


----------



## Faceman (Nov 29, 2007)

Any teacher dumb enough to do that is too dumb to be a teacher in the first place. I hope they show her dumb butt to the curb and give her a good recommendation to Mickey D's, which is where she should be...


----------



## kitten_Val (Apr 25, 2007)

Horse Poor said:


> I've also heard of employers using Facebook to see what their employees and/or job applicants have posted.


I was told some even asking for passwords so they could login and read. :shock:


----------



## farmpony84 (Apr 21, 2008)

I see a lot of garbage posted about co-workers and neighbors all the time. It's hurtful. and shameful.


----------



## Missy May (Feb 18, 2012)

Who would be that unprofessional, stupid, little, and plain idiotic? Please do take her license.


----------



## EvilHorseOfDoom (Jun 17, 2012)

farmpony84 said:


> I see a lot of garbage posted about co-workers and neighbors all the time. It's hurtful. and shameful.


Wow, nobody I know posts nasty stuff. Self-indulgent and whiny maybe but that's Facebook all over  Maybe I've blocked them all...
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Skyseternalangel (Jul 23, 2011)

I've heard of that too, Horse Poor!!


----------



## Missy May (Feb 18, 2012)

Well, I see people with over 500 friends. That is a little insane. But w that much traffic, there is going to be at least on jerk in the crowd....count on it.


----------



## Golden Horse (Feb 20, 2010)

I did see a program about a teacher who lost her job over a comment on Facebook, and I felt very sorry for her.

She did have her settings set to private, but in one of the many updates Facebook defaulted setting to public, and someone saw her post. That just seems unfair to me, and I can't remember what she said, but it wasn't that bad.


----------



## Missy May (Feb 18, 2012)

Golden Horse said:


> I did see a program about a teacher who lost her job over a comment on Facebook, and I felt very sorry for her.
> 
> She did have her settings set to private, but in one of the many updates Facebook defaulted setting to public, and someone saw her post. That just seems unfair to me, and I can't remember what she said, but it wasn't that bad.


Well, I can see where firing someone over a comment on FB would seem, if not be, draconian. But, when it comes to teachers the landscape changes a bit, imo. They should limit their conversations, verbal or written, that concern their students to education. Which would include stuff like, "their behavior is disruptive and intolerable" imo, but not the stuff the teacher in question said.


----------



## kitten_Val (Apr 25, 2007)

I find bad mouthing about your co-workers, clients, boss(!), or students on public networks to be inappropriate and unethical. And it's even worse when you post a name of the target. So if you do so be ready to face possible consequences...


----------



## aldebono (Mar 15, 2012)

My mom is currently hiring for an accounting firm she works for. First thing she does is google the name and Facebook them. Sometimes when googling the search leads right to an arrest record. She says that most people don't even have their Facebook on private. 

Be careful everyone! Act like your frail great great grandmother is your FB friend!


----------



## COWCHICK77 (Jun 21, 2010)

Golden Horse said:


> She did have her settings set to private, but in one of the many updates Facebook defaulted setting to public, and someone saw her post. That just seems unfair to me, and I can't remember what she said, but it wasn't that bad.


And that is exactly why I deactivated my FB account!

I had the same issue, not that I was posting mean comments about others, but I was tired of resetting my privacy settings every time they updated it.


----------



## Golden Horse (Feb 20, 2010)

The poor woman in the case I saw thought she was having a private chat to a family member, and was mortified that it was public. She hadn't mentioned a child by name, but had said something mildly derogatory about the kids in general I believe.


----------



## Missy May (Feb 18, 2012)

Golden Horse said:


> The poor woman in the case I saw thought she was having a private chat to a family member, and was mortified that it was public. She hadn't mentioned a child by name, but had said something mildly derogatory about the kids in general I believe.


It does have interesting "facets", such as freedom of speech when _off_ the job, assuming the teacher was off the job. 

And, to me - it also speaks to the state of affairs of education in this country. Teachers, in general, belong to the largest union in the US (NEA) and complain on a consistant basis about their pay, _not _their inability to teach due to the restrictions placed on them by policies, regulations, and laws - many of which the NEA has had a hand in. The NEA publically stated they "will worry about the children when they can vote in union elections." No apologies given and little outrage.

So, if a teacher voluntarily wants to teach under those conditions, belong to a union such as that, fine. It does not absolve them YET of any and all unprofessional behavior. This parent will not win, mark my words....the teacher will not lose their license. At best she will get a PAID leave of absence.


----------



## kitten_Val (Apr 25, 2007)

Golden Horse said:


> The poor woman in the case I saw thought she was having a private chat to a family member, and was mortified that it was public. She hadn't mentioned a child by name, but had said something mildly derogatory about the kids in general I believe.


See, GH, that's part of reason I almost don't use FB (except posting my horses from time to time or connect with friends). Because FB seems to be quite unreliable when it comes to privacy. Good 'ol email (or, better, phone call) works much better IMHO.


----------



## Golden Horse (Feb 20, 2010)

Good 'ole email isn't safe either, once again you may think you are having a private chat with a friend, but you never know who they may accidentally or otherwise forward it to.


----------



## Allison Finch (Oct 21, 2009)

Our department put on an inservice training about how social networking sites can affect (ruin) your career. It is amazing how foolish people are on sites like facebook.

As a police officer, people would often ask to have their picture taken with you. Now, with the ability of photoshop to add to, or change, the photo's content, you don't dare allow these photos.

And yes, it is not uncommon for employers to require access to FB as terms of hiring. You don't like it? Apply elsewhere.


----------



## kitten_Val (Apr 25, 2007)

Golden Horse said:


> Good 'ole email isn't safe either, once again you may think you are having a private chat with a friend, but you never know who they may accidentally or otherwise forward it to.


Well... I NEVER discuss other people over email (although I use it to talk about my personal life sometime). :wink: So it's not an issue for me really.


----------



## kitten_Val (Apr 25, 2007)

Allison Finch said:


> And yes, it is not uncommon for employers to require access to FB as terms of hiring.


I believe some states now put a law in place forbidden the employer to do so (I think MD is one of them). 

But, yeah, some stuff people post on FB is nothing but  ...


----------



## stephshark (Jun 19, 2012)

My dad and a lot of slightly conservative family members are on Facebook. Whenever I post anything I always have to ask myself if it would offend them if they saw it. Some people though. . . I can kind of understand why potential employers ask for the access to job candidates profiles. I would never hire someone who constantly posts about how drunk/high they are or who is always bashing someone. I guess a good mentality to keep is that with today's technology someone's always watching!


----------



## Saddlebag (Jan 17, 2011)

My use of FB is down to zero. I marvel that one thinks our info goes only to friends but I think of that shampoo commercial "And they told two friends, and so on" So what is written could be read by 1000 people instead of the intended handful.


----------



## Skyseternalangel (Jul 23, 2011)

kitten_Val said:


> I believe some states now put a law in place forbidden the employer to do so (I think MD is one of them).
> 
> But, yeah, some stuff people post on FB is nothing but  ...


I post the most pointless stuff. What I cook, what I watch. It's more like "I'm not doing anything too exciting to ACTUALLY share, so I'm going to post random stuff to keep you entertained" lol.. 

It's a HUGE mistake to post personal problems, which I admit to doing as well.. bleh. But I always end up deleting those things basically as soon as I post them.


----------



## Faceman (Nov 29, 2007)

kitten_Val said:


> I believe some states now put a law in place forbidden the employer to do so (I think MD is one of them).
> 
> But, yeah, some stuff people post on FB is nothing but  ...


I would hate to see states do that. An employer should have the right to investigate whatever they want about a potential or current employee, whether it's drug tests, FB, or anything else. I checked FB and googled names on all potential hires I interviewed. I found some court cases (we didn't run criminal record checks) by googling, and several references to drug usage on FB. Some stuff, like child support deadbeats shows up in credit reports, but not criminal records and such, although they did many years ago. You would be surprised what was in credit reports back in the 60's...


----------



## Tennessee (Dec 7, 2008)

I have family as well as my recruiters on FB, so even if I wanted to talk bad about somebody, I'd have my momma and the military to answer to. lol.


----------



## kitten_Val (Apr 25, 2007)

Skyseternalangel said:


> I post the most pointless stuff. What I cook, what I watch. It's more like "I'm not doing anything too exciting to ACTUALLY share, so I'm going to post random stuff to keep you entertained" lol..


Well... I've heard about posts like "I'm going to the toilet now, need to poop" or something like that from grown 40+ yo men. Not sure how lovely that is! :shock:


----------



## kitten_Val (Apr 25, 2007)

Faceman said:


> I would hate to see states do that. An employer should have the right to investigate whatever they want about a potential or current employee, whether it's drug tests, FB, or anything else. I checked FB and googled names on all potential hires I interviewed. I found some court cases (we didn't run criminal record checks) by googling, and several references to drug usage on FB. Some stuff, like child support deadbeats shows up in credit reports, but not criminal records and such, although they did many years ago. You would be surprised what was in credit reports back in the 60's...


FM, there is a big difference about googling or checking stuff (and I agree it may cut-off potential troublemakers or violators) and requesting a person to provide a _*password *_to be able to read what he/she posts or sends. I read (and heard in person) about companies asking for password to check the profile and correspondence. Personally I consider it as a huge violation of my privacy.


----------



## Missy May (Feb 18, 2012)

If a potential employee is given access to all inter-office correspondence, back-ground checks, FB pages, etc., of their potential employer before they consider applying for a job in an effort to determine if its really somewhere they would like to work, yeah - why not, let the employer see the FB of the potential candidates. Otherwise, if the status is private - its a media that saves paper and is no different than letters or email.


----------



## Skyseternalangel (Jul 23, 2011)

With all due respect.. you choose to put it on FB then it's out for the public to see. If you don't want people to know then leave it off there.

But something still bothers me about having them use your username and password. Talk about major snooping.. that's like giving them your phone and going through all of your contacts, messages, IMs, etc.


----------



## Faceman (Nov 29, 2007)

kitten_Val said:


> FM, there is a big difference about googling or checking stuff (and I agree it may cut-off potential troublemakers or violators) and requesting a person to provide a _*password *_to be able to read what he/she posts or sends. I read (and heard in person) about companies asking for password to check the profile and correspondence. Personally I consider it as a huge violation of my privacy.


Yes, there is a difference. And I think for some jobs you are right and it may be inappropriate. But for the types of jobs I have had, oil and gas exploration where there are corporate secrets and proprietary information worth millions and sometimes billions of dollars, federal government service where there can be national security issues, and corporate banking, which obviously involves many fiduciary issues and where honesty and integrity are a must, I don't think it is inappropriate at all.

There is always a bigger picture...not only is there the issue of what a potential employee may have said publicly, but I also want to know if the person does not have the common sense and sense of tact and confidentiality to post such things publicly in the first place - as is what happened with this teacher. To think a student is like an ape is one thing, but to so state publicly reflects a person that cannot be entrusted with confidential information, and a person with no tact or interpersonal skills, and extremely poor judgment.

I guess what I am trying - probably poorly - to say is, using this teacher as an example, I personally consider the fact that she has such poor judgment and said what she did publicly as a greater transgression than what she actually said, and more serious grounds for dismissal...


----------



## kitten_Val (Apr 25, 2007)

Faceman said:


> But for the types of jobs I have had, oil and gas exploration where there are corporate secrets and proprietary information worth millions and sometimes billions of dollars, federal government service where there can be national security issues, and corporate banking, which obviously involves many fiduciary issues and where honesty and integrity are a must, I don't think it is inappropriate at all.


Everyone having access to the private government information and/or information worth billion of dollars must sign papers about not discussing or using it at least every year (and sometime even more often). Moreover such companies usually keep really good track of who's doing what on their computer and when/how reaches the database. 

With that being said do you really believe someone can't create a 2nd account (email, FB, you name it) company doesn't know about and just use it? Of course people do. I have 6 email accounts, for example: 1 for friends, 1 for orders, 1 for Craigslist and ads, 1 for horse and pet-related stuff, etc. 

But I still find it outrageous if I come to the interview and will be told something like "you have to give us all passwords now, so we can check your correspondence before we decide to hire you". Or (even better) send them all even before they consider me for the interview. :shock: BTW, I went through background check in past, and it's a really intense one when they talk to neighbors, co-workers, friends, etc. (besides checking records, of course) - in many instances something would of come up if you would be unreliable or potentially dangerous.


----------



## Missy May (Feb 18, 2012)

Faceman said:


> There is always a bigger picture...not only is there the issue of what a potential employee may have said publicly, but I also want to know if the person does not have the common sense and sense of tact and confidentiality to post such things publicly in the first place - as is what happened with this teacher. To think a student is like an ape is one thing, but to so state publicly reflects a person that cannot be entrusted with confidential information, and a person with no tact or interpersonal skills, and extremely poor judgment.
> 
> I guess what I am trying - probably poorly - to say is, using this teacher as an example, I personally consider the fact that she has such poor judgment and said what she did publicly as a greater transgression than what she actually said, and more serious grounds for dismissal...


I see your point concerning poor judgement and making public statements - and it is a good one. However, there is always the "human factor". Often times security background checks are contracted. This might remove some bias, yes - but then again, they often live in the community. I personally don't care if anyone sees my fb page, but...for example.... where I live, what my daughter looks like, where she attends school, what she drives, where she will most likely be at any given hour is not something I want _her_ to hand out to complete strangers - I don't care who they are. In fact, I only joined FB originally to monitor my children's on-line social activity. I wouldn't hand it to a "potential employer" either. And, if they saw my mare...she is so gorgeous - they might swipe _her_!!!!


----------



## Faceman (Nov 29, 2007)

kitten_Val said:


> Everyone having access to the private government information and/or information worth billion of dollars must sign papers about not discussing or using it at least every year (and sometime even more often). Moreover such companies usually keep really good track of who's doing what on their computer and when/how reaches the database.
> 
> With that being said do you really believe someone can't create a 2nd account (email, FB, you name it) company doesn't know about and just use it? Of course people do. I have 6 email accounts, for example: 1 for friends, 1 for orders, 1 for Craigslist and ads, 1 for horse and pet-related stuff, etc.
> 
> But I still find it outrageous if I come to the interview and will be told something like "you have to give us all passwords now, so we can check your correspondence before we decide to hire you". Or (even better) send them all even before they consider me for the interview. :shock: BTW, I went through background check in past, and it's a really intense one when they talk to neighbors, co-workers, friends, etc. (besides checking records, of course) - in many instances something would of come up if you would be unreliable or potentially dangerous.


I understand your point of view perfectly - mainly because as a conservative I greatly value privacy and resent intrusions on my personal life just as much as you. However, that doesn't change the fact that it is still an employer's right to check out a person to the fullest extent possible. If someone doesn't like it - apply for a job somewhere else. If I ask for a password and an applicant refuses to give it - end of interview. It is no different than giving personal references. I may or may not check personal references, but if an applicant refuses to give them - end of interview.

People aren't "entitled" to jobs. They are offered jobs on the basis of what an employer needs and wants, and a potential employee's ability to perform a job and keep the company's best interest in mind at all times. If a company cannot get comfortable with an applicant, that applicant won't get the job. I would never hire someone who I had even the slightest inkling was trying to hide something - that is one of the things an interviewer looks for - or at least should be looking for.

I'm sure you and others have heard of the incidences of terrorists and criminals that have surfaced in the armed services and in the federal government. That should never happen - people should be checked out thoroughly. I had a Top Secret security clearance while in the Army, and I guarantee you at that time every little iota was checked in my personal life, including discussions with relatives, neighbors, former teachers, and the like. FB has generated nothing new about checking people out for information sensitive or proprietary jobs, or jobs with a high level of fiduciary responsibility. I would further suggest that much of this is also a sign of the times. With the incidence of crime and drugs being what it is, there is more need to check out people more closely than in the past.

The long and short of it is I agree with you in principle, but as the saying goes, extraordinary circumstances require extraordinary actions...


----------



## kitten_Val (Apr 25, 2007)

Faceman said:


> However, that doesn't change the fact that it is still an *employer's right to check out a person to the fullest extent possible.* If someone doesn't like it - apply for a job somewhere else. If I ask for a password and an applicant refuses to give it - end of interview. It is no different than giving personal references. I may or may not check personal references, but if an applicant refuses to give them - end of interview.


Yes and no. If we are not talking about clearance here, private employer - possibly. However State employer (and may be Federal as well although I don't know for sure) has no right to ask about the personal info (at least in several states I'm aware of) before the final selection is made. Of course, applicant is warned in advance if the further check will be done prior starting the work (so it's up to the applicant to agree or just drop out in the very beginning). 

BTW, I have no problem with checking private information IF you pass an interview and selected as a final choice, and such a "check" is the very last "a must" to get a job. However I still think it should be against the law (and it is in MD) to check or request such information _before _the final decision on applicant made. I don't care for FB and even my emails (as I don't send/post confidential or sensitive data :wink: ), but I wouldn't be very happy to share information about my family (how they look like, what school go to, etc.) with some strangers I don't even know. Especially if it comes to _recruiters _(who seem to be everywhere these days).


----------



## Faceman (Nov 29, 2007)

kitten_Val said:


> Yes and no. If we are not talking about clearance here, private employer - possibly. However State employer (and may be Federal as well although I don't know for sure) has no right to ask about the personal info (at least in several states I'm aware of) before the final selection is made. Of course, applicant is warned in advance if the further check will be done prior starting the work (so it's up to the applicant to agree or just drop out in the very beginning).
> 
> BTW, I have no problem with checking private information IF you pass an interview and selected as a final choice, and such a "check" is the very last "a must" to get a job. However I still think it should be against the law (and it is in MD) to check or request such information _before _the final decision on applicant made. I don't care for FB and even my emails (as I don't send/post confidential or sensitive data :wink: ), but I wouldn't be very happy to share information about my family (how they look like, what school go to, etc.) with some strangers I don't even know. Especially if it comes to _recruiters _(who seem to be everywhere these days).


Certainly at one extreme, it wouldn't be appropriate for a company to do personal checks on every student in a graduating class to decide which ones to pursue, and it would be (or should be) appropriate as a final requisite for sealing the deal. Where between those extremes it would or wouldn't be appropriate would be subjective and a matter of opinion - or a matter of law if there is some law against it like the one you mention in Maryland. 

The way I usually hire unless I have someone preselected for a job is to narrow my search down to 2 or 3 people and those are the people I will investigate to determine my final choice. If I get 25 applicants for a job, I'm certainly not going to investigate all 25, and I certainly don't permit HR to screen people for technical jobs...


----------



## kitten_Val (Apr 25, 2007)

Faceman said:


> If I get 25 applicants for a job, I'm certainly not going to investigate all 25, and I certainly don't permit HR to screen people for technical jobs...


Lol! One of the searches I was on had 300+ applicants!  Even with downsizing by requirements and education we still had like 30-40 who qualified and went through interview (at least the phone one).


----------



## Faceman (Nov 29, 2007)

Yeah, sign of the times. Pretty sad when you have that many applicants for a job. I would never interview that many, though, unless I just couldn't find a good match after talking to 3 or 4.

As an aside, although I have been retired for a year and a half, one of the things that got obnoxious the last couple years I worked was the number of totally unqualified people that would apply online for a position - just to satisfy job search requirements for their unemployment. They were not interested in getting a job - just officially applying. It is a pain in the butt and waste of time to wade through and discard applications from unqualified people. I never did figure out a way around it, though, other than to search for employees through industry contacts rather than publicly advertising positions...


----------

