How far is too far in your employer Googling you?

[Brian Shannon]

Originally Posted by arminius

But the info is harmless. She went to an entertainment event, like a concert or movie premiere. She dressed in a costume as is normal for this. It was on her own time and had nothing to do with her employer. I am not saying to sue for the info being there, she should sue for the way it is being used and how her supervisors are using it to ridicule her in the workplace. Totally unprofessional.

If the info is public and "harmless" then why should she be able to sue? Oh wait, this is America, I forgot, people can sue for anything.

[calhoun07]

Originally Posted by Brian Shannon

For what? Looking at public information

Good luck!

And to answer the question, I say good for the employer!

If they end up terminating her over all of this, she needs to sue them. And somebody asked the question about bullying...I'd be curious to know about that.

[4KRG]

Originally Posted by calhoun07

I get that. And expect it to a degree. But I expect some comprehension skills on the user's end that is collecting the information.

I agree with you. My company trains the employees that do investigations. I can't speak for what they find important and what they don't.

I do know that certain behaviors fit into profiles and I have no idea where that puts comic con people

The problem is untrained people think they can make the call from a random google search, this sounds like your case.

[4KRG]

Originally Posted by Dr Mabuse

32 lines of blah blah blah

Doc, there are some employees that require investigation, if you can't agree with that, then you are out in left field with your conspiracy theories.

booga boooga , what are you trying to hide?

[arminius]

Originally Posted by Brian Shannon

If the info is public and "harmless" then why should she be able to sue? Oh wait, this is America, I forgot, people can sue for anything.

You hate comics don't you? You think that her employers using said public info to ridicule and possibly fire her is legitimate? It is not over the info that gives her the right to sue. It is the way her fuck wit dim bulb sub human bosses and co workers are attempting to ascribe their sick fantasies to her actions and the detrimental effect that has on her continued employment that gives her the right to sue. OP is not included in this of course.

[Brian Shannon]

Originally Posted by arminius

You hate comics don't you? You think that her employers using said public info to ridicule and possibly fire her is legitimate? It is not over the info that gives her the right to sue. It is the way her fuck wit dim bulb sub human bosses and co workers are attempting to ascribe their sick fantasies to her actions and the detrimental effect that has on her continued employment that gives her the right to sue. OP is not included in this of course.

I don't hate anything.

Then information was on a public website.

Someone suggested she sue.

I asked for what?

Good job trying to spin this into a controversy.

[kvrdave]

So what we really object to here is making fun of nerds.

[calhoun07]

^^
We have to stick together!

[Giantrobo]

Originally Posted by 4KRG

Doc, there are some employees that require investigation, if you can't agree with that, then you are out in left field with your conspiracy theories.

booga boooga , what are you trying to hide?

I agree that there are certain jobs were this is a reasonable thing to do. Like FiveO said, it's part of hiring for his department. Makes sense since they are given public trust and the are expected to be trustworthy and above board.

But this shit is happening to average "joes" who aren't handling money, aren't carrying guns, and who aren't holding important corporate secrets.

[Dr Mabuse]

Originally Posted by 4KRG

Doc, there are some employees that require investigation, if you can't agree with that, then you are out in left field with your conspiracy theories.

booga boooga , what are you trying to hide?

"Conspiracy theories"...

Damn you!!!!

I've had security clearances, have you? Like I said, most people just don't see the night and day change on this stuff. I don't see how, but them's the facts.

Originally Posted by Giantrobo

I agree that there are certain job were this is a reasonable thing to do. Like FiveO said, it's part of hiring for his department. Makes sense since they are given public trust and the are expected to be trustworthy and above board.

But this shit is happeneing to average "joes" who aren't handling money, aren't carrying guns, and who aren't holding important corporate secrets.

This is the simple point.

You had checks into a person for employment 40 years ago in the FBI, that made sense then and does now.

What that damned 4KRG can't seem to figure out is how completely things have changed. I guess most people just don't see it.

[4KRG]

I see it, and I think that if I owned a company, I would do it too. I wouldn't want to hire anyone that I felt was questionable.

You seem to blow it all out of proportion like there is some large conspiracy that forces all businesses to do it. I argue that is not the case, but business owners simply want to know who they are really hiring. I see nothing wrong with that.

In the case of the OP where the people doing the investigation work are untrained and ignorant is the only case where I see a problem.

Originally Posted by Dr Mabuse

I've had security clearances,

Hey, how about you post that info in a public forum I hear they like when you do that, it makes it easier to justify taking it away from you for lack of common sense


Doc, you should take an add out in your local paper to hire people, be sure to make it clear that you do not drug test and you don't care about anyone's past or background. I would make those bold comments that stand out in the ad. Please video tape all your interviews and post here, I am sure you will have some high quality applicants that you can trust with your money and business.

[Giantrobo]

Originally Posted by 4KRG

You seem to blow it all out of proportion like there is some large conspiracy that forces all businesses to do it. I argue that is not the case, but business owners simply want to know who they are really hiring. I see nothing wrong with that.

Maybe not YET. But can't you see that this is becoming a regular thing at more and more places? How can you say that?

[Abob Teff]

Originally Posted by FiveO

Agreed. If you don't want it out there for everyone to see...don't put it on a publically viewed internet site.

As part of background investigations that I do every few months on incoming deputies I always check social networking sites.

Its no different than going to the bar, getting drunk and making a complete fool of yourself in public. Employers are asking themselves "do we really want this person working for us".

Anything publically available on the net is fair game.

You are missing a key point here ... it is something that she is proud of and does want out there ... the issue is the manner in which the employer is behaving. This should never have gone beyond the person doing the background search and his superior. Instead the company appears to be run by a bunch of pre-pubescent teenage boys looking for spank bank material. Company management has twisted an innocent picture of this young lady at a comic-book convention into "she's a fetishist dominatrix who is turning tricks on her lunch break. I hear she likes to shove midgets in her ... " *tee-hee*giggle*giggle*. If this is reaching the OP at another branch of the bank, there are some serious staff-housecleaning issues that need to happen.

Somebody asked why she should sue ... I would say slander and defamation of character would be two realistic reasons ... the problem is that she would have to prove damages. The next time she is passed over for a job or pay raise, she is in like Flint. I really hope that something becomes of this and it begins a major backlash into the abuses of information that occur every day.

[arminius]

Originally Posted by Abob Teff

You are missing a key point here ... it is something that she is proud of and does want out there ... the issue is the manner in which the employer is behaving. This should never have gone beyond the person doing the background search and his superior. Instead the company appears to be run by a bunch of pre-pubescent teenage boys looking for spank bank material. Company management has twisted an innocent picture of this young lady at a comic-book convention into "she's a fetishist dominatrix who is turning tricks on her lunch break. I hear she likes to shove midgets in her ... " *tee-hee*giggle*giggle*. If this is reaching the OP at another branch of the bank, there are some serious staff-housecleaning issues that need to happen.

Somebody asked why she should sue ... I would say slander and defamation of character would be two realistic reasons ... the problem is that she would have to prove damages. The next time she is passed over for a job or pay raise, she is in like Flint. I really hope that something becomes of this and it begins a major backlash into the abuses of information that occur every day.

Exactly

[Dr Mabuse]

Originally Posted by Abob Teff

You are missing a key point here ... it is something that she is proud of and does want out there ... the issue is the manner in which the employer is behaving. This should never have gone beyond the person doing the background search and his superior. Instead the company appears to be run by a bunch of pre-pubescent teenage boys looking for spank bank material. Company management has twisted an innocent picture of this young lady at a comic-book convention into "she's a fetishist dominatrix who is turning tricks on her lunch break. I hear she likes to shove midgets in her ... " *tee-hee*giggle*giggle*. If this is reaching the OP at another branch of the bank, there are some serious staff-housecleaning issues that need to happen.

Somebody asked why she should sue ... I would say slander and defamation of character would be two realistic reasons ... the problem is that she would have to prove damages. The next time she is passed over for a job or pay raise, she is in like Flint. I really hope that something becomes of this and it begins a major backlash into the abuses of information that occur every day.

Refreshing to see a post from someone who sees this stuff for what it is.

[Dr Mabuse]

Originally Posted by 4KRG

You seem to blow it all out of proportion like there is some large conspiracy that forces all businesses to do it. I argue that is not the case, but business owners simply want to know who they are really hiring. I see nothing wrong with that.

If you thought I was implying that businesses were somehow "forced" to do this you don't understand my point or most of what I was talking about. If that's what you made of it I guess it would seem like some kind of conspiracy crap.

The absolute disregard by the wealthy and powerful for the 'lower classes' is a natural state of man. It's the entire history of the planet in a nutshell. It moved from outright slavery to economic slavery relatively recently in the last few centuries. The labor movement changed that. Now that unions have for the most part been broken, the natural state of things is coming back.

You follow now?

The social conditioning to this stuff happened so fast it seems 'normal' now in the minds of most, because they were conditioned to see it just that way.

You mentioned someone at your bank being investigated for a job being a good thing. I guess all the bankers who have destroyed millions of people's lives and savings who did pass background checks and got $100,000,000 bonuses were the "good" people to handle you money and financial information? The mortgage brokers from coast to coast? Funny how people don't see that.

I'll bet Bernie Ebbers, and Ken Lay, and Michael Milkin, and Angelo Mozilo, and the thousands of corporate criminals of that ilk could pass background checks just fine don't you?

What's most hilarious is that President Clinton, President Bush, and President Obama have all done things that, had they been 'caught', would lead to someone like you saying they weren't 'fit' to work at your local bank.

[arminius]

Originally Posted by Dr Mabuse

If you thought I was implying that businesses were somehow "forced" to do this you don't understand my point or most of what I was talking about. If that's what you made of it I guess it would seem like some kind of conspiracy crap.

The absolute disregard by the wealthy and powerful for the 'lower classes' is a natural state of man. It's the entire history of the planet in a nutshell. It moved from outright slavery to economic slavery relatively recently in the last few centuries. The labor movement changed that. Now that unions have for the most part been broken, the natural state of things is coming back.

You follow now?

The social conditioning to this stuff happened so fast it seems 'normal' now in the minds of most, because they were conditioned to see it just that way.

You mentioned someone at your bank being investigated for a job being a good thing. I guess all the bankers who have destroyed millions of people's lives and savings who did pass background checks and got $100,000,000 bonuses were the "good" people to handle you money and financial information? The mortgage brokers from coast to coast? Funny how people don't see that.

I'll bet Bernie Ebbers, and Ken Lay, and Michael Milkin, and Angelo Mozilo, and the thousands of corporate criminals of that ilk could pass background checks just fine don't you?

What's most hilarious is that President Clinton, President Bush, and President Obama have all done things that, had they been 'caught', would lead to someone like you saying they weren't 'fit' to work at your local bank.

Actually they would not even be allowed to work at home depot. Drug testing, keeping retail safe for everyone.

[Giantrobo]

Originally Posted by Dr Mabuse

You mentioned someone at your bank being investigated for a job being a good thing. I guess all the bankers who have destroyed millions of people's lives and savings who did pass background checks and got $100,000,000 bonuses were the "good" people to handle you money and financial information? The mortgage brokers from coast to coast? Funny how people don't see that.

I'll bet Bernie Ebbers, and Ken Lay, and Michael Milkin, and Angelo Mozilo, and the thousands of corporate criminals of that ilk could pass background checks just fine don't you?

Seriously! Maybe someone should have been Googling the names and checking the Facebook pages of some of those CEO bastards.

Instead they're doing it to low ranking nobodies causing them grief.

[PopcornTreeCt]

This happened at work. Someone had googled a new co-worker and learned they were wanted in another state. Needless to say, the authorities were alerted and that person is no longer working for us.

[4KRG]

Originally Posted by Giantrobo

Maybe not YET. But can't you see that this is becoming a regular thing at more and more places? How can you say that?

So if you OWNED a business, you would want to hire people that did drugs and posted on facebook about how stoned they got every weekend??

I need to clarify that the OPs post is not what I am referring to, someone having a pic at comic con is completely innocent in and of itself. I am talking about REAL background investigations that are handled in a professional and mature manor. Not random googlings and immature reactions to non-issues that are found.

If I owned the company, I would want my employees investigated so I would know what I am dealing with.

Maybe I just have more real world experience with this than some people that post here.

I have had background investigations turn things up on people that were COMPLETELY SHOCKING to me. I mean so shocking I had to delete access to the building for employees and have security physically remove them from the property and give them the 'if you return you will be arrested for trespassing' speech.

[4KRG]

Originally Posted by Dr Mabuse

If you thought I was implying that businesses were somehow "forced" to do this you don't understand my point or most of what I was talking about. If that's what you made of it I guess it would seem like some kind of conspiracy crap.

Nope, I get what you are saying. I will say it to you just like giantrobo

IF YOU OWNED THE BUSINESS, wouldn't you want to know who was handling your money? Wouldn't you want to investigate?

The absolute disregard by the wealthy and powerful for the 'lower classes' is a natural state of man. It's the entire history of the planet in a nutshell. It moved from outright slavery to economic slavery relatively recently in the last few centuries. The labor movement changed that. Now that unions have for the most part been broken, the natural state of things is coming back.

You follow now?

Yeah, this is where you start the conspiracy of all weathly people against the poor.

The social conditioning to this stuff happened so fast it seems 'normal' now in the minds of most, because they were conditioned to see it just that way.

I have seen a lot of shit in the time I have spent managing people. I tend to not trust people. This has nothing to do with any social conditioning or wealthy powerful people controlling my mind. It simply has to do with my own life experience dealing with people.

Again, if you owned the company and want to hire people without drug tests or background investigations, you are free to. I know a few people I have had to let go that would be happy to come work for you

let me know when you are ready to hire them.

You mentioned someone at your bank being investigated for a job being a good thing. I guess all the bankers who have destroyed millions of people's lives and savings who did pass background checks and got $100,000,000 bonuses were the "good" people to handle you money and financial information? The mortgage brokers from coast to coast? Funny how people don't see that.

Those folks should have been investigated as well. You are now twisting the subject at hand and are no longer on what I was referring to. I bet they are criminals and should not have been allowed to have the positions they had.

I'll bet Bernie Ebbers, and Ken Lay, and Michael Milkin, and Angelo Mozilo, and the thousands of corporate criminals of that ilk could pass background checks just fine don't you?

I would love to see their investigations actually

What's most hilarious is that President Clinton, President Bush, and President Obama have all done things that, had they been 'caught', would lead to someone like you saying they weren't 'fit' to work at your local bank.

It's clear Obama can't do simple math, so you are correct, he is not fit to work at my bank Clinton is a sexual predator and wouldn't want him working at my bank either. Bush is a drunk/drug addict, I wouldn't want him at my bank either. Any more? (as a matter of consistency, I didn't vote for any of them)

[4KRG]

Originally Posted by Giantrobo

Seriously! Maybe someone should have been Googling the names and checking the Facebook pages of some of those CEO bastards.

I am all for that!

[tasha99]

The difference between googling and gossiping and a real security clearance is in the judgment of the people doing it. I used to have a ts-sci clearance, and the people investigating me wouldn't have given a shiit if I went to comic cons or not. A bunch of guys in suits interviewed my friends and friends of friends to try to uncover dirt that hadn't been disclosed. I have no problems with employers doing that if they really want to spend the money, but to google and make judgments about a perfectly legal activity is ridiculous. I hope they lose their asses in a law suit.

[Abob Teff]

Originally Posted by 4KRG

I have had background investigations turn things up on people that were COMPLETELY SHOCKING to me. I mean so shocking I had to delete access to the building for employees and have security physically remove them from the property and give them the 'if you return you will be arrested for trespassing' speech.

I can see two sides of the coin here, and I hope you are going to land on the right one ... I'm hoping you found something that would legally prevent the person from doing their job (i.e., found out a school bus driver was a registered sex offender; police officer had a felony conviction that would prevent him from carrying a firearm) ... 'cause if not, I see some serious issues with firing a person if they have not done anything to warrant it. An unrelated transgression in the past is not grounds for termination now.

[Navinabob]

A big part of my job is to do background checks on people... here are a few facts. Your boss can look at Facebook, Myspace or Google. They can do that all they want. What they can't do is fire a person for cause on it unless they post pictures of themselves committing a crime or belonging to a group that commits crime. Any company that does this (and worse if they show other employees any internet evidence) is just opening up themselves to a lawsuit.

Your job can't Google you to find your age, ethnicity or religion because it opens them to legal jeopardy. Do companies do it? Yes they do. Most people (and company executives) don't know their rights or the rights of others. But all it takes is one lawyer with a slam-dunk like this and people learn.