How far is too far in your employer Googling you?

[Nick Danger]

Originally Posted by 4KRG

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?



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



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.



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 would love to see their investigations actually



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)

There's no point in your arguing with Dr Mabuse about this. First, there's no point in arguing with Dr Mabuse about anything. Second, since you're a millionaire, you are a member of the very class he's attacking.

[Dr Mabuse]

First: There's a difference between an 'argument' and a 'discussion' Nick. Do you fancy yourself someone who's open minded and quick to change your thoughts on a topic? If so... you've done a masterful job concealing that trait in your posts.

Second: So 4K is one of them damned elitist rich people oppressing the working class huh? I KNEW it!

See!?!? SEE!?!?

[mikehunt]

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.

hostile work environment
management level employees are mocking her in front of other employees

[calhoun07]

I talked to my boss about this today. She said she knew of the situation but didn't really tell me how much she knew (not surprising) and let me tell her what I knew. Her feelings on the matter was that the higher ups were professional enough to see the pictures online for what they were and not let that influence the decision of the future employment of the employee/raises/job advancement, etc. She thought it would just blow over and nothing more would come of it. She did not want to go into how the employee in the IT department became aware of the pictures and darted around the discussion I wanted to engage on what was the bank's policy on Googling existing employees to dig stuff up like this. I could find nothing on the topic in any of the policies and procedures we have.

I came home to check my email and saw this news story...I felt it was rather timely..

http://www.comcast.net/articles/news...lipop.Lawsuit/

School sued for punishing teens over MySpace pix

INDIANAPOLIS — Two sophomore girls have sued their school district after they were punished for posting sexually suggestive photos on MySpace during their summer vacation.

The American Civil Liberties Union, in a federal lawsuit filed last week on behalf of the girls, argues that Churubusco High School violated the girls' free speech rights when it banned them from extracurricular activities for a joke that didn't involve the school. They say the district humiliated the girls by requiring them to apologize to an all-male coaches' board and undergo counseling.

Some child advocates argue that schools should play a role in monitoring students' behavior, especially when dealing with minors. And the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that students can be disciplined for activities that happen outside of school, so long as the school can prove the activities were disruptive or posed a danger and that it was foreseeable the activities would find their way to campus.

But some legal experts say that in this digital era, schools must accept that students will engage in some questionable behavior in cyberspace and during off hours.

[RoyalTea]

Originally Posted by 4KRG

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 think there's a difference between investigating a person before you hire them and investigating a person after they're hired.

If an employee's work is shoddy or uneven, then look into things. If they're a model employee, who gives a fuck what they do at home?

[Nick Danger]

Originally Posted by Dr Mabuse

First: There's a difference between an 'argument' and a 'discussion' Nick. Do you fancy yourself someone who's open minded and quick to change your thoughts on a topic? If so... you've done a masterful job concealing that trait in your posts.

Second: So 4K is one of them damned elitist rich people oppressing the working class huh? I KNEW it!

See!?!? SEE!?!?

[Brian Shannon]

Originally Posted by mikehunt

hostile work environment
management level employees are mocking her in front of other employees

Well that should be worth at least 5 million dollars

[Talkin2Phil]

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.

Don't be a tease. What is so COMPLETELY SHOCKING to you?

[Deftones]

i have no problem with people using these things to weed them out of employment situations prior to hiring. after the fact, it's a bit shady, even more still if the employee isn't doing anything illegal.

[Josh-da-man]

I'm always amazed the stupid shit people will put on the internet under their own names.

Nothing I post online goes out under my full name. (Though I do have some friends who have posted pictures of me using my real name to their myspace/facebook pages which kind of irritates me. I'm not doing anything illegal or anything, but it still feels like an invasion of my privacy.)

[mndtrp]

Originally Posted by Josh-da-man

I'm always amazed the stupid shit people will put on the internet under their own names.

Nothing I post online goes out under my full name. (Though I do have some friends who have posted pictures of me using my real name to their myspace/facebook pages which kind of irritates me. I'm not doing anything illegal or anything, but it still feels like an invasion of my privacy.)

If it's just a tag, you can remove it on the picture page. If they've put the caption under the picture, ask them to change or remove it. They are friends, I hope.

[Darmund]

Originally Posted by imperator505

Other than passing it around and laughing at her behind her back. Not very professional in my view, and might be construed as bullying behaviour. Surely, in America of all places, she could sue for bullying?

How does supposedly laughing about her behind her back equate to bullying? Bullying is something that is done to a person's face, in fact it involves getting up in someone's one. This laughing is supposedly being done behind this chicks back.

For those of you bemoaning the fact that companies are googling their employees, this is no different then doing a background check, it's just a relatively more sophisticated form of it.

Companies also have a public and private image to consider and if one of their employees is taking pics of themselves getting buttfucked and then posting said pics on their MySpace/Facebook page where they also list their employment with said company, said company has ample grounds to at the very least bring them into human resources for a serious talking to and the company also has ample grounds to dismiss them.

It is simply a case of the person who posts said photos showing incredibly stupid judgement and I for one not only wouldn't want to work with them at a company, I wouldn't want to associate with them in any way.

[clckworang]

Originally Posted by Darmund

How does supposedly laughing about her behind her back equate to bullying? Bullying is something that is done to a person's face, in fact it involves getting up in someone's one. This laughing is supposedly being done behind this chicks back.

For those of you bemoaning the fact that companies are googling their employees, this is no different then doing a background check, it's just a relatively more sophisticated form of it.

Companies also have a public and private image to consider and if one of their employees is taking pics of themselves getting buttfucked and then posting said pics on their MySpace/Facebook page where they also list their employment with said company, said company has ample grounds to at the very least bring them into human resources for a serious talking to and the company also has ample grounds to dismiss them.

It is simply a case of the person who posts said photos showing incredibly stupid judgement and I for one not only wouldn't want to work with them at a company, I wouldn't want to associate with them in any way.

Conducting a background check prior to employment is far different than keeping tabs on someone after he or she has been hired. I would question whether the employer has a morality clause in the employment agreement or something like that. Otherwise, it's none of their business what you do outside of work as long as you're getting your job done.

Your "buttfucking" scenario is wrong on many levels, the biggest being you can't post nudity on those sites. But again, I wouldn't think the company could legally do anything unless it has something in its employee agreement/contract about maintaining a company image.

[imperator505]

Originally Posted by Darmund

How does supposedly laughing about her behind her back equate to bullying? Bullying is something that is done to a person's face, in fact it involves getting up in someone's one. This laughing is supposedly being done behind this chicks back.

Wrong.

You can bully someone by telling stories about them to other people, undermining them, their authority or their relationships with their colleagues and having their colleagues treat them in a different way, or exclude them from the group as a result of this.

[mikehunt]

Originally Posted by Brian Shannon

Well that should be worth at least 5 million dollars

I gave a decent reason for suing. never implied it was worth millions

[Dr. DVD]

I am always careful not to post stuff that would be compromising on anything. My only problem would be what potential/current employers consider "inappropriate" behavior. I seldom/never appear in the photos. Recently I was at a bar on Halloween and had my picture taken with some people dressed up in cool outfits, none of which were risque. I don't even have a drink in my hand in any of the photos. If we get to a point where going to a bar(not even drinking) or hanging out with certain people is inappropriate behavior, then society truly is crumbling.

[calhoun07]

I saw this on MSNBC today and thought it fit in here...

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/34089972...ws-weird_news/

Woman loses benefits over Facebook photos
Canadian, who was on sick leave, shown having fun at Chippendales, on trip

BROMONT, Quebec - Photos on Facebook have cost a Canadian woman her long-term sick leave benefits.

Nathalie Blanchard has been on leave from her job at IBM in Bromont, Quebec, for the last year.

The Canadian Broadcasting Corp. reported she was diagnosed with major depression and was receiving monthly sick-leave benefits.

But when a Manulife insurance agent discovered pictures of Blanchard having a good time, the payments dried up.

Blanchard said she was told by Manulife that the photos of her at a Chippendales bar show, at her birthday party and on vacation were evidence that she is no longer depressed.

Blanchard told the CBC that on her doctor's advice, she had been trying to have fun.

She is fighting to get her benefits reinstated and said her lawyer is exploring what the next step should be.

I think this employer went too far as well. So since she is suffering from clinical depression means she can't even be taken some where on her birthday to be cheered up, even if for a short time?

I don't blame the employer for checking up on her...I just think they handled it wrong. They should have called her in and said she needed to see a doctor again and go from there. Or at least checked with her doctor to see if that is what he advised her to do. I am glad she got a lawyer and if she's still eligible to receive the benefits I hope she gets them reinstated and them some.

[Hokeyboy]

Long-term sick leave benefits for depression? REALLY??

I'd never go to work again.

Seriously, that sounds like hooey to me on the woman's part. If I'm on disability leave for a back injury and I start posting pictures of myself PWNING a pommel horse competition, I can't imagine I'd have the chutzpah to act surprised.

[calhoun07]

Originally Posted by Hokeyboy

Long-term sick leave benefits for depression? REALLY??

I'd never go to work again.

Seriously, that sounds like hooey to me on the woman's part. If I'm on disability leave for a back injury and I start posting pictures of myself PWNING a pommel horse competition, I can't imagine I'd have the chutzpah to act surprised.

True that. And I am not disagreeing so much with her claim being investigated. We've seen examples of this in the past...private investigators being hired to check up on people with disability claims and when they are seen doing normal work around the house with no problems their claims are dropped.

And perhaps this woman's job hired some firm or has a department that investigates things like this just to check up on the validity of the claims. Taking a year off for depression should be investigated.

I just disagree with how they drew conclusions from the Facebook pictures and flat out denied her claims based on that. Without talking about it with the doctor? Having her analyzed again? I think they should have done that and then if it turns out her claims were false, sue her for money paid to her that she didn't deserve.

[Navinabob]

This is a great read for those who actually want to know the legality of social network searches by employers. http://pibuzz.com/2009/10/25/social-...investigators/

[Suprmallet]

Originally Posted by Talkin2Phil

Don't be a tease. What is so COMPLETELY SHOCKING to you?

Well, there was this one woman. Not very attractive. Took some photos with cleavage. But get this--she was in a costume!

[Bandoman]

Originally Posted by calhoun07

True that. And I am not disagreeing so much with her claim being investigated. We've seen examples of this in the past...private investigators being hired to check up on people with disability claims and when they are seen doing normal work around the house with no problems their claims are dropped.

And perhaps this woman's job hired some firm or has a department that investigates things like this just to check up on the validity of the claims. Taking a year off for depression should be investigated.

I just disagree with how they drew conclusions from the Facebook pictures and flat out denied her claims based on that. Without talking about it with the doctor? Having her analyzed again? I think they should have done that and then if it turns out her claims were false, sue her for money paid to her that she didn't deserve.

We don't know what other investigation they did, perhaps surveillance (very common in disputing what are believed to be fraudulent or excessive claims).