Page 2 of 7 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 64
Thanks Tree34Thanks

Thread: The Social Media Unemployment Line

  1. #11
    One
    One is offline
    10 Year Survivor One's Avatar
    Joined
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    8,804
    Thanks
    6289

    From
    ----> X <----
    Quote Originally Posted by Neomalthusian View Post
    No one believes that.
    Prying into private social media accounts of employees, random drug testing, some business won't even consider hiring smokers, even if they only smoke while not at work, etc.
    So, I take it you aren't informed on this.
    Thanks from Friday13, Steam Heat and BigLeRoy

  2. #12
    Veteran Member
    Joined
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    13,722
    Thanks
    3671

    From
    AK
    Quote Originally Posted by One View Post
    Prying into private social media accounts of employees,
    Social media isn't any more private than hollering on a street corner.

    random drug testing, some business won't even consider hiring smokers, even if they only smoke while not at work, etc.

    So, I take it you aren't informed on this.
    Employers want to be able to keep the best people in their employ, whatever they think that means for them. That is reasonable. People that reflect badly on the employer aren't wanted. Employers shouldn't have to keep someone on staff who might have made a great impression in the recruitment and hiring process but now has shown to be a complete ass. They should simply be able to part ways with employees that they don't want. Employees leave their employers all the time and seek out better deals elsewhere. Employers should be able to do this too.

  3. #13
    One
    One is offline
    10 Year Survivor One's Avatar
    Joined
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    8,804
    Thanks
    6289

    From
    ----> X <----
    Quote Originally Posted by Neomalthusian View Post
    Social media isn't any more private than hollering on a street corner.



    Employers want to be able to keep the best people in their employ, whatever they think that means for them. That is reasonable. People that reflect badly on the employer aren't wanted. Employers shouldn't have to keep someone on staff who might have made a great impression in the recruitment and hiring process but now has shown to be a complete ass. They should simply be able to part ways with employees that they don't want. Employees leave their employers all the time and seek out better deals elsewhere. Employers should be able to do this too.
    Kind of makes your previous post...
    Quote Originally Posted by Neomalthusian View Post
    No one believes that.
    ...ring hollow.
    Thanks from BigLeRoy

  4. #14
    Veteran Member
    Joined
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    13,722
    Thanks
    3671

    From
    AK
    Quote Originally Posted by One View Post
    Kind of makes your previous post...

    ...ring hollow.
    Being able to decide for yourself who you want to work for or who you want working for you doesn't have anything to do with controlling them. It's just employment. A trade of labor for money. People everywhere change jobs constantly. Neither can control the other, but both should be able to decide for themselves who they want to work with and who they don't.

  5. #15
    One
    One is offline
    10 Year Survivor One's Avatar
    Joined
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    8,804
    Thanks
    6289

    From
    ----> X <----
    Quote Originally Posted by Neomalthusian View Post
    Being able to decide for yourself who you want to work for or who you want working for you doesn't have anything to do with controlling them. It's just employment. A trade of labor for money. People everywhere change jobs constantly. Neither can control the other, but both should be able to decide for themselves who they want to work with and who they don't.
    Sorry, you are just trying to justify employers being able to pry in to employees private lives. And yes it is tying to control your behavior while not at work. I realize you are very strongly pro business, but an employer has no business being in an employee's business outside of the office. period.

  6. #16
    Veteran Member
    Joined
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    13,722
    Thanks
    3671

    From
    AK
    Quote Originally Posted by One View Post
    Sorry, you are just trying to justify employers being able to pry in to employees private lives.
    What you offer up in social media is not your private life. You went through the effort to publicize it. What you make a concerted effort to publicize isn't "your private life."

    And yes it is tying to control your behavior while not at work. I realize you are very strongly pro business,
    Just anti-double-standards.

    but an employer has no business being in an employee's business outside of the office. period.
    If a business were to get on its social media page after Joe Schmoe was off the clock and say "wow, Joe is such a shitty worker, look at what a bad job he did here?" and Joe Schmoe was like "pfft fuck that bullshit, I quit," is that an act of Joe Schmoe trying to "control" his employer? An employer acts like a total ass, employer will lose quality employees. Employee acts like a total ass, employee will lose quality employers.

    Time to put on our big boy pants and acknowledge the sale of labor is a trade and both have to be satisfied with what the other offers. Sometimes that includes character and reputation factors. Don't like it? Look in the mirror and tell yourself to stop acting like a teenager in public forums.
    Last edited by Neomalthusian; 14th January 2016 at 10:21 PM.

  7. #17
    Member
    Joined
    Sep 2014
    Posts
    3,278
    Thanks
    941

    From
    TN
    Quote Originally Posted by One View Post
    Sorry, you are just trying to justify employers being able to pry in to employees private lives. And yes it is tying to control your behavior while not at work. I realize you are very strongly pro business, but an employer has no business being in an employee's business outside of the office. period.
    On the flip side I can be held liable for negligent hiring and/or negligent retention.

  8. #18
    Thought Provocateur NightSwimmer's Avatar
    Joined
    Jun 2014
    Posts
    30,617
    Thanks
    28618

    From
    United States
    Quote Originally Posted by publius3 View Post
    On the flip side I can be held liable for negligent hiring and/or negligent retention.

    Responsibility is a bitch, isn't it? Of course, that in no way implies that a private business should be allowed to invade the privacy of it's employees in manners that are not even allowed for our government under our Constitution.
    Thanks from BigLeRoy

  9. #19
    One
    One is offline
    10 Year Survivor One's Avatar
    Joined
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    8,804
    Thanks
    6289

    From
    ----> X <----
    Quote Originally Posted by publius3 View Post
    On the flip side I can be held liable for negligent hiring and/or negligent retention.
    Changes nothing. You are still supporting a business being able to insert themselves into employees private lives. I see how you were trying to justify their being able to do so. But you can not justify it. period.
    And yes, if I put something on social media, I have the ability to limit who sees it.

  10. #20
    Member
    Joined
    Sep 2014
    Posts
    3,278
    Thanks
    941

    From
    TN
    Quote Originally Posted by One View Post
    Changes nothing. You are still supporting a business being able to insert themselves into employees private lives. I see how you were trying to justify their being able to do so. But you can not justify it. period.
    And yes, if I put something on social media, I have the ability to limit who sees it.
    You don't get it. I don't WANT to know, I actually want to know LESS about my employees. LESS, not more. I have to exercise due diligence here, OR the law will find that I have breached a duty and I could be subjected to liability for negligent hiring/negligent retention and I could lose my home.

    Quote Originally Posted by One View Post
    And yes, if I put something on social media, I have the ability to limit who sees it.
    We're not discussing employers hacking into accounts. These people didn't limit it, it was out there and other people were able to see it.

    If you were in a position where you placed funds into my trust account and my associate, John, stole that money because I didn't realize he was a coked up, deadbeat loser who had been charged with running a Ponzi scheme, you'd be the first to say I should've been alert to those circumstances, and if he were my delivery driver, and he struck your daughter with a vehicle I entrusted to him, you'd be the first to say I should've known he was a no good drunk who should've been entrusted with the truck.

    I'm vicariously liable. Yeah, I got my eyes open, and my employees taking a drug test as a result of that.
    Last edited by publius3; 16th January 2016 at 08:24 PM.
    Thanks from Dr.Gently

Page 2 of 7 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Social Media in Law Enforcement
    By Southern Dad in forum Current Events
    Replies: 53
    Last Post: 29th July 2015, 05:22 PM
  2. Social Media:
    By BruceTLaney in forum Current Events
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 12th November 2014, 11:24 AM
  3. Social media spanks Ann Coulter
    By Davocrat in forum Current Events
    Replies: 15
    Last Post: 14th May 2014, 02:06 PM
  4. Media and the Social Security Debate
    By Babba in forum Journalism
    Replies: 260
    Last Post: 24th April 2012, 02:47 PM

Tags for this Thread


Facebook Twitter RSS Feed