TimC
|
| posted on 6/1/12 at 09:25 AM |
|
|
Anyone ever had a prospective employer read their blog?
As above. A quick look at my stats shows that I've been searched-for which kind-of makes sense.
Interesting.
|
|
|
|
|
mad4x4
|
| posted on 6/1/12 at 09:43 AM |
|
|
Better than reading your facebook!. Imagine the people that post about being out on the lash 7 days a week and to hungover to go to work (including
photos) or slag off there boss/work/customers.....
Scot's do it better in Kilts.
MK INDY's Don't Self Centre Regardless of MK Setting !
|
|
|
TimC
|
| posted on 6/1/12 at 09:46 AM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by mad4x4
Better than reading your facebook!. Imagine the people that post about being out on the lash 7 days a week and to hungover to go to work (including
photos) or slag off there boss/work/customers.....
Don't do FB for that type of reason. Am on Twitter but have only posted 3 racing related messages ever I think - and directed at folk.
|
|
|
pewe
|
| posted on 6/1/12 at 09:54 AM |
|
|
Currently there's an Employment Tribunal in Reading based on what an employer picked up from job website.
A BG employee was according to him "constructively dismissed" for commenting adversely about his employer and saying he was looking for
"employment opportunities".
Case continues.
Big Brother IS watching you!
Cheers, Pewe10
|
|
|
twybrow
|
| posted on 6/1/12 at 10:12 AM |
|
|
I always do a Google search of people I am interviewing. I check for them on LinkedIn and Facebook - it gives you a different way to assess whther
people may fit your role...
|
|
|
TimC
|
| posted on 6/1/12 at 10:18 AM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by twybrow
I always do a Google search of people I am interviewing. I check for them on LinkedIn and Facebook - it gives you a different way to assess whther
people may fit your role...
Likewise actually but it makes me wonder about whether my online presence is sensible.
|
|
|
HowardB
|
| posted on 6/1/12 at 10:26 AM |
|
|
I think that there is a place to be reasonable and a place for light hearted joviality.
For example having an open profile and posting infammatory remarks would be foolish, but having a pseudonym on a forum makes it less likely to be
linked to your "real life"
I searched online for the people that I interviewed recently, and whilst it wouldn't necessarily be good cause for not interviewing, after all
there are many people with the same names, even in the same village, company or organisation.
Howard
Fisher Fury was 2000 Zetec - now a 1600 (it Lives again  and goes zoom)
|
|
|
Benzine
|
| posted on 6/1/12 at 10:28 AM |
|
|
Deed poll your name to something like Erectile Dysfunction or Piles Cream then see if they search for you
edit: deed
[Edited on 6-1-2012 by Benzine]
|
|
|
loggyboy
|
| posted on 6/1/12 at 10:38 AM |
|
|
lol @ deep poll.... sound like a movie i saw once as a teenager.... 
|
|
|
designer
|
| posted on 6/1/12 at 10:40 AM |
|
|
quote:
I always do a Google search of people I am interviewing. I check for them on LinkedIn and Facebook - it gives you a different way to assess whther
people may fit your role...
That is a totally wrong thing to do as you will pre-judge them and anyway, people write rubbish on FB and Twit. Give them a star if they are not on
there; means they have a life!
You should knows if they are the right person the minute you meet them.
|
|
|
matt_gsxr
|
| posted on 6/1/12 at 10:44 AM |
|
|
Interestingly this does open up some interesting ideas for improving ones employment prospects.
What you put on your blog can be embellished or complete lies ("another 90hour week, but I just love working", "won a big contract
at work", obviously putting lies into your CV should be an offence for which you should be dismissed, but lies on the WWW, well there are no
rules out there.
So, why not have a parallel (easily found) blog that makes you more employable than ever.
|
|
|
TAZZMAXX
|
| posted on 6/1/12 at 10:45 AM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by loggyboy
lol @ deep poll.... sound like a movie i saw once as a teenager....
You don't happen to know where I could get a copy of that from? It's always been one I'd quite like to see
A company I do contract work for has just dismissed a second employee for putting up remarks on FB about fellow employees and the company itself. I am
not on FB at all and can live without it but I am always careful not to include any personal content when posting on forums. Unless you personally
know other forum users why would you? It's exposing your life to people you don't know.
I've never Googled myself either.
|
|
|
MikeFellows
|
| posted on 6/1/12 at 10:57 AM |
|
|
I'm a big believer in in being very careful what you post on the web and things are only getting worse (and I work in the industry)
everything you post on the web is identifiable to you and its now getting to the point that a picture of you is now identifiable even if you didnt
post it - so not having a facebook/twitter account makes no difference.
say you come for a job interview and I ask to take a picture of you so i can member who you are relevant to your cv (not unreasonable I dont believe
and I dont know anyone who would refuse). the facial recognition tech is getting so good I could use that image to search out pics of you on the web.
I can search your email address and probably pick up the odd username for forums - many people use the same username so wont take me long to find out
more info than you may want an employer to know.
a real world example of something similar to this.
a few year ago Yahoo thought it would be nice and post all its search data created by its users, it thought it had done a good thing and made the data
anonymous. however every person had a unique identifier - just no personal details.
The New York times took the data and picked a single unique identifier and looked through all the searches. 6 hours later they knocked on a womans
door hundreds of miles away (cant remeber where now) and told her all about her life to the point that they told her she had cancer. they hit the
nail on the head with everything except the cancer - she had been researching it for a friend. yahoo promptly apologised and never released any more
data.
people should be very careful - but its the kids out there that I feel sorry for - some of what they post online at 13 - 16 could come back to haunt
them for the rest of there lives!
|
|
|
contaminated
|
| posted on 6/1/12 at 11:05 AM |
|
|
I need to be a bit careful here, but I think that since all this information is available on the internet, as a prospective employer you'd be
daft not to use it. I always Google people I'm thinking of interviewing. About six months ago I did just that and found out that this particular
person had served time for a very unpleasant crime indeed. Needless to say I didn't proceed with the interview - but that got me wondering
whether that would in itself be regarded as discrimination if his/her offence was now a spent conviction and didn't need to be declared under
the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act. To complete the exercise I spoke to my HR dept. (who I get on well with) and found out that we don't
actually have that section about previous convictions in our appliocation form. I was a bit shocked by that - although admittedly under the RoO Act
you don't have to decalre a spent conviction for most proffessions.
Tiger Super Six Independent
www.southernkitcars.com
|
|
|
designer
|
| posted on 6/1/12 at 11:20 AM |
|
|
Seems to be a lot of pre-judging and discrimination going on today by you 'professionals'
|
|
|
MikeFellows
|
| posted on 6/1/12 at 11:21 AM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by designer
Seems to be a lot of pre-judging and discrimination going on today by you 'professionals'
are you really naive enough to think that it wouldnt?
|
|
|
designer
|
| posted on 6/1/12 at 11:30 AM |
|
|
Naive!
Thanks for the insult.
I ran companies for twenty years and it didn't and it shouldn't.
|
|
|
MikeFellows
|
| posted on 6/1/12 at 11:34 AM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by designer
Naive!
Thanks for the insult.
I ran companies for twenty years and it didn't and it shouldn't.
good for you
but I honestly done believe I have worked anywhere that didnt have some discrimination/sexism/racism or a combination of all 3 - im not saying its
right or wrong but it happens
|
|
|
bobinspain
|
| posted on 6/1/12 at 11:41 AM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by MikeFellows
quote:
Originally posted by designer
Seems to be a lot of pre-judging and discrimination going on today by you 'professionals'
are you really naive enough to think that it wouldnt?
Problem is, the genie's out of the bottle.
Won't go back of its own volition.
HowardB, You say, "there's a place to be reasonable and a place for light-hearted joviality."
Are they mutually exclusive then?
|
|
|
contaminated
|
| posted on 6/1/12 at 11:42 AM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by designer
Seems to be a lot of pre-judging and discrimination going on today by you 'professionals'
That's sort of the point though isn't it? The fact that so much information is now available means it's difficult not to judge.
In all seriousness are you suggesting that I'm showing a lack of professionalism by choosing one candidate over another because one of them
hasn't been convicted of (in this case) a sexual crime?! I would have thought the fact that most application forms (perfectly legally) ask for
details of previous convictions do so precisely so an employer can make an informed decision. If you were honestly willing to overlook a serious crime
just to take the moral high ground I'm not sure I want to be any more proffessional than I am!
Tiger Super Six Independent
www.southernkitcars.com
|
|
|
mcerd1
|
| posted on 6/1/12 at 11:50 AM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by MikeFellows
I'm a big believer in in being very careful what you post on the web and things are only getting worse
I've always tried to be careful myself for the same reasons....
if you search my e-mail on on google you get zero hits and I've had the same address for 12 years
if you search my name you'll only find one hit thats the real me at an old address (and thats on some site with the old voters roles)
so far I think I'm doing quite well. I'm sure if someone with a bit more knowhow searched they'd get something, but I don't go
around the tinternet slagging off my employer etc. anyway
[Edited on 6/1/2012 by mcerd1]
-
|
|
|
femster87
|
| posted on 6/1/12 at 12:58 PM |
|
|
I try as much as possible to avoid it. But I have come to the conclusion that its a losing battle, there is quite a lot of personal information out
there. It's worth a lot so people would trade.
I never slag off the company I work for on the net, just avoiding trouble
|
|
|
ReMan
|
| posted on 6/1/12 at 01:04 PM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by contaminated
quote:
Originally posted by designer
Seems to be a lot of pre-judging and discrimination going on today by you 'professionals'
That's sort of the point though isn't it? The fact that so much information is now available means it's difficult not to judge.
In all seriousness are you suggesting that I'm showing a lack of professionalism by choosing one candidate over another because one of them
hasn't been convicted of (in this case) a sexual crime?! I would have thought the fact that most application forms (perfectly legally) ask for
details of previous convictions do so precisely so an employer can make an informed decision. If you were honestly willing to overlook a serious crime
just to take the moral high ground I'm not sure I want to be any more proffessional than I am!
Yes they may ask for details of convictions, but as spent convictions I believe they do not have to declare them.
If the applicant could prove that this had been used to pre-select then I suspect that the prospective employer could now face a call of
discrimination?
www.plusnine.co.uk
|
|
|
D Beddows
|
| posted on 6/1/12 at 01:52 PM |
|
|
In my experience most of my actual real life friends' Facebook/twitter personas are pretty close to who they actually are so there are two ways
of looking at it:
1. would you want to work for a company where you really wouldn't fit in (obviously that's a bit subjective depending on whether the
person doing the searching/interviewing fits in at the company themselves!)
2. If you come across as a work shy trouble maker who's always out on the p*ss and whinging about everything and everyone on
Facebook/Twitter/Forums then you probably actually are a work shy trouble maker who's always out on the p*ss and whinging about everything and
everyone........ most companies are usually overstaffed with them as it is..........
Trying to hide yourself from the internet is a loosing battle, if you're sensible and just be yourself it's not going to be the end of the
world........unless you actually are complete tw*t obviously in which case I would throw away your computer now or you're never getting another
job!
|
|
|
scudderfish
|
| posted on 6/1/12 at 02:03 PM |
|
|
If you have more CVs for a position than you can realistically expect to interview, what is wrong with using publically accessible information to
winnow it down?
|
|
|
