Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Asked for Facebook login in interview

123578

Comments

  • Registered Users Posts: 28,789 ✭✭✭✭ScumLord


    prinz wrote: »
    So if their employees head off to a far right rally and spend the weekend marching about town giving a fascist salute and chanting charming slogans etc, management have no right to hold that against someone? .... they can't complain and say 'hey, that won't sit well with our customers, cop on'?
    We might not like that person but as long as they're not breaking the law (they probably are in that their inciting hatred) but more importantly being civil at work I don't see how they'd have any grounds. An employee is paid to do a job not be the living example of perfection in every way.

    This is still a free country, your entitled to your opinions no matter how stupid.


  • Registered Users Posts: 14,598 ✭✭✭✭prinz


    ScumLord wrote: »
    This is still a free country, your entitled to your opinions no matter how stupid.

    ..and the employer is entitled to only employ those who will uphold a certain standard in personal as well as private life, where that private life could cost the employer business. Remember this isn't about sacking someone who went on the tear at the weekend and had a few pints too many, this is an employer checking out potential future employees and it's ridiculously naive to think that an employer can't hold anything against you based on your personal life acitivities.


  • Registered Users Posts: 20,853 ✭✭✭✭Stark


    prinz wrote: »
    ..and the employer is entitled to only employ those who will uphold a certain standard in personal as well as private life, where that private life could cost the employer business. Remember this isn't about sacking someone who went on the tear at the weekend and had a few pints too many, this is an employer checking out potential future employees and it's ridiculously naive to think that an employer can't hold anything against you based on your personal life acitivities.

    What about this sort of nonsense that you post on boards? Would you be happy if that was used as an excuse not to hire you?


  • Registered Users Posts: 10,434 ✭✭✭✭28064212


    ScumLord wrote: »
    We might not like that person but as long as they're not breaking the law (they probably are in that their inciting hatred) but more importantly being civil at work I don't see how they'd have any grounds. An employee is paid to do a job not be the living example of perfection in every way.

    This is still a free country, your entitled to your opinions no matter how stupid.
    An employer is entitled to not hire someone they don't want to. There are exactly 7 grounds on which they can't discriminate:
    (a) that one is male and the other is female (the “gender ground”),
    (b) that they are of different marital status (the “marital status ground”),
    (c) that one has family status and the other does not or that one has a different family status from the other (the “family status ground”),
    (d) that they are of different sexual orientation (the “sexual orientation ground”),
    (e) that one has a different religious belief from the other, or that one has a religious belief and the other has not (the “religion ground”),
    (f) subject to subsection (3), that they are of different ages (the “age ground”),
    (g) that one is a person with a disability and the other either is not or is a person with a different disability (the “disability ground”),
    (h) that they are of different race, colour, nationality or ethnic or national origins (the “ground of race”),
    (i) that one is a member of the Traveller community and the other is not (the “Traveller community ground”),

    After that, if an employer only wants to hire people who wear brown shoes, there is nothing illegal in that

    Boardsie Enhancement Suite - a browser extension to make using post-migration Boards on desktop a better experience (includes full-width display, keyboard shortcuts, and a dark mode setting)



  • Registered Users Posts: 14,598 ✭✭✭✭prinz


    Stark wrote: »
    What about this sort of nonsense that you post on boards? Would you be happy if that was used as an excuse not to hire you?

    Would I happy? Probably not. Would I see it as my right to demand compensation or a job? Absolutely not.


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 4,038 ✭✭✭Nothingbetter2d


    it seems facebook has hit back regarding employers asking for usernames and passwords

    they have even lobbied a us senator to make this practice illegal in the us.... hopefully the eu will do the same.

    http://www.siliconrepublic.com/careers/item/26379-facebook-hits-out-against/


  • Registered Users Posts: 28,789 ✭✭✭✭ScumLord


    prinz wrote: »
    ..and the employer is entitled to only employ those who will uphold a certain standard in personal as well as private life, where that private life could cost the employer business.
    What standard? That's completely subjective and has nothing to do with the task at hand. The Americans didn't have any problems hiring Nazi's to make rockets for them after WW2 because they where the people who could do the job.

    If you can do your job well your private life shouldn't come into it. The only reason these guys can get away with this kind of behaviour is because job markets are saturated so they can be picky.


    I just don't think it's right that companies have so much control over people.


  • Registered Users Posts: 5,673 ✭✭✭AudreyHepburn


    I think it comes down to how much your personal life is likely to affect your professional one.

    If I were an employer I'd have no problem with hiring the person who's pictures show them generally enjoying life, maybe a little messy here and there but doesn't look like some-one who'd go too mad etc.

    I would however be concerned about the person who seems to do nothing but go on the tear, or whose statuses are filled with hate speech or who post obscence photographs etc.

    Like it or not your personal life and social CAN and DO affect your professional life so I can see why an employer might feel the need to look at any online profiles you might have.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2,107 ✭✭✭booboo88


    I think it comes down to how much your personal life is likely to affect your professional one.

    If I were an employer I'd have no problem with hiring the person who's pictures show them generally enjoying life, maybe a little messy here and there but doesn't look like some-one who'd go too mad etc.

    I would however be concerned about the person who seems to do nothing but go on the tear, or whose statuses are filled with hate speech or who post obscence photographs etc.

    Like it or not your personal life and social CAN and DO affect your professional life so I can see why an employer might feel the need to look at any online profiles you might have.
    Say it was a dating profile?
    What business is it of theirs what goes on in their own personal life


  • Registered Users Posts: 14,598 ✭✭✭✭prinz


    ScumLord wrote: »
    I just don't think it's right that companies have so much control over people.

    Companies are made up of people. People like the lad in the OP who was applying for a job at said company.

    As for the standard being subjective...of course it is. I acknowledge that. We've already dealt with that when I posed the question about the KKK member... 'ah well that's different'.... no it isn't it's exactly the same, it's your private life which could possibly impact your professional life and as such I am ok with basing a professional opinion of someone based upon their private dealings. It's subjective, but that's life.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 2,370 ✭✭✭Knasher


    If I were an employer I probably wouldn't hire someone who is willing to give out such privileged information so easily.

    That being said if they want my Facebook login they can have it, I'll just have to set one up for them.


  • Registered Users Posts: 20,853 ✭✭✭✭Stark


    prinz wrote:

    As for the standard being subjective...of course it is. I acknowledge that. We've already dealt with that when I posed the question about the KKK member... 'ah well that's different'.... no it isn't it's exactly the same, it's your private life which could possibly impact your professional life and as such I am ok with basing a professional opinion of someone based upon their private dealings. It's subjective, but that's life.

    I'm sure you wouldn't mind them scanning through your messages to make sure you don't talk too dirty to your wife either. A line has to be drawn somewhere.


  • Registered Users Posts: 19,145 ✭✭✭✭MrStuffins


    prinz wrote: »
    Would I happy? Probably not. Would I see it as my right to demand compensation or a job? Absolutely not.

    Wait, prinz, this time you can't be serious!

    You think it's ok for some guy interviewing you to ask you for your personal details and acquire access to your personal Facebook page, your personal private messages, the Facebook pages of your friends and family who also might not want their personal information shared in such a way, potentially your Credit Card details should you be inclined to purchase Facebook Credit for some of those games...........

    I've seen you write some rubbish on here before lad.... but come on!


  • Registered Users Posts: 14,598 ✭✭✭✭prinz


    Stark wrote: »
    I'm sure you wouldn't mind them scanning through your messages to make sure you don't talk too dirty to your wife either. A line has to be drawn somewhere.

    I wouldn't which is why in my first post on this thread I said looking at your facebook page is fair enough. Asking for password is taking the piss and he was right to refuse that. Everything I have said after that is based on readily available public information.

    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=77740757&postcount=84


  • Registered Users Posts: 28,789 ✭✭✭✭ScumLord


    prinz wrote: »
    Companies are made up of people. People like the lad in the OP who was applying for a job at said company.
    Companies are made up of people sure, but the majority of those people have no say in what happens at the company. Saying a company is made up of people is about as useful as saying communism is made up of people. A company is driven by a handful of people for the most part and all those people care about is turning a profit. They'll wipe out towns to make their money but then think they have the right to judge someone for making a drunken comment, or saying a racist joke once, or having a picture of themselves using drugs recreationally? Surely it should be a two way street? If the employee has to be squeaky clean then the employee should be able to go through the companies private details including the bosses online history to ensure they're not getting involved in abusing 3rd world countries..


  • Registered Users Posts: 10,434 ✭✭✭✭28064212


    Stark wrote: »
    I'm sure you wouldn't mind them scanning through your messages to make sure you don't talk too dirty to your wife either. A line has to be drawn somewhere.
    There's a difference between privacy and things you think are private, but aren't. A company is not allowed ask you if you're a member of the KKK (or at least, you don't have to answer). However, if there's a publically available picture of you in the local KKK newsletter, they can decide not to hire you on that basis
    MrStuffins wrote: »
    Wait, prinz, this time you can't be serious!

    You think it's ok for some guy interviewing you to ask you for your personal details and acquire access to your personal Facebook page, your personal private messages, the Facebook pages of your friends and family who also might not want their personal information shared in such a way, potentially your Credit Card details should you be inclined to purchase Facebook Credit for some of those games...........

    I've seen you write some rubbish on here before lad.... but come on!
    Not what he said. At all.

    Boardsie Enhancement Suite - a browser extension to make using post-migration Boards on desktop a better experience (includes full-width display, keyboard shortcuts, and a dark mode setting)



  • Registered Users Posts: 14,598 ✭✭✭✭prinz


    MrStuffins wrote: »
    ...access to your personal Facebook page

    Whether we like it or not employers are looking us up on facebook. Yes asking for passwords etc is a joke, I'd tell them to stick it. But on the other hand I only put stuff on facebook that I wouldn't mind potential employers looking at.


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,425 ✭✭✭guitarzero


    This whole timeline thing, FB linking up with a whole load of other sites, photos, comments, twitters and tumblrs, online banking, google data base, etc. And this post shows that its more of a leap than the usual incremental changes in privacy. It seems a lot of personal aspects of your life will be interlinked and up for viewing because most folks think its f*cking great! The clever ones are rare, thus deeming them ones to be weary of. Its a dodgey path where privacy and potential employment cross paths.


    But I could be just some whacko.


  • Registered Users Posts: 10,434 ✭✭✭✭28064212


    ScumLord wrote: »
    Surely it should be a two way street? If the employee has to be squeaky clean then the employee should be able to go through the companies private details including the bosses online history to ensure they're not getting involved in abusing 3rd world countries..
    But it's not about private information. Pretty much everyone has said the employer was wrong to ask for private login information. The current discussion is on publically available information. If a potential employee has posted that they're Twilight fans, the company can decide not to hire them on those grounds. If the employee discovers that the company is abusing a 3rd world country, they have the right not to apply for a job there. They don't have the right to demand private communications to make sure the company is not doing that
    guitarzero wrote: »
    This whole timeline thing, FB linking up with a whole load of other sites, photos, comments, twitters and tumblrs, online banking, google data base, etc. And this post shows that its more of a leap than the usual incremental changes in privacy. It seems a lot of personal aspects of your life will be interlinked and up for viewing because most folks think its f*cking great! The clever ones are rare, thus deeming them ones to be weary of. Its a dodgey path where privacy and potential employment cross paths.

    But I could be just some whacko.
    Yep, pretty much :P People need to be wary of what they post publically. I've never posted anything on boards that I can't stand over, because anonymity is not guaranteed. Being paranoid that AIB are secretly passing Facebook your banking details is not the same thing

    Boardsie Enhancement Suite - a browser extension to make using post-migration Boards on desktop a better experience (includes full-width display, keyboard shortcuts, and a dark mode setting)



  • Registered Users Posts: 19,145 ✭✭✭✭MrStuffins


    28064212 wrote: »

    Not what he said. At all.

    Apologies to prinz in this case.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 19,145 ✭✭✭✭MrStuffins


    28064212 wrote: »
    If a potential employee has posted that they're Twilight fans, the company can decide not to hire them on those grounds.

    Not true.

    This would be discrimination due to the interviewee's sexual orientation

    :pac:


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 34,568 ✭✭✭✭Biggins


    28064212 wrote: »
    ...People need to be wary of what they post publically. I've never posted anything on boards that I can't stand over...

    ...But if you (or I) posted that we were members of the Monster Raving Looney Party and the company boss or interviewer was a member of the Nutbags Party - does that give them the right to use that information to select you out as affecting your ability to hammer a nail onto a piece of wood or drive a delivery truck?


  • Registered Users Posts: 14,598 ✭✭✭✭prinz


    MrStuffins wrote: »
    Not true.
    This would be discrimination due to the interviewee's sexual orientation
    :pac:

    Oi oi some of us were forced to go and watch it. :(:pac:


  • Registered Users Posts: 28,789 ✭✭✭✭ScumLord


    prinz wrote: »
    Oi oi some of us were forced to go and watch it. :(:pac:
    Sure, sure Mr Prinz. This red line I'm drawing through your name doesn't mean anything specific so don't worry about it.


  • Registered Users Posts: 10,434 ✭✭✭✭28064212


    Biggins wrote: »
    ...But if you (or I) posted that we were members of the Monster Raving Looney Party and the company boss or interviewer was a member of the Nutbags Party - does that give them the right to use that information to select you out as affecting your ability to hammer a nail onto a piece of wood or drive a delivery truck?
    Not in my opinion, but I'm not the one doing the hiring. Does the employee have the right to not apply to a company that has a member of the Nutbags as a boss? Of course they do.

    Boardsie Enhancement Suite - a browser extension to make using post-migration Boards on desktop a better experience (includes full-width display, keyboard shortcuts, and a dark mode setting)



  • Registered Users Posts: 14,598 ✭✭✭✭prinz


    ScumLord wrote: »
    Sure, sure Mr Prinz. This red line I'm drawing through your name doesn't mean anything specific so don't worry about it.

    At least one was enough... the was no being dragged to any more of them after that. :p


  • Registered Users Posts: 28,789 ✭✭✭✭ScumLord


    prinz wrote: »
    At least one was enough... the was no being dragged to any more of them after that. :p
    Now you've upset the head of HR, she's a huge Twilight fan.


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 34,568 ✭✭✭✭Biggins


    28064212 wrote: »
    Not in my opinion, but I'm not the one doing the hiring. Does the employee have the right to not apply to a company that has a member of the Nutbags as a boss? Of course they do.

    The possible future employee doesn't know what the interviewer/boss is involved in a lot of the time beforehand - but the same chap hoping for a job is supposed to be allowed to be coerced (an illegal act itself) into giving up his/her private passwords, never mind additional details?

    Thats a lawsuit right there waiting to happen!


  • Registered Users Posts: 14,598 ✭✭✭✭prinz


    ScumLord wrote: »
    Now you've upset the head of HR, she's a huge Twilight fan.

    She should see what I've posted about her on facebo.........:eek:


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 10,434 ✭✭✭✭28064212


    Biggins wrote: »
    The possible future employee doesn't know what the interviewer/boss is involved in a lot of the time beforehand - but the same chap hoping for a job is supposed to be allowed to be coerced (an illegal act itself) into giving up his/her private passwords, never mind additional details?

    Thats a lawsuit right there waiting to happen!
    I don't think one single person on this thread has advocated giving out a password. This is about stuff that's PUBLICALLY available

    Boardsie Enhancement Suite - a browser extension to make using post-migration Boards on desktop a better experience (includes full-width display, keyboard shortcuts, and a dark mode setting)



Advertisement