Opinion on checking social media presences for job applicants

mariaalice

Eric Cartman wrote: »

theres services that automatically do this and even have serious facial recognition algorithms and patterns.

Its only too right , if you're putting up photos of hard drug use, selling nude pictures online, out protesting against capitalism or countries your prospective employer may have offices in (Israel, china, UAE etc..) , participating in groups that call for smashing up buildings etc.. I can completely see why a company would bin your CV.

The only place id draw the line is supporting democratically elected candidates or parties that run in national elections. Your peaceful political views shouldn't have your CV binned.

There is nobody that stupid protesting against capitalism while simultaneously apply to some of the biggest MNC's in the world.

Eric Cartman

mariaalice wrote: »

There is nobody that stupid protesting against capitalism while simultaneously apply to some of the biggest MNC in the world.

you would be shocked.

Mister Vain

Irishphotodesk wrote: »

the problem with having a "type" of photography on your social media is that people looking for a wedding photographer are unlikely to be interested in your work.

I don't post any of my work on social media but plenty of photographers that I know (even staff photographers with national newspapers) post images, it is seen as a form of advertising.

if you do hope to go full-time into photography - its better to have a showcase of different types of work or if you only wish to do one type ....ensure the models/poses/lighting/setups are all different, it can look a bit repetitive if the images are pretty much the same poses with different people.

over the years I have done everything from local to international football, hockey, showjumping, special olympics, champions league football, tennis, etc, festivals and concerts with thousands of people in attendance, have been drinking with celebs, have done aerial and underwater photography, photographed the occasional wedding (last one was about 20yrs ago - its not my thing), have photographed models and criminals, been chasing and stalking celebs as well as been chased and attacked by people - as part of my work.

I actually had a few people ask me to do weddings but I turned them down. Not my thing. I exaggerated a bit when I said scantily clad women. I mainly shoot portraits and some occasional boudoir. I was considering going full time last year but the pandemic kind of fecked that up.

Sleeper12

mariaalice wrote:

Agree or disagree with that?

It has kept many a muppet out of a job. One famous case in today's news. Someone's moronic tweets and posts got them un appointed by the government.

AndrewJRenko

Irishphotodesk wrote: »

at a guess its because the person may have been suitable for the role but the social media antics probably would have ensured they would be ruled out, essentially an employer understanding that we all do silly things, its just plain stupid to post them online or allow yourself to get tagged online.

I'm still not getting it. It's a bit of a 'see no evil' policy - do what you like really but don't let us know about it?

MrStuffins wrote: »

Because, and I can't believe I have to explain this, a job description is not the same as you not having you social media on private.

I really hope for your sake this doesn't come up during your next job interview!

The problem with this kind of thinking is that 'being on private' isn't foolproof. It might stop HR from checking your channels before recruitment, but it won't stop one of your mates or your family from screenshotting your gay-bashing, jew-hating racist homophobic post and sharing it or leaking it or reporting it.

Going on private is not a solution here.

doublejobbing 2

doublejobbing 2 wrote: »

I can assure you I, like most people, enjoyed life a lot more before your beloved lockdown came in.

Ask yourself about personal happiness and wealth. Then ask you why all left wingers love lockdown.

No you didn't

Gatling

Gatling wrote: »

More anonymous than Fb ,twit and insta more safer to post opinions ,it would be hard enough to link someone to a boards post

I wouldn't put to much faith in that, just takes another hack with the aim to get details to be successful.

Donald Trump

Gatling wrote: »

It's been happening for years ,hence why people seriously need to watch what they say on social media

Well given that I'm looking for a new job since 20th Jan, it's just as well that I decided unilaterally to give up loser twitter!

Irishphotodesk

Donald Trump wrote: »

Well given that I'm looking for a new job since 20th Jan, it's just as well that I decided unilaterally to give up loser twitter!

that would be funny if you were Donald J Trump !! you know, the ex president of USA instead of the boards user Donald Trump.

Donald Trump

Irishphotodesk wrote: »

that would be funny if you were Donald J Trump !! you know, the ex president of USA instead of the boards user Donald Trump.

The twitter stuff wouldn't stop me getting a job.
The shite posted on here might :pac:

mariaalice

Donald Trump wrote: »

The twitter stuff wouldn't stop me getting a job.
The shite posted on here might :pac:

It can be reduced to two simple things have anything they have done online the possibility of damageing the reputation of the company they want to work for, second have they posted anything racist sexist, or homophobic online.

JustAThought

I worked in more than one company where the culture saw that page 3 calendars were considered entirely Ok in the staff canteen and anyone that complained about them would be quickly ostracised (how do you spell that). I’ve also worked for multinationals that have their ‘mission’ and ‘beliefs’ and ‘values’ painted up literally on the walls as you walk throughout the building yet allow the most backward, bigoted bullies to openly thrive and facilitated every kind of political nonsense despite proclaiming loudly that they were non-political. Wouldn’t stop them from firing you if they wanted to - or not hiring you - or hiring the owners son for a specialised position he had no training or qualification in over someone with a masters & 20 years experience... they’ll do exactly what they want and use any excuse to justify it.

Jim2007

mariaalice wrote: »

No, the MNC hires outside companies to do a background check now it's not just social media presence it's everything, checking qualifications are valid financial checks, perhaps not for every job but it's surprising the jobs it is done for.

The amount who think it's only done for the high faluting executives is surprising as well, jobs very low down the chain get a background check in a lot of MNC's

Bad behavior is bad behavior, the internet should not give you a license to behave badly and get away with it. Complaining that it is now easier to detect and filter out such people is a bit ridiculous.

Over 20 years ago I was part of the decision to recruit a certain individual to a Mainland European bank and in turn four more people were recruited on his recommendation. What we did not know and could not have known was that they were all members of a local ultra right wing group. During the next 15 years or so they:
- Provided false financial information to the authorities about a work colleague, from an ethnic minority, resulting in a deep revenue investigation into the poor man’s affairs
- Racially abused an unknown number of prospective customers that enquired about the banks services.
- And caused the termination of another college originally from Asia
Had we been presented with a transcript of the kind of garbage this individual posts on social media today, a lot of pain and upset could have been avoided.

MrStuffins

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

The problem with this kind of thinking is that 'being on private' isn't foolproof. It might stop HR from checking your channels before recruitment, but it won't stop one of your mates or your family from screenshotting your gay-bashing, jew-hating racist homophobic post and sharing it or leaking it or reporting it.

Going on private is not a solution here.

There's a really easy solution to this. Let me know if you can figure out what it is pal.......

Jim2007

I’ve also worked for multinationals that have their ‘mission’ and ‘beliefs’ and ‘values’ painted up literally on the walls as you walk throughout the building yet allow the most backward, bigoted bullies to openly thrive and facilitated every kind of political nonsense despite proclaiming loudly that they were non-political.

But of course it is not political, it’s just that they are decent God fearing (don’t believe it) American Christians up holding their beliefs. Surely someone of them has explained it to you ;-)

AndrewJRenko

MrStuffins wrote: »

There's a really easy solution to this. Let me know if you can figure out what it is pal.......

Did you miss my earlier posts? The really easy solution is for employers to be clear on their requirements, just as they are for other aspects of the person specification.

MrStuffins

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

but it won't stop one of your mates or your family from screenshotting your gay-bashing, jew-hating racist homophobic post and sharing it or leaking it or reporting it.

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Did you miss my earlier posts? The really easy solution is for employers to be clear on their requirements, just as they are for other aspects of the person specification.

That's the only reasonable solution to the above? Are you sure?

Brian?

mariaalice wrote: »

No, the MNC hires outside companies to do a background check now it's not just social media presence it's everything, checking qualifications are valid financial checks, perhaps not for every job but it's surprising the jobs it is done for.

The amount who think it's only done for the high faluting executives is surprising as well, jobs very low down the chain get a background check in a lot of MNC's

What MNCs do a check? I've hired plenty of people without myself or anyone in HR checking their social media. That's in 2 different MNCs in 2 different countries.

I'm sure it happens in some companies, but i think it's actually the exception and not the rule.

Mind you, if someone offered to do a social media background check I would say no. It's not my business.

AndrewJRenko

MrStuffins wrote: »

That's the only reasonable solution to the above? Are you sure?

I'm sure that the best solution is for employers to be clear about their requirements up front, as with other aspects of the person specification.

ELM327

Brian? wrote: »

What MNCs do a check? I've hired plenty of people without myself or anyone in HR checking their social media. That's in 2 different MNCs in 2 different countries.

I'm sure it happens in some companies, but i think it's actually the exception and not the rule.

Mind you, if someone offered to do a social media background check I would say no. It's not my business.

We've hired for 2 positions in my team this year and I was on the interview panel. MNC. You can be damn sure we checked all social media.

MrStuffins

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

I'm sure that the best solution is for employers to be clear about their requirements up front, as with other aspects of the person specification.

Incorrect!

MrStuffins

ELM327 wrote: »

We've hired for 2 positions in my team this year and I was on the interview panel. MNC. You can be damn sure we checked all social media.

And damn right too.

Social media is only private if you make it private.

If you haven't made it private and it is publically available, what the hell makes you think it should be private and not checked?

If you were walking into the public square and taking a sh*t in full view of everyone every Sunday, you'd have some neck giving out about a potential employer taking that into account because they saw you doing it.

Takes your sh*ts in private instead!

Invidious

mariaalice wrote: »

It can be reduced to two simple things have anything they have done online the possibility of damageing the reputation of the company they want to work for, second have they posted anything racist sexist, or homophobic online.

There's far more than that.

For instance, if a candidate's social media showed her tweeting constantly during work hours, that would be a big red flag. I'd want employees who could focus on work, not social media.

Also, if she was an SJW type (pronouns in bio, constantly banging on about Palestine or capitalism or direct provision or the gender pay gap) then no thanks. Such people are nothing but trouble in the workforce.

Melanchthon

Here's a question, if it's productive checking people's social media to spot red flags, surely it would be worthwhile trying to get around the "Right to be Forgotten" rules that restrict information available in searches within the EU.

Like if it's worth checking online to see if they have photos smoking a joint or rants giving out about traveller crime which make them unsuitable for the role surely things like a Doctor who has been formally disciplined by their professional body are much much more relevant (that's an actual case by the way in Holland) but that's something that would be hidden in the EU via the Right to Be Forgotten.

AndrewJRenko

MrStuffins wrote: »

And damn right too.

Social media is only private if you make it private.

If you haven't made it private and it is publically available, what the hell makes you think it should be private and not checked?

If you were walking into the public square and taking a sh*t in full view of everyone every Sunday, you'd have some neck giving out about a potential employer taking that into account because they saw you doing it.

Takes your sh*ts in private instead!

You might want to have a think about what the "social" in social media means. There's no such thing as private social media.

AndrewJRenko

Invidious wrote: »

There's far more than that.

For instance, if a candidate's social media showed her tweeting constantly during work hours, that would be a big red flag. I'd want employees who could focus on work, not social media.

Also, if she was an SJW type (pronouns in bio, constantly banging on about Palestine or capitalism or direct provision or the gender pay gap) then no thanks. Such people are nothing but trouble in the workforce.

Groupthink in the workplace tends to end badly.

Invidious

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

You might want to have a think about what the "social" in social media means. There's no such thing as private social media.

It's possible to restrict your Facebook posts so that only friends can see them.

Similarly, it's possible to restrict your Twitter account so that only followers can see your Tweets.

I presume that's what the poster means by private vs public social media.

MrStuffins

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

You might want to have a think about what the "social" in social media means. There's no such thing as private social media.

Incorrect!

You're making a habit of this

AndrewJRenko

Invidious wrote: »

It's possible to restrict your Facebook posts so that only friends can see them.

Similarly, it's possible to restrict your Twitter account so that only followers can see your Tweets.

I presume that's what the poster means by private vs public social media.

I know well what he means and I pointed out above the difficulties that arise from this kind of blinkered thinking.

JustAThought

MrStuffins wrote: »

Incorrect!

You're making a habit of this

Refer to point on groupthink.

Another worrying and deeply imbedded practice in most companies. Also in the past known as tall daffodil syndrome. Worryingly true, as I have seen in many sad circumstances.

About as annonying as the group scremer alwats hilding up projects and easting time banging on about irrelevant causes. Personally I’d prefer to know about these While I still have the optioon not to hire them.

And - sadly - people who volunteer to do other work during daytime hours that leaves them mostly unavailable to concentrate on the dayjob they are paid to do. Mods for busy sites being one category I’ll be watching out for in the future.