Drunk girls posting on Facebook. (Page 2)

It's real simple - competition for jobs is tough and the more mature appearing (least obnoxious) candidate will get the job offer. All things being equal, if an employer has to choose between someone who is open about their "young and dumb" behavior and another person who appears more mature and self-possessed... who do you think will get the offer? The entire interview process is about separating the wheat from the chafe and employers spend alot of money to find out what the real deal is with their candidates for hire - background checks including criminal history, credit, employment verification, education verification, driving record and drug testing. Why would they overlook a free method to find more information on their candidate for hire? 

If you want to put your wild and crazy self out there, knock yourself out but be prepared for the consequences. People will draw conclusions about your maturity level and judgment. Welcome to the real world!

As a side note to this: How many of us cautioned Piggfin not to tell her new beau about BT? And why did we caution her???? Because we didn't want him to draw negative conclusions about her based upon her posts - and to my knowledge she hasn't posted any vomiting drunkard photos.

Tell me again why a prospective employer shouldn't troll the internet for a more candid view of prospective employees?

voluntarily posting these pictures in a public forum (or consenting to someone else posting them) reflect directly on your judgement ability.

I agree that people have the right to a private life.  But when you are evaluating potential hires, you have very little to go on and are attempting to examine all aspects of their ability to perform the tasks you ask them, where their judgement comes into play.

As for existing employees, I think the same applies - you just have more concrete evidence to rely on of their existing job performance.

Feel free to have a private life, but posting pictures on the Internet ends that being a "private" life.

A previous poster said: "I work in HR for my company and regularly scan Facebook for coworkers."

Here's what I don't like about that practice.

• It infringes upon their employees' personal lives.
• It builds animosity between employees and their employer. Knowing the man is spying on what you do 24/7 doesn't exactly foster a productive work environment.
• Does HR have nothing better to do than scan the web? If not, why waste a good salary?
  

You're right, and were I in the shoes of a HR guy, why wouldn't I assume that?  If that's one of the first things I stumble across when doing checks what am I going to think "Oh I'm sure this was just a one time deal, I'm sure she is a terribly mature individual who just happened to want to post this picture of herself with vomit running down her chin"? 

While I choose not to be one of those people who scans FB to monitor employee's, there's another perspective that has been mentioned.  Some jobs are a bit more 24/7 than others.  Military is my example, and there are certainly others.  While you have a private life, certain jobs can come to define you in the eyes of others, therefore your behavior in any situation can come to reflect on that profession and/or company.

bts

In at-will employment states that is becoming (unfortunately) increasingly common.  I couldn't find a link, but there was a story on 60 Min or 20/20 (or something like that) about how an employer gave employees an XX day grace period to quit smoking and said after that they were required to have kicked tha habit... period.  At home, work, or other and they had to submit to tests or pack their bags.  Justification: costs him more in health care, sick days, etc.  I can only imagine how much time that dude spends trolling the net looking for dirt on his folks.

bts

Those types of jobs don't generally have "HR".

Look, if problems with employees exist, alcoholism included, it generally surfaces at the workplace, If the only evidence of a behavior is on facebook, then I think it's safe to say it's not a problem.

Apples and oranges. Most smokers can't go 8+ hours without a smoke, so at some point they're using work time to satsfy their habit.

I don't know of many companies that allow booze breaks (breweries, maybe).

Regarding "those types of jobs": they do have people that can (and sometimes do) search the net.  It doesn't have to be HR.

Regarding the second point, I was refering to hiring, not spying.  If you've got a choice between someone who has managed to publish a variety of racy/drunken/compromising/whatever photos vs. someone who, given the same search, has a few pics of them with their wife/girlfriend/kids/dog/whatever... odds are, you're better off in the long run with the latter.

bts

Interesting, I would not have thought that would have seemed to come down on the side of the employer on that one.

bts

I am glad I went to college pre-digital age.....

Personal bias. Cigarettes killed my dad. I don't like 'em. Alcohol can be enjoyed responsibly, IMO. Smokes are more difficult.

edit: but really...I do see them as separate issues becuase smoking demonstrably affects job performance in the great majority of smokers. The same can't be said for drinking, I think.

Sorry to hear that.

If taken at the same time (say lunch), I'd say alcohol can have a much more profound affect on your work.  But I understand you point.

At the risk of hijacking... but for the sake of argument.  Couldn't the same be said of twinkies or any junk food?  An extreme, yes, but both are legal and unhealthy vices.

bts

If potential employees scan BT I'm screwed.

I guess if they took breaks 6 times a day for snacks, sure.

but not b/c of the booze - rather for hanging out with a Wisconsin fan...

How about seen?

Sumpin' wrong with us Wisconsinites?