Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Job applicants asked to turn over their Facebook passwords
New York Daily News ^ | Shannon McFarland

Posted on 03/20/2012 7:18:33 AM PDT by bjorn14

When Justin Bassett interviewed for a new job, he expected the usual questions about experience and references. So he was astonished when the interviewer asked for something else: his Facebook username and password.

Bassett, a New York City statistician, had just finished answering a few character questions when the interviewer turned to her computer to search for his Facebook page. But she couldn’t see his private profile. She turned back and asked him to hand over his login information.

Bassett refused and withdrew his application, saying he didn’t want to work for a company that would seek such personal information. But as the job market steadily improves, other job candidates are confronting the same question from prospective employers, and some of them cannot afford to say no.

(Excerpt) Read more at nydailynews.com ...


TOPICS: Business/Economy; Culture/Society; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS:
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 121-140141-160161-180 ... 201-206 next last
To: Tzar; All

>> You’re old and aren’t worried about being discriminated on the basis of political beliefs. I am young and expect to be.

Well, I don’t see myself as “old” :-) but I suppose I may be a little older than you.

So if you’re worried about employment, I have an idea for you. Not just for you, but for everyone on this forum who is rankled by an employer (gasp!) actually wanting to VET them before hiring them. The noive of dese guys!

Since you are teeming with skills and abilities and motivation and good clean core principles that those nasty evil employers REFUSE to recognize based merely on your good word, bypass them!

Start your own business! Make you own way. It’s a lot of hard work and a certain amount of risk, but very rewarding, I can assure you.

Then YOU get to be the employer and make the decisions! Oh, sure, there are headaches — meeting payroll, *hiring*, investing for growth, government regulations... but those are NOTHING compared to the pain of letting an evil corporation peek at your sacred Facebook account.

Go for it!


141 posted on 03/20/2012 10:07:42 AM PDT by Nervous Tick (Trust in God, but row away from the rocks!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 130 | View Replies]

To: autumnraine
It is illegal for an prospective employer to ask race, national origin, gender, religion, age, disability or marital status. As Religion, birth date, marital status and hometown are all on the profile, if said profile is marked private an prospective employer would have serious legal issue asking for it. It isn't a matter of voluntary employment. It is a matter of breaking the law.

The bigger issue is the employer asking for the ability to make changes. If they just asked to see the profile that would be questionable. However having the password and user id gives them the ability to make changes. It is the difference between a credit check and demanding your account numbers and PIN. Proving a business need for read write ability on prospective employees Facebook accounts would be a stretch. I do not admire the company attorney having to show in court why said company had a legitimate business reason requiring them to have the ability to make changes to the prospective employees Facebook account.

My bet is that the lower level HR guy doing the interview had never checked with higher up. He most certainly hadn't checked with legal. When we did interviews for a new Java programmers we were given a list of questions from HR and Legal that listed things we could not ask. We were required to sign off that we had read it. There were other questions that had to be phrased in a certain way to avoid lawyers. For example you can't ask if someone has a disability, but you can ask if they can lift a paper box to refill the printer. As in the latter case it is a duty associated with working in IT. You can't ask a persons national origin, but you can ask what languages they speak fluently.

As for those who want to get all bent out of shape on the ability of the employer to ask anything they want. Unfortunately the law states quite clearly that that is not the case. I just hope you never pull that stunt with some whiner liberal with a good lawyer. Ask one of the prohibited questions of a conservative and they will say no or just walk out on you. Do the same thing to a liberal with a good lawyer and they will own you. Never underestimate the speed at which a liberal can call a lawyer.
142 posted on 03/20/2012 10:16:04 AM PDT by GonzoGOP (There are millions of paranoid people in the world and they are all out to get me.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 125 | View Replies]

To: Ratman83
If you are referring to the overlap take it up with those that defined Gen-X not I. (and it wasn't those of us in Gen-X either so you can't blame that on us)
143 posted on 03/20/2012 10:16:47 AM PDT by Durus (You can avoid reality, but you cannot avoid the consequences of avoiding reality. Ayn Rand)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 139 | View Replies]

To: Nervous Tick

It’s not a high horse — if I can’t trust you to protect your own assets, I sure am not going to trust you to handle mine. Even washing dishes.


144 posted on 03/20/2012 10:17:10 AM PDT by kevkrom (Note to self: proofread, then post. It's better that way.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 136 | View Replies]

To: kevkrom; All

kevkrom makes a really good point.

If your employee would readily hand over security information about THEMSELVES, how safe would YOUR security information be with this person?


145 posted on 03/20/2012 10:17:47 AM PDT by autumnraine (America how long will you be so deaf and dumb to the tumbril wheels carrying you to the guillotine?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 133 | View Replies]

To: kevkrom

>> It’s not a high horse

Of course it is. Your dogma is rather loopy. You’re also taking a vacuous position, as we’re in an anonymous internet forum with essentially zero possibility of being tested in the real world.

Whatever makes your socks roll up and down though. I’m happy you could use the exchange to stroke your ego; it seems you need that.

FRegards


146 posted on 03/20/2012 10:23:16 AM PDT by Nervous Tick (Trust in God, but row away from the rocks!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 144 | View Replies]

To: Durus

Yes, all us pesky kids should get off his lawn. *snicker*


147 posted on 03/20/2012 10:29:16 AM PDT by autumnraine (America how long will you be so deaf and dumb to the tumbril wheels carrying you to the guillotine?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 135 | View Replies]

To: Nervous Tick
Nice ad hominem to avoid the point -- the point is that anyone who will turn over this information about themselves, for any reason short of a legal court order, is not someone who would make a trustworthy employee.

Even a dishwasher might be convinced to leave a door unlocked... you know, if he really needs the money.

In the corporate world, it's someone sending private company info in an emial to a buddy (or on Facebook) because they either don't realize what a breach they're making, or they simply don't care (or, they're doing it "just once" in exchange for a favor). As the business owner, the net effect is the same to me -- someone is leaking my confidential information. So to avoid that, I am not going to hire someone who has shown me that they will do so if they think the circumstances warrant.

This isn't dogma, it's not vacuous, and it's not ego-stroking -- it's basic security and common sense. Hey, if you want to hire someone who has no clue about how say to say "no" in order to keep confidential things confidential, that's your (soon to be extinct) business.

148 posted on 03/20/2012 10:30:55 AM PDT by kevkrom (Note to self: proofread, then post. It's better that way.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 146 | View Replies]

To: CodeToad
...It is that simple...

Ding, ding, ding. You've finally got it - exactly wrong.

This is the whole point of the discussion. Have you ever had a mountain lion in your living room? Well, no problem, just throw him out - IT IS THAT SIMPLE! No. the smart home owner takes steps to prevent the lion from getting into his house in the first place.

It's not much different in business. Once an individual is hired - they're IN - they have ACCESS. Wouldn't you rather know if they had a history of drunkenness, philandering, racism - or worse yet, that they voted for Barrack Obama?

Knowledge is power. And if you're the smart business owner, you protect yourself first and foremost by the accumulation - and wise use of - the knowledge of who are your employees.

149 posted on 03/20/2012 10:31:13 AM PDT by jonno (Having an opinion is not the same as having the answer...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 137 | View Replies]

To: Ratman83

Holy Crap!! My husband is a baby boomer?? And I’m a Gen-X’er?

Wow, who knew 10 years would mean so much!?! haha

Seriously, he is born in 1962, I never imagined him to be a Baby Boomer.


150 posted on 03/20/2012 10:34:44 AM PDT by autumnraine (America how long will you be so deaf and dumb to the tumbril wheels carrying you to the guillotine?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 139 | View Replies]

To: jonno
It's not much different in business. Once an individual is hired - they're IN - they have ACCESS. Wouldn't you rather know if they had a history of drunkenness, philandering, racism - or worse yet, that they voted for Barrack Obama?It's not much different in business. Once an individual is hired - they're IN - they have ACCESS. Wouldn't you rather know if they had a history of drunkenness, philandering, racism - or worse yet, that they voted for Barrack Obama?

That just bolsters my point -- if the individual would give up confidential information about themselves to get the job, why would I trust them not to give up confidential information about the job to someone else for some reason?

Thee are lots of ways to vet someone for a job. Asking them to violate proper safeguards of information is not -- because it sets exactly the wrong precedent.

151 posted on 03/20/2012 10:34:48 AM PDT by kevkrom (Note to self: proofread, then post. It's better that way.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 149 | View Replies]

To: CodeToad
Oh and...

...Colorado has a law that stipulates an employer may not use activities outside of work to determine employment status.

So don't don't have the check-box on your intake application: "Is not a philandering drunk".

152 posted on 03/20/2012 10:35:11 AM PDT by jonno (Having an opinion is not the same as having the answer...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 137 | View Replies]

To: kevkrom; Nervous Tick
My only (supportive) position on this thread:

Therefore when I hire I want to know A-B-S-O-L-U-T-E-L-Y EVERYTHING about that candidate I can POSSIBLY know.

I never suggested that an individual should give up confidential information about themselves to get the job. And in defense of Nervous, he only mentioned that he would - if he HAD to...

Is there a problem?

153 posted on 03/20/2012 10:45:51 AM PDT by jonno (Having an opinion is not the same as having the answer...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 151 | View Replies]

To: CodeToad

FWIW - Once upon a time I knew a guy who had a VP position in a successful business. He was a large part of the success of the company. His boss was a hard-nosed business type that had enjoyed success in many of his business endeavors over the years.

For some reason the boss decided to start intruding heavily into the personal lives of his employees. And when I say heavily I mean into places where NO ONE, much less an employer should go. Within a few months time, he has utterly wrecked the working environment that had been previously ideal for all involved.

Confronted by his employees, he took the “I am King” position with men that had been with him since day one and sacrificed years of their (personal) lives into building ‘his’ business (and their own company stocks).

Eventually he went so far over the edge that his No. 1 guy said ‘enough’ and walked. The fallout of that proved to be highly damaging to the company, which was put up for sale some time after. At a significant personal loss to his Majesty.

The moral of the story, if there is really one, is that business owners have the absolute right to do what they will with their company. They can hire who and for whatever reasons they want and set whatever terms of employment they choose. Likewise, they free to make the most asinine and self destructive business decisions imaginable to feed their egos and call it a ‘good business practice.’

Personally, I can say that every person that has hired me has gotten more than they paid for. I’ve walked out of interviews and took a couple serious financial hits over my unwillingness to work for the above type bosses. Life is too short to suffer fools, even high paying fools...and most aren’t high paying to begin with.

So is it fair game to ask for a FB password? IMO, yes. It’s also a good way to have great employees never work for (the general sense) you since that type of boss obviously is not smart enough to separate the boundaries between employment and private life.

FWIW/YMMV ETC


154 posted on 03/20/2012 10:48:29 AM PDT by Norm Lenhart
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 137 | View Replies]

To: jonno
Knowledge is power. And if you're the smart business owner, you protect yourself first and foremost by the accumulation - and wise use of - the knowledge of who are your employees.

And knowledge of what can get you sued is an important part of keeping your business. Check out someones facebook page would be a good move. Read the profile if it is marked public, also a good move. Any public information is fair game. But if the profile is marked private you can go no farther because several of the fields on the profile are on the big NO NO list of questions you can't ask. If they volunteer the info by not marking it private that's fine. But if you ask you end up facing Obama's National Labor Relations Board. A smart business owner doesn't pick that kind of fight.
155 posted on 03/20/2012 10:50:06 AM PDT by GonzoGOP (There are millions of paranoid people in the world and they are all out to get me.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 149 | View Replies]

To: kevkrom

>> the point is that anyone who will turn over this information about themselves, for any reason short of a legal court order, is not someone who would make a trustworthy employee.

Huh? This is what I mean by “your dogma is loopy”. (And it IS dogmatic and egotistical to say “I” [the great kevkrom] deem you unemployable for any reason. That’s not ad hominem; it’s a conclusion based on observed evidence.)

The key concept isn’t the damn password, it’s the information on the page. I give you the password to my account because you demand it as a condition of employment for a position I feel I must try to obtain. As soon as I’m out of your presence I change the password. So what? I don’t care how loudly you and your sycophants here twitter that this proves I can’t be trusted. That’s bunk.

Now, let’s set the scene. I am flat broke. Haven’t eaten for days. My beloved Mrs. Tick is ill, resting as best she can in our barely running car outside the restaurant because we have no home. I’m not applying for Vice President In Charge Of Dogma, I’m applying for dishwasher. The interviewer requires of me my facebook password. I wince inside, not really wanting to give it up... but I REALLY NEED THIS JOB. I’ll change the password at the library after I leave.

And you insist it’s not high-handed in such a scenario to sniff disdainfully and proclaim that I am unfit to wash dishes or hold ANY job because I answered the interviewer’s demands?

Well, I think your position is not only high-handed but also absurd — and I’m calling you out on it.


156 posted on 03/20/2012 10:52:27 AM PDT by Nervous Tick (Trust in God, but row away from the rocks!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 148 | View Replies]

To: Durus

The census has Gen X as 1965 to 1976.


157 posted on 03/20/2012 10:53:25 AM PDT by Ratman83
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 143 | View Replies]

To: autumnraine

10 years ha spring chicken, of you hubby is just a little younger than me.


158 posted on 03/20/2012 10:55:09 AM PDT by Ratman83
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 150 | View Replies]

To: reegs

LOL
What you said on steroids in post 11


159 posted on 03/20/2012 10:55:56 AM PDT by Rome2000 (Rick Santorum voted against Right toWork)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Nervous Tick
The key concept isn’t the damn password, it’s the information on the page. I give you the password to my account because you demand it as a condition of employment for a position I feel I must try to obtain. As soon as I’m out of your presence I change the password. So what? I don’t care how loudly you and your sycophants here twitter that this proves I can’t be trusted. That’s bunk.

That's not bunk, that's grounds for losing a security clearance. YOU NEVER GIVE UP YOUR PASSWORD TO ANYONE, for any reason, no matter how temporary.

And as I stated upthread in my first post, if providing this password was a condition for employment, I sure don't want to work there, because the company clearly has no clue of how confidential information is to be treated.

This isn't '“I” [the great kevkrom]' (I note how you keep resorting to snide comments to try and defend your weak position, though), this is simple common sense. People who don't respect their own property aren't going to respect mine, and vice-versa. The same standard applies to both prospective employee and prospective employer. So while I've been talking about this from the perspective of the employer, it's as true for the employee -- making this type of demand as an employer means that you're unfit as an employer and submitting to the demand as an employee means that you're unfit as an employee.

You will never build a proper working relationship with someone if your first major interaction involves someone being forced into a breach of trust.

160 posted on 03/20/2012 11:07:12 AM PDT by kevkrom (Note to self: proofread, then post. It's better that way.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 156 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 121-140141-160161-180 ... 201-206 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson