ratseal: (Default)
[personal profile] ratseal
This is a great excerpt from the referenced article: Fired on Facebook: 
http://www.brazencareerist.com/2009/08/16/when-the-boss-invades-facebook
http://blog.brand-yourself.com/2009/fired-on-facebook/

The importance of a personal brand is seldom well explained to juniors, and aspiring middle level careerists. It is nonetheless real. I certainly wish that I had done more of this in my mid 20s. I have had to involve HR on social networking related work posts with significant outcomes on more than a single occassion. 

FYI, my firm blocks are SNW execpt for DT.   

Well, surprisingly, yes.

Date: 2009-08-17 08:43 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] ratseal.livejournal.com
My second PA (a) left her FB unlocked and under her (b) real name and (c) posted topless photos of herself. It took the office crew of cutthroats and scallywags about 10 minutes after she walked in to look her up, and another 30 minutes to tell me about it, slavering.

I had the senior PA have a discreet word, but the damage was done.

I had a young engineer employee include in their publicly viewable profile that they got high weekly. That one I had to refer to a background agency, but that person volitionally left after we disclosed the ongoing background check.

Re: Well, surprisingly, yes.

Date: 2009-08-17 09:36 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] luke-jaywalker.livejournal.com
I can actually see a value in something like indiscreet Facebook photos - think of it as a security bozo-filter. Careless idiot got busted over harmless-to-the-company personal photos, as opposed to... well, I imagine as your PA, some pretty confidential (of interest to competitors or evil types, or just the media) information would cross your desk and therefore hers.

One assumes she embarrassedly turned in her notice a few days later?

I'd have less of an issue with engineers getting stoned (if at home) - at my last regular company (left at the end of May `07), probably more of the Boston office *did* use illicit stuff than didn't. Still, that was a tech startup, not a company with major security interests, and the same "people who are careless with personal data are likely to be careless with company data" thing definitely applies.

It comes to mind that while everybody at aforementioned company knew that at least a third of the office were potheads and that if the CEO didn't do pot or acid *now*, he certainly had pretty regularly in the past... you couldn't have found a jot in writing about it, anywhere.

Maybe in personal LJs and the like - but those (like mine) would have had zero identifying data that Google could connect to the person's real name, email-addy-on-resume, and so on.

Depends...

Date: 2009-08-17 10:30 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] ratseal.livejournal.com
... if you run a services company, and your clients elect to get stroppy over something, and can prove that you knowingly hired drug users and did not disclose that - and you were working on security related projects... I'm sure that you can see the complications lining up in Brooks Bros suits to file their subpoenas.

Profile

ratseal: (Default)
ratseal

April 2013

S M T W T F S
 123456
78910111213
141516 17181920
21222324252627
282930    

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags
Page generated Sep. 25th, 2017 01:32 pm
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios