Be careful what you post on Facebook

[HVC]

Two of the four we weeded out were youngish and had LOTS of pictures of themselves half-naked, drunk, and all over guys.

This is why it's a shame that HR is dominated by women :p

[MadImmortalMan]

I'm curious what people post on their profiles that causes that. Is this the case of them being stupid or you being over-conservative?

It's a case of having a very small work environment with only four people in it. Knowing the personality of the people you're hiring is necessary for a good work environment under those circumstances.

Two of the four we weeded out were youngish and had LOTS of pictures of themselves half-naked, drunk, and all over guys. Two other ones fell into the ultra-conservative camp, and with the other three ladies in the office, it wouldn't really work well.

When you have 40+ people applying for a position, you can have the luxury of weeding them out like this. We pulled the 10 we liked, looked for FB or MySpace pages, and weeded four out. Two others chose not to be interviewed, and that left us with a first pool of four, and another 30+ to look at if none of them worked out.

UR DOIN IT WRONG. 



Seriously though, you can't weed out people based on their political views or that they drink alcohol or anything else like sexual orientation or age. You can get in big trouble for that.

[Iormlund]

I think I may be the last human without a Facebook account. Certainly every single friend of mine has one.

[Caliga]

Seriously though, you can't weed out people based on their political views or that they drink alcohol or anything else like sexual orientation or age. You can get in big trouble for that.

What the candidate and EEOC don't know can't hurt them (you).

[Iormlund]

Besides, I may be wrong, but I really think you guys are perceiving this from a perspective of a country that is dominated by public displays of religious beliefs.

This is an interesting point. As an example I recall a thread on P'dox while discussion on religion was banned, in which RELee (I think) posted something about Hod wanting you to do this or that - no moderator reacted to this. Some posts later someone quoted him and answered with an Atheist rebuke. This second guy was then warned (IIRC by Stonewall) and banned from the thread for talking about religion. The funny thing is Stonewall probably didn't even notice what he did. For him all the prior Hod talk was perfectly natural.

[merithyn]

UR DOIN IT WRONG. 

Seriously though, you can't weed out people based on their political views or that they drink alcohol or anything else like sexual orientation or age. You can get in big trouble for that.

We work in a middle school. We can weed them out if we don't feel that they can provide the right atmosphere and tolerance for our 600+ students. If WE'RE able to find their nearly-naked pics with alcohol freely displayed, then THE KIDS are going to be able to find it.

As for the other, it's a matter of tolerance. We didn't weed them out because of their political beliefs, but rather because we felt their personalities wouldn't mesh well with the other three ladies in the office. It's no different than saying, "Well, that person was rude on the phone. I don't think we'll bother inviting them in for an interview." It's one way to show who you are to the world, and yes, that opens you up to be ignored during the hiring process.

[Eddie Teach]

I think I may be the last human without a Facebook account. Certainly every single friend of mine has one.

You're not missing anything.

[The Brain]

I think I may be the last human without a Facebook account. Certainly every single friend of mine has one.

I don't have a Facebook account. I'm an adult.

[Pat]

Speaking of Cal's Jesus-phobia, I almost fired this one guy newly converted to Atheist-ism. He just wouldn't shut up.

I gave him a sermon from the mount and he got the word. To shut the fuck up.

I hate militant athiests amost as much as i hate most ex-smokers.

Well, the ex-smoker and the ex-religious both went through the trouble of giving up something that was bad for them, so it's only natural they'd want to hold themselves up as an example. But I suppose I do understand how it's not nice to have others point out how silly you are - especially, as with religion, if that is how you were brought up and you can't help it, so I'd never in any way be militant in my encounters with the religious (I actually have two friends who are religious and I have never brought the subject up with either of them). I do, however, reserve the right to silently think less of them for believing in stories for the children and the old.

[garbon]

A: Hi, I'm racist
B: Oh well I won't point out how "silly" you are as that's how you were brought up and you can't help it.

[Pat]

A: Hi, I'm racist
B: Oh well I won't point out how "silly" you are as that's how you were brought up and you can't help it.

Well, I would take quarrel with racism, because to be racist is to be hurtful to others, while to be religious is merely to be hurtful to oneself, for the most part. But I suppose if someone keep their racism to themselves I'll have no quarrel with that either. People believe all kinds of things and it's not my job to set them straight.

[Martinus]

A: Hi, I'm racist
B: Oh well I won't point out how "silly" you are as that's how you were brought up and you can't help it.

Well, I would take quarrel with racism, because to be racist is to be hurtful to others, while to be religious is merely to be hurtful to oneself, for the most part.

Are you kidding me? Religious people are not hurtful to others? Most of the legislation that is hurtful to gays for example (opposition to gay marriage, opposition to anti-work-discrimination based on sexual orientation; opposition to anti-gay hate crime legislation; support for DADT) is rooted squarely in the religious views of the people. Same goes for rights of women etc.

And THAT's in countries that have, at least formally, a separation of the church and state. Can you seriously look at countries like Iran or Saudi Arabia and say that religion is not hurtful to others? 

In fact, I'd say that in terms of legal oppressiveness, racism is in big retreat - after the apartheid in the South Africa has ended, I don't think there are many countries that actually espouse a legal form of discrimination based on racism. However, countless countries persecute people because of religion or the religious views of the majority.

[Pat]

Right. OK, maybe I phrased that poorly. It was meant in the context of whether I'd be militant in an encounter with a religious person. I'd prefer not to be, since as long as they keep it to themselves, that's their business - while in an encounter with a racist their racism is not merely their own business, as it is something that affects others. Of course, if I encounter a religious person who does not keep his religion to himself, and talks of his hatred for gays, for example, then that's no different from the racist.

[Martinus]

Right. OK, maybe I phrased that poorly. It was meant in the context of whether I'd be militant in an encounter with a religious person. I'd prefer not to be, since as long as they keep it to themselves, that's their business - while in an encounter with a racist their racism is not merely their own business, as it is something that affects others. Of course, if I encounter a religious person who does not keep his religion to himself, and talks of his hatred for gays, for example, then that's no different from the racist.

Ok I think I get your point.

[Valdemar]

I think I may be the last human without a Facebook account. Certainly every single friend of mine has one.

I don't have one either, and now its become a matter of principle not to get one

V