Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying it's a good thing to get drunk. I don't drink. I'm just saying when employers try to weed out job candidates by checking for drunk pictures on facebook, they're assuming the only people that get drunk are people with drunk pictures. Whether someone gets drunk and posts a picture or gets drunk and doesn't post a picture, what difference does it make? Either way, they got drunk.
If an employer is going to deny a job to someone just for posting a drunk picture, they might as well fire an existing employee if they find out the employee got drunk (regardless of whether or not said employee posted a picture).
40 years ago, there was no such thing as facebook. But people got drunk. All facebook does is provide photograph proof that someone got drunk.
I remember the news story years ago that got this whole thing started and it was about a woman who called in sick and then posted photos of herself partying down somewhere and bar shots of her drinking. It was just blatant stupidity really. Even if her employer didn't have access to the page or photos someone she worked with could have and then exposed them. The issue wasn't that she was out drinking it was that she lied and cheated the company and was subsequently fired.
I remember the news story years ago that got this whole thing started and it was about a woman who called in sick and then posted photos of herself partying down somewhere and bar shots of her drinking. It was just blatant stupidity really. Even if her employer didn't have access to the page or photos someone she worked with could have and then exposed them. The issue wasn't that she was out drinking it was that she lied and cheated the company and was subsequently fired.
In that case, she deserves to get fired (I can't believe we agree on something for once).
And even if she never posted the pictures, someone could have seen her at the bar.
What exactly are you two bickering about. When you talk about employees drinking and peoples fb pictures with them drinking, is it:
Bottles around, drink in hand, at a club, looking drunk, keg stands, passed out on a couch, being drawn on, hugging the toilet, etc.
I just want to know where you draw the line of what is acceptable vs. not acceptable.
As far as I'm concerned, if I saw two POTENTIAL employees, one is clean cut and one has pictures of being drunk one night, I would go with the clean cut one obviously, all other qualifications being equal. However, if it was a current employee and I recently found these pictures, and said employee always shows up on time, and is a good employee, I couldn't care less. What does it matter in that place.
How they act after work hours doesn't matter, unless they are a hot shot in the company. For any lower level employee, let them do what they want, unless of course you want to pay them while they aren't at work since they "still represent the company". Again, there are many variables, as to size of town, and what activities they are doing.
What exactly are you two bickering about. When you talk about employees drinking and peoples fb pictures with them drinking, is it:
Bottles around, drink in hand, at a club, looking drunk, keg stands, passed out on a couch, being drawn on, hugging the toilet, etc.
I just want to know where you draw the line of what is acceptable vs. not acceptable.
As far as I'm concerned, if I saw two POTENTIAL employees, one is clean cut and one has pictures of being drunk one night, I would go with the clean cut one obviously, all other qualifications being equal. However, if it was a current employee and I recently found these pictures, and said employee always shows up on time, and is a good employee, I couldn't care less. What does it matter in that place.
How they act after work hours doesn't matter, unless they are a hot shot in the company. For any lower level employee, let them do what they want, unless of course you want to pay them while they aren't at work since they "still represent the company". Again, there are many variables, as to size of town, and what activities they are doing.
Obviously, there is a difference between a picture where someone is holding one beer and only slightly buzzed vs a picture where someone is doing a keg stand or passed out
But why would you let a current employee keep working if you saw a keg stand picture, yet you wouldn't give a chance to a job applicant with a keg stand picture? For all you know, the job applicant with a keg stand picture might show up on time and be a good employee.
And if one person that applied was more qualified but had drunk pictures, would you hire a less qualified (but sober) job applicant?
Obviously, there is a difference between a picture where someone is holding one beer and only slightly buzzed vs a picture where someone is doing a keg stand or passed out
But why would you let a current employee keep working if you saw a keg stand picture, yet you wouldn't give a chance to a job applicant with a keg stand picture? For all you know, the job applicant with a keg stand picture might show up on time and be a good employee.
And if one person that applied was more qualified but had drunk pictures, would you hire a less qualified (but sober) job applicant?
Because the current employee has already proven him/herself.
I would still consider the more qualified but has drunk pictures employee, but they would have to have good references and good news from previous employers about being on time and not hungover, etc.
LONDON – A British juror and a defendant have been found guilty of contempt of court for discussing a drug and corruption trial on Facebook.
Prosecutors say juror Joanne Fraill and defendant Jamie Stewart communicated on the social networking site during the trial last year, with Stewart asking Fraill for details of the jury's deliberations.
Stewart was acquitted at that trial but was later charged with contempt. She denied the charge but was found guilty Tuesday by judges at London's High Court.
Fraill pleaded guilty to contempt. The pair face sentencing later.
The judges also will hear an appeal by one of the convicted defendants, who wants his sentence overturned on the grounds of jury misconduct.
Juror and defendant guilty after Facebook chat - Yahoo! News (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110614/ap_on_hi_te/eu_britain_facebook_contempt - broken link)
Interestingly enough they don't say how someone found out.
Because the current employee has already proven him/herself.
I would still consider the more qualified but has drunk pictures employee, but they would have to have good references and good news from previous employers about being on time and not hungover, etc.
What if they had bad references and bad news from the previous employer? And what if your only options were to hire them or hire a less qualified, but sober, candidate.
However, if it was a current employee and I recently found these pictures, and said employee always shows up on time, and is a good employee, I couldn't care less. What does it matter in that place.
How they act after work hours doesn't matter...
You make a good and valid point. However, an employee's behavior outside his or her work environment most certainly can have a negative effect on the employer and the business, regardless of whether or not that employee shows up bright eyed and bushy tailed every day.
The bottom line is that a business relies and survives upon its integrity. An employee may, outside the workplace, be a substance abuser, a spouse-abuser, an animal abuser, a general rabble rouser or whatever and be known in the community as such.
Even if that person has never been either arrested, charged or convicted, the business with which they're associated can suffer when potential customers prefer not to utilize the services of that business because they've seen that employee at his or her worst after hours.
Facebook profiles have a wealth of information about potential employees beyond just their "after hours" activities. You can tell a lot from the things they like, the comments they make about their current employers, their spelling and language skills in general, and much more. I am now retired so I am no longer involved in hiring employees, but am still involved with various business endeavors that depend upon interaction with others. I absolutely check Facebook profiles when deciding whether or not to become involved with other individuals for the first time. If it's out there in the public eye, it's fair game.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.