abillybob Posted February 11, 2015 Posted February 11, 2015 Woman says she was fired via Twitter (before starting job) - CNET The night before she was to start, February 6, she emitted a tweet that read: "Ew, I start this f*** a** job tomorrow." This plaintive cry from the wilderness of reality was accompanied by seven thumbs-down emoji. Who can be surprised that one of her future co-workers spotted her bons-mots and passed them on to her future employer? Who immediately became her non-employer.Waple took to his own Twitter account -- one he'd barely used since 2009 -- and replied: "And...no you don't start that FA job today! I just fired you! Good luck with your no money, no job life!"
hardtailstar Posted February 11, 2015 Posted February 11, 2015 I can only feel that more of this will happen.....
sonofsanta Posted February 11, 2015 Posted February 11, 2015 What did she expect to happen? Cue loads of stupid types protesting about her "freedom of speech" without ever considering the freedom of consequences attached.
CAM Posted February 11, 2015 Posted February 11, 2015 Web 2.0 made things bad, the real name revolution will cause more of this in future!
Ketlane Posted February 11, 2015 Posted February 11, 2015 FB got there first: Virgin Atlantic sacks 13 staff for calling its flyers 'chavs' - Home News - UK - The Independent
Mya Posted February 12, 2015 Posted February 12, 2015 Honestly, how does she have the gall to even PRETEND to be the victim here? She deserves what she gets (or doesn't get in this case). The night before I was due to start the job I'm just leaving I said to my partner 'I really don't want to go.' I wasn't stupid enough to post about it on Social media though!
Oddbod Posted February 17, 2015 Posted February 17, 2015 Amusing learning curve there… seen students badmouthing teachers on facebook midway through their class, only for them to find out that their teacher is using remote monitoring of the PCs, resulting in a swift exit from the course for them…[emoji1]
GREED Posted February 17, 2015 Posted February 17, 2015 Why why why why why... why do people still assume that saying something online in an open forum is any different to shouting it loudly in front of your family/friends/ex/boss/most hated adversary... seriously!!!!
pcstru Posted February 17, 2015 Posted February 17, 2015 While there is the issue of bringing an employer into disrepute, I wonder if the whole thing hasn't swung way too far and consequences are running way beyond any reasonable response to the 'mistakes'. There are of course the very high profile ones : http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/15/magazine/how-one-stupid-tweet-ruined-justine-saccos-life.html?_r=0 But then there are people who have 15 followers who get fired because someone re-tweets a joke or a moan and suddenly they find themselves trending to become the receptacle for the opprobrium of the whole world. Isn't it a bit like sharing a joke in a restaurant with a group of friends when someone who overhears it jumps up and starts objecting but also phoning up the papers, your employer etc? Or perhaps not, perhaps that is the consequence of twitter, you have to be a bit narcissistic to want to share 140 char utterances with the whole world and trending worldwide is the dream of anyone posting. So having a small 140 char mistake blow your life to smithereens is something that should be a comfort to us all - we too can live the dream. I sometimes wonder if when I next apply for a job the employer will find it odd that I don't exist on bookface, wibbler, shut-pic or any of the other innumerable self promoting 'social media' human zoo's. It's probably worse because about all they will turn up is a few usenet postings from around 1993 and a lot of sites offering data from old electoral roles. I suspect many would find it odd - given what I do, perhaps so odd that my CV will just end up in the bin.
DavePa Posted February 17, 2015 Posted February 17, 2015 This went on before the days of Twitter and Facebook etc. Remember Gerald Ratner effectively firing himself by describing the products sold in his stores as cr*p?
Garacesh Posted February 17, 2015 Posted February 17, 2015 (edited) I sometimes wonder if when I next apply for a job the employer will find it odd that I don't exist on bookface, wibbler, shut-pic or any of the other innumerable self promoting 'social media' human zoo's. It's probably worse because about all they will turn up is a few usenet postings from around 1993 and a lot of sites offering data from old electoral roles. I suspect many would find it odd - given what I do, perhaps so odd that my CV will just end up in the bin. As far as I'm concerned, any employer that snoops your online history during the interview process is not one worth working for. I have the book of face and that's it. No Twitter, no Instagram, no Tumblr, no Friends Reunited, no OKCupid, literally that's it - the only human zoo I'm part of*. If they found my facebook (which has operated under a pseudonym since I started work here three years ago) they'd see find everything is set to private and all they could see were things friends shared insecurely. Nothin' to pin me down on. There's hardly a tonne of photos of me trolley'd with my head in a toilet bowl etc floating around out there. * as me. I do have G+, but it's used only for Ingress and speaking to other people I've met through Ingress. It doesn't host any personal details, nor anything that links it to me as a person, bar the same pseudonym. Either way, still nothing personally identifiable. Edited February 17, 2015 by Garacesh
DavePa Posted February 17, 2015 Posted February 17, 2015 As far as I'm concerned, any employer that snoops your online history during the interview process is not one worth working for. Have to disagree there although there does need to be a balance and that could be hard to achieve. I once worked for a company that recruited a fairly senior manager whose LinkedIn profiles showed that he had had lasted an average of less than a year in each of his last 7 or 8 jobs. Sure enough he was off again less than a year after joining us - that's an expensive recruitment process and of no benefit to the company. It's not just about pictures of people getting lathered up on a night out! Would looking at his LinkedIn profile have changed anything? No idea, I'm not involved in recruitment but it may have done. Personally I have Twitter account (probably 6 tweets in as many years), a G+ account used for sharing photos to family and a LinkedIn account that is only used passively
Garacesh Posted February 17, 2015 Posted February 17, 2015 (edited) Have to disagree there although there does need to be a balance and that could be hard to achieve. I once worked for a company that recruited a fairly senior manager whose LinkedIn profiles showed that he had had lasted an average of less than a year in each of his last 7 or 8 jobs. Sure enough he was off again less than a year after joining us - that's an expensive recruitment process and of no benefit to the company. Why not just ask for employment history (including dates) rather than check an online profile? I thought employment history was fairly standard information to be given? Heck, my past 5 years employment history is on my CV and there's a note that I can provide further on request (though admittedly further back than that we're looking at 'between jobs', taking whatever paid, and no actual 'career' to speak of, so it's not exactly relevant anymore, I feel.) Edited February 17, 2015 by Garacesh
GREED Posted February 17, 2015 Posted February 17, 2015 It's not an alternative, it is another way of checking up on you. But we are talking here about the employment process... OP was about shouting abuse online and thinking there are no consequences because you typed it not spoke it...
elsiegee40 Posted February 17, 2015 Posted February 17, 2015 (edited) It's not an alternative, it is another way of checking up on you. But we are talking here about the employment process... OP was about shouting abuse online and thinking there are no consequences because you typed it not spoke it... I agree. This isn't checking up. This is saying something stupid that got seen by the new boss. The school where I am governor will use the internet to check out things that "don't seem right" about an application. With good cause it turned for a couple of interviewees. Answers to Safeguarding questions at interview are recorded and signed by both the panel chair and the employee and kept on file. One of those questions is "What would we find if we googled you?". The googling is not routinely done, but it sure gives the school something to fall back on if something crawls out of the woodwork about your life before you decided to apply for the role. The question itself has prompted disclosure... in all but one case it wasn't anything we were particularly concerned about. Edited February 17, 2015 by elsiegee40
Garacesh Posted February 17, 2015 Posted February 17, 2015 I just feel it doesn't create a good business relationship from the get-go. It feels like.. "We asked you these questions, but we're not going to trust you enough as a mature, adult applicant to have answered them honestly, therefore we're going to go snooping anyway and see what we find." Maybe I'm overblowing it. Maybe I'd think differently if I were on the other side of the recruitment process. I just feel there are better ways than snooping online accounts. Googleing someone is one thing - realistically that's mostly checking for new articles. But to snoop social network accounts just seems a bit too 'big brother' for my liking.
GREED Posted February 17, 2015 Posted February 17, 2015 It is the way the world has evolved. Just like 15 years ago most job processes evolved to asking and even checking you can use a computer, Word and Excel... Have to say I am still confused that there is ambiguity around bad mouthing your company in public and thinking that the employer should just accept it... just because it was said online and not with a megaphone in the city centre...
Garacesh Posted February 17, 2015 Posted February 17, 2015 (edited) Edit: Fairly certain I was editing a post, there..? O.o Previous post contents removed, the following was supposed to be an edit to #16 I understand the point of using the "If we Googled you.." question to prompt them into disclosure, but why not just ask them outright? "Is there anything from your past you feel you ought to disclose to us? Anything that may cause an issue were it to come to light further down the line?" Have to say I am still confused that there is ambiguity around bad mouthing your company in public and thinking that the employer should just accept it... just because it was said online and not with a megaphone in the city centre... I do question, did she really bring the company into disrepute? She didn't name the company. Merely expressed her disinterest in starting a job $Somewhere Edited February 17, 2015 by Garacesh
pcstru Posted February 17, 2015 Posted February 17, 2015 Have to say I am still confused that there is ambiguity around bad mouthing your company in public and thinking that the employer should just accept it... just because it was said online and not with a megaphone in the city centre... Defamation (which is effectively what bringing your employer into disrepute is) can be spoken or written and doesn't need to be shouted or heard by many. Would you think that a conversation at a dinner party should be reported to an employer? What if someone was sacked for talking to their family or partner about how their working life was stressful and they weren't getting adequate support and that somehow got back to the employer - would it be fair to sack them? Here there is no difference in what is being said - but it would seem unreasonable for an employer to take severe action against someone. I think with twitter and the likes, 99.999% of peoples utterances will only be seen by a fairly small, close circle. If you have been tweeting for years, that becomes a fairly normal expectation, you exist in a comfort zone and you don't really expect anything other than to be talking to a small group. There is the possibility of course that others can and will see your tweets but there is a possibility of being overheard when out, talking in a shop or cafe. There is no doubt that there is naivete and stupidity in the act of someone tweeting a negative comment about their employment but IMO the consequences sometimes (not always) seem somewhat disproportionate. From an employers POV the damage will be done and the reaction is punitive rather than restorative. Do we really want and expect employers to be so harsh and have so little understanding and empathy with human fallibility? Should we champion faceless corporations over individual people all the time, every time? How long will it be before someone is bought to book for comments they made while watching TV and their comments escaped. Would that be fair in the same way because they bought the TV and the possibility was there - so they must have been naive and stupid, so entirely their own fault?
Mya Posted February 17, 2015 Posted February 17, 2015 I'm torn on this subject. On the one hand, employers shouldn't be allowed to judge an applicant based on the things they enjoy in their free time, as I feel this infringes fundamentally on a persons individual rights and freedoms. As long as a person isn't breaking any laws I'm not sure what they get up to at the weekend, in the evenings, or with their friends is of any relevance. That being said, if a person is applying to an animal testing lab and their social media presence demonstrates a high level of animal rights activism, then it's fairly reasonable to conclude that their motives for applying may not be because they fancy dripping perfume into bunnies' eyes (as an example. FTR I strongly oppose animal testing). At my recent interview for 'MASSIVE INSTITUTE' I noticed that despite having not applied via Linkedin, the interviewers had copies of my linkedin profile so clearly they had researched my social media presence. Luckily for me I'm incredibly boring and my facebook feed is just full of photos of my pets and various garden projects and the occasional culinary masterpiece.
elsiegee40 Posted February 17, 2015 Posted February 17, 2015 She didn't necessarily bring the company into disrepute, but she clearly wasn't looking forward to working there. As an employer, if you have someone mouthing off about you before they have even started work, it brings into question what this person is going to be like when they actually start. This woman wasn't given the chance to redeem herself and I actually don't blame the employer for that. The last thing you need is to find out that you have made a mistake once a person has actually started and then upset your customers and/or your, otherwise content, workforce. Businesses, and I include schools, operate "due diligence" when it comes to trading and employing others. If they don't then they will lose money, their reputation or both... and possibly face legal action; they will make all checks they deem necessary and some of those are bound to be electronic in this digital world we live in, even if it's only the DBS check! The interview includes questions to try to work out who will be the best fit to the role in the business... sometimes businesses will use electronic evidence to confirm or disprove their feelings whether positive or negative. People have to accept that you can't gloss over a past that is recorded in detail online these days.
GREED Posted February 17, 2015 Posted February 17, 2015 I do question, did she really bring the company into disrepute? She didn't name the company. Merely expressed her disinterest in starting a job $Somewhere Good point well made there. Fair.
GREED Posted February 17, 2015 Posted February 17, 2015 Defamation (which is effectively what bringing your employer into disrepute is) can be spoken or written and doesn't need to be shouted or heard by many. Would you think that a conversation at a dinner party should be reported to an employer? What if someone was sacked for talking to their family or partner about how their working life was stressful and they weren't getting adequate support and that somehow got back to the employer - would it be fair to sack them? Here there is no difference in what is being said - but it would seem unreasonable for an employer to take severe action against someone. I think with twitter and the likes, 99.999% of peoples utterances will only be seen by a fairly small, close circle. If you have been tweeting for years, that becomes a fairly normal expectation, you exist in a comfort zone and you don't really expect anything other than to be talking to a small group. There is the possibility of course that others can and will see your tweets but there is a possibility of being overheard when out, talking in a shop or cafe. There is no doubt that there is naivete and stupidity in the act of someone tweeting a negative comment about their employment but IMO the consequences sometimes (not always) seem somewhat disproportionate. From an employers POV the damage will be done and the reaction is punitive rather than restorative. Do we really want and expect employers to be so harsh and have so little understanding and empathy with human fallibility? Should we champion faceless corporations over individual people all the time, every time? How long will it be before someone is bought to book for comments they made while watching TV and their comments escaped. Would that be fair in the same way because they bought the TV and the possibility was there - so they must have been naive and stupid, so entirely their own fault? The point very much is that twitter unless you lock it down (which most do not) is visible to anyone and everyone quite easily. I would argue that FB comments are less of an issue because it is more common and accepted to completely lock your profile down to all but friends, the dinner party analogy. I'm no legal expert and you may know more but is hear say and he said she said as easy to put forward in court as evidence? Compared to physical proof like a recording or a typed tweet? The point is twitter IS like shouting from the rooftops, not all social media is like that. Yet it does not get away from the fact that regardless of where it is said, it is dtechnically defamation. We are all suggesting employers have no rights and the employee can say anything they like. Yes they can, freedom of speech and all that... but what sort of outcry would there be if the roles were reversed and the company was public ally bad mouthing one of their employees? There are some fine balances and society is adjusting to what is acceptable to say to who and where. My question would be: would you bad mouth your employer on twitter?
Grey-gear Posted February 17, 2015 Posted February 17, 2015 Though it's bad for the person in question I can't see why you would want to do what she did. Yes it's a job and there are going to be parts that you don't like but there will be parts you do, an example is that during college I worked for a retailer and it was not the rubbish work the part that kept me able to go in was my co-workers (and the money). As long as person in question was on a probation period I don't see anything wrong with what her employer did, maybe phone instead of tweet. Just another good reason not to get twitter.
LiamH Posted February 17, 2015 Posted February 17, 2015 I would feel safer saying something on Facebook than say here on Edugeek. I have my profile locked down so that i have to accept friend requests and get to vet them personally, and certain people go into certain groups that limits what they see. We do get a fair few people complaining (legitimately!) on Edugeek, and while BTRD is hidden from Google, I wonder if anyone checks on these forums before hiring. I was quite concerned while applying for jobs over here in the US that the fact my Facebook page lists me as an atheist may limit my job options, which prompted me to lock it down even more than before.
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now