I’ve been reading certain articles regarding this matter, specifically these two:
Now, is it just me or is this going out of control a lot (wanted to say “a bit” but that just wasn’t appropriate)? Who gives them the right to get you fired because you expressed your opinion online about something not even related to work or because you were drinking some booze on a freakin’ vacation and posted that on Facebook!? What gives them right to control how people have fun in their free (private) time? One thing is drinking while at work, but completely another when doing the same thing on your own free time. Also, what difference does it make if that person is a teacher or a lets say construction worker? Do they seriously believe that teacher is some great role model for students (pupils)? Maybe at younger age, but later they get the mind of their own anyway. In my days there was no Facebook, yet they (students) still got all drunk without seeing their teacher getting drunk on a vacation and posting that on Facebook. So what’s all the fuss about this now? It’s just ridiculous and just shows how short minded organizations, companies and certain “leaders” are when it comes to social networks. If you’re a senator or a president, fine. After all you have whole nation under “control”, but teacher? C’mon, who are they kidding?
And if someone decides to express a nasty thought about Kate Middleton, so shall they. It’s their opinion. If she disagrees with that person (not that she cares much), that’s Kate’s opinion as well. If you’re a public figure, there will ALWAYS be people who will disagree with you or just plain hate you for whatever reason. But should that affect your job status? I don’t think it should.
After all, there are two types of people on social networks. There are those who use their social networks profiles to advertise their work and there are those that use social networks as a mean of what i call “cyber chilling”. An online place without boundaries, a place where you express whatever you like because it’s an imaginary place that (at least used to be) unrelated to real world. Similar to how people can be totally different on forums than they are in real life. But some take social networks too seriously judging by the complaints by certain people who lost their job because someone took their cyber chill place too seriously.
The other things are companies who do profiling through social networks like the people at Jobvite. “Better insights, better choices”. It’s more like “Failed insights, horrible choices”. Are companies these days really recruiting their people with such moronic summaries from companies who were supposedly professional about this? And you get such stupid chart when it comes to decide, if you want to hire a person or not? Seriously, why the hell do companies have to use idiotic tactics and some “fancy” ways of hiring people? What’s wrong with old fashion interviewing and supplying of your online social profile if YOU want it, not if company decides to lurk after you on social networks. It’s nothing wrong if you willingly supply your social profile as a mean of contacting you or for employer to check you out, but only when YOU give your profile to them willingly. After all, some use social networks as the mean to advertise themselves. I know a lot of musicians, artists, photographers and programmers that do it. But that’s when YOU want it, not when companies start to track your otherwise personal online life.
Lets take a look at this chart for a bit…
So, only positive thing to them is to either volunteer or donate to charity. Is that really the only thing that defines you as a good person? So, expressing your love for photography, painting/drawing music or animals on social networks means nothing. Or expressing regularly how much you love your family or spending time with your friends? It’s irrelevant to them from the looks of it. WTF!? A person can donate to everyone, but can still be a total douche, because he’s just doing that to gain false admiration. Ever thought of that Jobvite? And trust me, there are this kind of people on our tiny planet.
Then there is the negative zone. Ok, illegal drugs are one thing, after all they are illegal so it’s up to you to post that, but alcohol? It’s not illegal in most countries so what you do in your free time is your own thing. But isn’t when you are posting pics of boozing at work. If that gets you fired, it was your very own stupidity.
Same goes for posts of profanity and sexual nature. You have to draw a fine line between being just plain vulgar and expressing that in a more subtle way. But again, if you weren’t doing that at work, it’s your own personal thing how you behave in your life. You can be a vulgar douche in your personal life, but an absolute gentleman at work. It’s not impossible…
Spelling? This blog is the only place where I extensively use dictionary and spell checker. Because I have decided to at least try to do it right somewhere (especially since English isn’t my native language). But most of the people use social networks in their own slang, because they take the place as a “chill place”. A place to express their thoughts without any boundaries. I have a rather public job and there I try to speak my language in grammar perfect form. But I don’t do that on social networks or in my personal life. Why should I and mostly, why should my employer care for as long as I’m not expressing my thoughts on company’s behalf?
And now to the guns and weapons. I have touched that topic several times and I will do it again. Having admiration to weapons doesn’t automatically make you a bad person. I love these “machines”, because they got us where we are today as a superior species. We dominated the world because of the weapons. We are the dominant species on our planet because of that. Without weapons, we would be somewhere in the middle of the food chain, considering our body anatomy doesn’t make us the best predators on Earth. If we compare us to animals that have naturally acquired “weapons” like tigers, sharks and crocodiles do, we are a very poor example of evolution in that regard. But we don’t have that because we didn’t really had any need to evolve in that direction, because of the weapons that did all the work instead of us. It’s because of the weapons, we are on absolute top of it. Yes, the weapons are used in the bad way a lot of times, but that still doesn’t change the heritage of these devices. So, they are admiration worthy devices and I love using them in games and I will always show interest in them when conversation will lead to them. But I always had respect for them in real life. I’ve had the chance to hold an AK-47 and 9-mm Beretta with my own hands, but have decided not to. They were not loaded and were handled under supervision of soldiers, but I’ve decided not to hold them. Why? I frankly have no clue, I just didn’t. But a company would look at your social profile and though of you as a guns nutcase through the Jobvite’s profiling chart says so. Where in real life I’m afraid to hold an unloaded rifle. See where I’m going with this? Also, it would be a bit unfortunate if a guns maker like Colt or Heckler&Koch would be hiring you through Jobvite’s profiling… 😀
And lastly, religion and politics. A topics I generally hate to talk about. Manly because anything I’ve ever seen when talking about politics or religion was hatred and heavy arguments with no end about each. It nearly always ends up with hate arguments and anger. And I really have no clue what made Jobvite think that religion and politics belong in the neutral zone. It’s in fact FAR less neutral than alcohol consumption or guns talk.
I personally think that someone who is constantly expressing their religious or political views are by far less neutral than someone who just doesn’t want to express what he thinks about either. Ever seen a fanatic religious person or a fanatic one side political nutcase? I’ve seen them and trust me you don’t want to deal with them. Just look at how certain people are abusing Islam these days and how they were abusing Christianity in the Crusaders era. When you start mixing politics and religion, never anything good comes out of that. And nether do extremes of each on their own. Islam is not bad by itself and so is not Christianity. But people pretty much always twist both in nothing but their favor. So why the hell is this in the “neutral” section? It doesn’t belong there, it should be more in the negative zone than anywhere else.
I had a share of stupid tricky questions during interviews for my job. Some treated me like I am there for a position of a CEO, where I was in fact there for a casual bottom feeder worker. Makes you wonder who’s more dumb, when you’re sitting in an office with suits on the other end of the table, asking you such retarded stuff. And then they even have the balls to say on TV: “It’s hard to find qualified or good workforce.” No kidding, really?