Ｐａｇｅ 695235 ━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━ 通常モードに戻る ┃ ＩＮＤＥＸ ┃ ≪前へ │ 次へ≫ ━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━ ▼pc accessamonster dfgVFrh 13/4/25(木) 16:31 ─────────────────────────────────────── ■題名 ： pc accessamonster ■名前 ： dfgVFrh <udacavat1972@mail.ru> ■日付 ： 13/4/25(木) 16:31 ■Ｗｅｂ ： http://www.monsterbeatsonlinestores.com -------------------------------------------------------------------------
| How do prospective employers screen private social networking profiles Anyone who was aware of such a backdoor access to a social media site is unlikely to publicise this, especially on another social media site. Finally, local legal rulings could potentially overturn any answer provided at any time. GuyM Dec 2 '12 at 17:58 As an employer, I routinely search for names of candidates as part of the pre-screening process. In addition, if the candidate's resume mentions a blog, twitter account, linked in [url=http://www.monsterbeatsbusiness.com]soul head phones[/url] account, or public Facebook page, I check those. I have never voted "hire" or "no hire" simply because of something I found from a search. It has been fodder for interview questions though. And none of this is new - we used to search for what people were posting on usenet newsgroups, 20 years ago, for [url=http://www.cheapmonsterbeatsshops.com]v-moda headphones costco[/url] just the same reasons. Quite frankly, to the best of my knowledge - they don't crack your settings and screen your profile. [url=http://www.monsterbeatsbusiness.com]soul by ludacris sl150[/url] In fact, the variation of how employers view social media profiles is incredibly diverse these days - the whole phenomenon is too new to have a single right answer or common norm for all employers. I've seen everything from the very thoughtful (and in my mind, honorable) post that Kate Gregory offers, to a deliberate effort to avoid them entirely. I haven't, yet, seen an employer go out of their way to "crack" a profile. In most cases, I would expect that to be seen as unethical and something a reasonable company would avoid. However, realize that nothing about you or your behavior online is really "private". I have several friends who do not even maintain social media profiles because of privacy reasons, and yet pictures of them, their legal names, and other activities are blogged, tweeted, commented on, or otherwise updated through their friend's social media activity. So it's not just your privacy settings that are the control over what an employer can and can't see. A common guidance I've seen that makes sense to me is to focus on enhancing your online identity through positive, professional behavior - write good articles, ask thoughful questions, be professional in your communications and be honest. Try to avoid an online identity that features behavior you don't want to be accountable for - certainly we've all done a few silly things we are glad our employers haven't seen, but try to avoid building an online community for yourself that encourages and highlights this behavior. thanks. what i would like to do is know things like which employers do and which dont make these kind of checks and focus on the ones that dont. because i think they are just disrespectful. as is the drug screen. i am okay with the criminal background check but i think snooping into someones FB or urine is none of any employers business. i am also ok with firing someone who shows at work drunk or high but thats different from pre-employment drug screen. however, it is hard to ask those questions directly when you start the application process. IMO - the reason these employers managed to hit the media is the shock value and the extremism of the case... so until I hear this is common, Im uninclined to loose sleep over it. There are also still employers who say incredibly racist things in interviews, who demand sexual favors and do other things that are even more illegal. Ideally in the future wed manage legislation that says that anyone EVER forcing you to disclose private credentials is illegal... bethlakshmi Dec 3 '12 at 15:39 |