How Do People Get Caught on FB / Twitter and Fired?

frostman on 25/05/2016 - 10:09
Last edited 26/05/2016 - 09:52 by 1 other user

This questions has bugged me for a while, I constantly hear about employees posting something controversial on FB or Twitter, then later being dismissed from their workplace due to various policies.

I can see 2 situations here:

A.) John Williams works in ABC Bank with a picture of him. He posts something on FB or Twitter that contravenes policy where an employee of ABC reads it and hands it over to HR.

B.) John Doe is a pseudonym for employee John Max on FB. John Doe posts something controversial about a hot topic like ISIS. The company finds out and fires him. HOW?

Latest example:
Here

Education & Work

Comments

  • [Deactivated] on 25/05/2016 - 10:23

    Not sure how he got caught, but that useless waste of space should've been thrown in the slammer and the key safely deposited somewhere in the vast Indian Ocean.

    • Herbse on 27/05/2016 - 11:08
      +1

      It's not illegal to be a supporter of a morrally corrupt group. No more illegal than supporting the united patriots front or the ku klux Klang.
      When someone conspires to take action that leads to harm, then they get prosecuted.

      What the court and former employee needs to have done is to somehow better educated this man and take steps to stop him from being further radicalised so that he doesn't spread the misinformation being fed to him to his family and friends.

      • [Deactivated] on 27/05/2016 - 12:47
        +1

        If there's a will, there's always going to be a way.

        The issue isn't people supplying the information to you unsolicited. Either this male was supplied with questionable information of a radical source after he expressed his interest, or he is simply one of the deranged people within a peaceful society who see pleasure and joy in terrorism and sought out this content himself.

        Radical individuals and parties don't stand in the middle of the street handing terrorism propaganda out. Rather, people who are interested in this sort of activity and behaviour seek out the information for themselves, from any source and at any cost. Stopping the preachers won't do anything, because if you stop the preachers the 'wannabe' radicals will get their terrorism fix from elsewhere. What this country needs to do is throw the book at lone and 'aspiring' terrorists to send the message into the community to not even try and get involved in terrorism. But this country is a lot like Hugh Hefner - lame.

        The individuals who are actively looking to be radicalised cannot be taken out of the vicious circle. No matter what you do to support them and attempt to lead them out of that mentality, it's just not going to work for those people who want to be radicalised.

        It's like giving job seeking support to substance abusers who are also long term unemployed. You can give them all the resources in the world for them to find a job, heck you could even give them guaranteed job opportunities. But as long as these druggies and alcoholics have their daily fixes, they get free financial handouts from the spineless Government and don't get punished hard enough for theft and robbery (which they will commit if the handouts stop), they'll simply continue to do what they already do and that is leech off society. The moment you stop their handouts they'll go berserk and start/restart a life of crime. Why? Because it was never their intention to not be an useless bum.

        Of course, everyone is entitled to their opinions whether that be a particular leaning towards a political party, group, alliance or union. But I'm positive that you and others will agree, that as much as Australia is a country of democracy and free speech, that there should be a zero tolerance for terrorism 'supporters' in such a secure environment and industry.

      • [Deactivated] on 27/05/2016 - 21:13

        I assume you mean former employer, and if you did, why the hell is it a private companies responsibility to de-radicalise these idiots?

        It also seems ironically racist that this guy gets an opportunity to be reinstated considering if someone promoted a group like the UPF on their page I can almost guarantee you they'd never be given a chance to say they were "just being sarcastic" and get their job back. The idea that he "just needs educating" about why it is heroically stupid to post pro-ISIS content on FB, especially when you work around planes, is absurd from where I am sitting.

  • spackbace on 25/05/2016 - 10:24

    Not everyone has their profiles locked down.
    Back in MySpace days, I didn't, just didn't feel the need to. When a whinge about work was discovered (2 months after posting it!) I was asked to explain myself, and they took my immediate resignation. Wasn't a career job or anything like that so wasn't a big deal.
    Needless to say that the day it was discovered, my profile was locked down ;) Facebook account is currently completely locked down (within reason), but I know at least 1 person I work with that has it all publicly viewable.

    • [Deactivated] on 25/05/2016 - 10:28
      +3

      Living life on the edge Mr Spack…

      • spackbace on 25/05/2016 - 10:30
        +5

        It's ok, the boss that trawled through everyone's MySpace feeds ended up getting caught for stealing from the company :) Given the location of the workplace, it was the AFP that escorted him out of the building :)

      • Wampus on 25/05/2016 - 10:30
        +10

        Dr Spack. He didn't go to Spack College for six years to be called Mr Spack

      • Sage on 29/05/2016 - 18:06

        I've only now realised his name is SpackBace and not Spaceback.

  • mskeggs on 25/05/2016 - 10:28
    +3

    A bunch of people I work with are friended and in each other's facebook feeds. Wouldn't surprise me if the boss simply sees the offending posts on somebody else's screen in the lunch room or similar.

  • humdingaling on 25/05/2016 - 10:34
    +3

    They may forget who is on their list or just not lock it down
    even when locking it down…facebook/twitter is hardly what you call secure site

  • tomsco on 25/05/2016 - 11:10
    +2

    The guys an idiot, but I don't think it was the workplace's role to convict him. I understand they may have felt a moral obligation due to the nature of the work, but they should have advised the police and left it at that. Let them deal with it - if he get's arrested then they don't have to worry about paying him $7k in lost wages.

    • aboabo on 25/05/2016 - 15:11
      +2

      The guy's an idiot,

    • ilikeradiohead on 26/05/2016 - 13:58
      +2

      Maybe if he worked at maccas, but he works at an my airport…

      • ronnknee on 27/05/2016 - 10:50

        Haha I almost worked at Aerocare.

      • [Deactivated] on 27/05/2016 - 21:17
        +1

        If he worked at Maccas and joked about poisoning the food they'd sack his ass in 2 seconds flat. No "I was just being sarcastic" would save him.

        But don't worry, this guy claims he works for a 'secret group which opposes religious extremism'. He doesn't sound slightly unhinged.

    • c0balt on 26/05/2016 - 14:27
      +2

      I'm disgusted the magistrate didn't see being an ISIS sympathizer as being fair grounds for dismissal for an airport worker.

      At least when the airport gets rid of him soon for what ever reasom they can, the scumbag will have his name googled before the next job he applies for (hopefully).

  • nubzy on 25/05/2016 - 11:16
    +8

    The easiest way to simplify your life and remove all worry is to simply not use these data harvesting sites

    • frostman on 25/05/2016 - 11:40
      +5

      It's a phase.

      Currently the trend is that if you don't have FB, Twitter or Instagram, you're a weirdo.

      In a few years time when 99% population realise almost every agency worldwide has access to their contacts, family pictures, holidays, work history, cat pics and naked bathroom selfies, everyone will quit and the trend would be people saying "I don't use social media"

      • nubzy on 25/05/2016 - 12:19
        +2

        Maybe amongst women it is. Most of my friends and acquantainces either dont have an account anymore or barely use it. Also encountered quite a few people at uni who claimed not to have facebook. I think instagram and snapchat are the big things now. Not interested in any of it personally.

      • sharkyoz on 26/05/2016 - 12:02
        +7

        So, I'm a weirdo for not having f/b or other forms of social websites?
        I just don't see the need to broadcast everything I do, or own. People whinge about privacy, then post on f/b or twitter, are you completely thick?
        If you dont have an account that can come back to haunt, well done.
        There is enough probing of our privacy from the govt, without handing it to private exploitation on a platter.
        If i want to communicate I ring people, or message, or even go talk face to face.Not weird at all.

        • bargdebarg on 26/05/2016 - 16:49

          Ok to either not use social media or use it. Up to the individual. However, if you don't use it, unless all of your friends are of the same opinion, I think you'll miss out on social interactions with your peer group.

        • knk on 26/05/2016 - 20:23

          @bargdebarg:

          Agreed,I use it but very carefully. (Facebook) If I were to just not use FB completely, it'd be a headache to organise events as it's generally the first place people go.

          I don't post anything. Very rarely I'll comment on or like something. It's mostly used for private groups and chat.

          My profile is locked down to the point where you can't see my friends or any posts. I actually wrote some macros to purge absolutely everything from my "timeline" at one stage to scrub all the crap from when I was younger.

        • bargdebarg on 27/05/2016 - 06:56

          @knk: I respect that, but personally not that worried. I am careful but happy to share photos and other things in moderation

        • CandyMan on 28/05/2016 - 19:46
          +3

          You're not a weirdo, ozbargain is a form of social websites

        • Ravensbane on 29/05/2016 - 09:04

          Nothing wrong with having a FB account. I have used mine solely for finding family or friends I have lost contact with over the years and without FB I would never have found them again. Just got back in contact with a family friend that I have not spoken to in 18 years or so. Not for any reason other than we moved towns, then they moved towns and no forwarding information. Have tried tracking them down numerous times over that period even going so far as to ring random people with the same last name in the town but no luck. Was not till that person joined FB 6 months ago and I did my yearly search for them that I found them.

          tldr: FB can be a very handy tool for finding people but yes don't post every little detail of your life.

  • cypher67 on 25/05/2016 - 13:13
    +1

    Some pretty easy ones come to mind. I work for a bank, if a celebrity came in and did some business or something and I post somewhere that they just deposited $1m or something with us, we can easily be fired for breaching all sorts of privacy policies. Another and this happened, a girl called in sick on a Friday before a long weekend, then posted a photo of her sipping cocktails on a beach in another state; this was an instant sacking but lets just say she was gone soon after. Another would be simply openly bad naming your employer on social media, its not good for the brand and even when your not at work you still need to act in their best interest, plus why would you want to keep employing someone who does that, surely that can't be doing a good job.

    • frostman on 25/05/2016 - 13:21

      OK, but in all your cases, the people had used their real names and their pictures posted.

      How the hell do people get caught when they're using a Pseudonym?

      • piggyfund on 25/05/2016 - 13:56
        +1

        A 'friend' dobbed them in

      • kryptoz on 25/05/2016 - 22:01
        +2

        They may have logged into Facebook at work — suffice to say, reviewing internet access history of employees is something any child could do. For any savy net admin, viewing records of employee 'private/incognito browsing' via the company network is also trackable, along with login details, passwords, and anything you have typed on the web whilst using the company network, is fairly easy to access.

        If an employee regularly calls in sick, a well-resourced company may routinely investigate the staff member online.

      • YTW on 27/05/2016 - 00:22
        +1

        It's fairly easy to find people on Facebook who don't use their real names. Usually because they use their real email address, or they 'friend' someone else at work etc.

  • airzone on 25/05/2016 - 13:53
    +2

    We had an instance where staff had a FB group that had a couple of photos of the inside of one of our facilities. Somebody joined the group saw the picture, and raised it to the relevant manager. It turned out that they were from the previous company that had the facility and the photos were benign. If they were from our occupation and bearing in mind that the facility is full of secret military tech, they could have all gone to jail and the company sued into bankruptcy, and everyone here out of their jobs. Board of directors would have faced criminal charges. Then if any of those people traveled to the US or UK, they would have been arrested on entry and spent more time in jail.

    • BuyoTheCat on 25/05/2016 - 15:50
      +10

      secret military tech? Sharks with lasers attached to their head.

      • airzone on 25/05/2016 - 17:46
        +4

        Pfft, that's what amateur's have. I didn't show you this secret military tech: http://i.imgur.com/2G6PiZd.jpg

      • Speckled Jim on 26/05/2016 - 09:46
        +1

        I'm guessing one of the few Aussie participants in the F35 JSF clusterferk.

        • airzone on 26/05/2016 - 12:51

          No

          Edit: But I have been involved in F35 in prior companies, and (profanity) isn't strong enough to describe it.

        • Speckled Jim on 26/05/2016 - 20:03

          I wasted five years on the Collins…project. I'd have quit sooner, but fraternity being the glue that bonds those in the same (sinking) boat, I'd have been an even bigger rat.

          Gotta admit, there's nothing like a juicy defence contract ;)

        • airzone on 27/05/2016 - 11:40

          Oh, and the redundancy benefits of being involved in an old school defense contractor. I've had a slice of that pie before.

  • Mad Max on 25/05/2016 - 17:56
    +3

    I do not understand this need, no better, urge that people have to share everything they do, think and see with everyone else…
    And in real time.
    What for???

    • bargdebarg on 26/05/2016 - 16:52
      +1

      Agreed. These days this happens less on FB though. I tend to unsubscribe to friends who overuse it…

  • [Deactivated] on 25/05/2016 - 21:26
    +2

    The article tells you how he was found out and how the process against him initiated.

  • [Deactivated] on 26/05/2016 - 08:47

    The USA has created and supported many terrorist organizations as weapons against self determined states, Al Qaeda being one of them. Al Qaeda in Iraq became ISIS. The USA is Australia's ally. Australia supports USA in its international endeavors (including invading Iraqi). So while we don't support ISIS, we did support their creator and we did nourish their growth by tearing apart Iraq and leaving it broken and traumatised.

    • frostman on 26/05/2016 - 09:18

      How is that new news?

      • [Deactivated] on 26/05/2016 - 12:03

        It's not news. The guy said "we all support Isis" on Facebook.

    • c0balt on 26/05/2016 - 14:29
      -2

      You sound like the scumbag who the airport fired.

      AQI/Al Nusra filled the power vaccuum due to Malikis power grab kicking out all the Sunnis from government.

      Saddam repressed Sunni nationalism as much as Shia.

      Had Maliki not screwed up that balance (the new government), then there would have never been a power vacuum.

      The whole time this was happening the USA was staunchly advising Malkiki what he was doing would throw the country into the situation it is in now.

      I'll be happy to source you all of those claims if needed, but I suggest you Google it for yourself.

      • [Deactivated] on 27/05/2016 - 00:20

        It's not like America has ever backed two opposing sides of a battle at the same time, right?

        • frostman on 27/05/2016 - 08:40

          Dude, the entire war is a result of human greed, period.
          There is no other explanation or half-baked excuse as to WTF is going on in the M.E

          Whether it's the Gas Pipeline in Syria masqueraded by our Russian friends that they're in there to kill terrorists whilst they themselves showed how peaceful they could be in Crimea, to the Afghan invasion of the West targeting some small-time camel riders with AKs all covering other reasons be it this or that

        • [Deactivated] on 27/05/2016 - 08:54
          +2

          @frostman:
          No, I mean America literally supported two opposing sides.
          CIA funded one side, while DoD funded the other side.

      • frostman on 27/05/2016 - 10:17

        reply above, accidentally replied to Drew22

      • [Deactivated] on 27/05/2016 - 11:34

        You think i sound like I'm happy that Isis exists and is murdering people? Is that how i sound like the 'scumbag why the airport fired'? I believe you, and i think you sound rediculous. That doesn't change the fact that the USA is still responsible for Isis.

      • ausmechkeyboards on 28/05/2016 - 18:02
        -1

        due to Malikis power grab kicking out all the Sunnis from government.

        Bunch of nonsense. The Iraqi government is laid out in a way where this is literally not possible. Maliki was the democratically elected leader of the country, not a dictator, and he was eventually cycled out by his own party after a replacement was approved by the (Sunni) President and was eventually sworn in by the (Sunni) Speaker of Parliament. Sunnis continue to hold twice their proportional per capita representation in the government.

        Saddam repressed Sunni nationalism as much as Shia.

        All the way until 1992 where the Iraqi Ba'ath party began it's slow burn into Sunni Islamism.

        I'll be happy to source you all of those claims if needed, but I suggest you Google it for yourself.

        You can't source any of it, because you're making it up. You don't know what you're talking about - not even remotely. The best part is that you're more or less an outright ISIS apologist, claiming that ISIS is the legitimate representation of Iraq's Sunnis. The only other group to do that is.. well.. ISIS. That's pretty funny actually.

        • c0balt on 29/05/2016 - 12:07

          Here we go, back to 2007 and how Maliki's government was ethnically purging the army of prominent Sunni members (which in your comments above wrote that could never happen, and you called a bunch of nonsense).

          "Since March 1, at least 16 army and national police commanders have been fired, detained or pressured to resign; at least nine of them are Sunnis, according to U.S. military documents shown to The Washington Post. Although some of the officers appear to have been fired for legitimate reasons, such as poor performance or corruption, several were considered to be among the better Iraqi officers in the field. The dismissals have angered U.S. and Iraqi leaders who say the Shiite-led government is sabotaging the military to achieve sectarian goals."
          https://www.globalpolicy.org/component/content/article/168/3…

          In 2011 Maliki had his Sunni Vice President arrested for terrorism. So either Maliki was actually arresting a terrorist (very likely), or fueling the sectarian divide. If the VP was legitamitely a terrorist then it's an indication of how divided Iraq become under Maliki's stewardship to the point where your own Vice President is the enemy.
          http://www.juancole.com/2011/12/iraqs-al-maliki-seeks-arrest…

          So tell everyone again how the government was set up in a way that this couldn't happen?

          There's a lot more out there. Quite a few leading up to Maliki begging the US for intervention due to his divisive sectarian policies.

          In addition here's a list of Maliki's incompetencies and how he is responsible for turning the transition of power, into a power play causing the power vaccuum.
          http://www.juancole.com/2014/08/mistakes-maliki-country.html

          IS does represent a lot of Sunnis in Iraq - The Iraq Sunnis make up the majority of IS manpower in Iraq and provide a ton of material support.
          http://www.newstatesman.com/international-politics/2014/08/w…

          Sunni's also oppose IS. The 2 are not mutually exclusive, the same way a Kurd can fight with the YPG, FSA, SDF or even IS/Nursa.
          http://www.wsj.com/articles/sunni-tribes-in-iraq-divided-ove…

          I can source my comments but you didn't source a single one of yours despite that drivel you laid out. You got a source for Saddam and the Baath party 'being Sunni extremists from 1992'? Or would you prefer to continue to sling insults such as calling me an 'IS apologist' for saying and having the sources to show that Maliki is more to blame than the USA for the situation Iraq is in now.

        • ausmechkeyboards on 29/05/2016 - 13:17
          -1

          @c0balt:

          due to Malikis power grab kicking out all the Sunnis from government

          Where is a single source for this? Arresting the terrorist VP is not kicking out all the Sunnis from government. Here's the cabinet that came in with Maliki's second term, and if you know any of the names on that list, you'd know that just under half of them are Sunni.

          If the VP was legitamitely a terrorist then it's an indication of how divided Iraq become under Maliki's stewardship to the point where your own Vice President is the enemy

          The cabinet isn't made up of the succesful party's own group, like how Liberal party ministers would fill ministry posts if the Liberal partywas to win, instead there is a set requirement for different ethnic and religious groups. The government ends up extremely dysfunctional because no one will agree to anything that isn't a general pay rise. Both of the last Presidents are (Sunni) Kurdish separatists, the former house speaker (Sunni) supported the "2014 uprising" and the current (Sunni) house speaker has just been semi-ousted for calling all of the anti-ISIS volunteer forces something along the lines of "terrorists."

          This covers 99% of the Shia-Sunni divide in the country and Iraq under Maliki's leadership: https://medium.com/@IraqiSecurity/the-fantasy-of-sectarian-r…

          IS does represent a lot of Sunnis in Iraq

          Found the ISIS supporter. Bye.

    • NBAD25 on 27/05/2016 - 10:02

      You're not wrong obviously from a moral standpoint, being the richest countries in the world we rely on the bulk of humanity to be enslaved and working deep in Congolese mines to make our OnePlus Ones.

      But I think the government gets people on the technicality that these organisations are in a bad list, some unelected official conjured up, and we have to fall in line with that ideology and way of thinking otherwise you're an enemy of Australia.

    • Gershom on 27/05/2016 - 10:37
      -3

      USA has created and supported many terrorist organizations as weapons against self determined states, Al Qaeda being one of them.

      ROTFLMAO. The depth of your self delusion is mind boggling. People get really funny when talking about situations they know nothing about.

      • [Deactivated] on 29/05/2016 - 09:07

        Why would you block your ears and deny it. It's not even something the USA government wants to hide, so it's easy enough to Google. Look on YouTube for videos with Noam Chomsky. He is well respected internationally and just speaks the truth.

        • Gershom on 29/05/2016 - 14:40
          -3

          Noam Chomsky. He is well respected internationally and just speaks the truth.

          ROTFLMAO. Yep a well known truther. And the CIA did 9/11, and the moon landings were done in Hollywood. Yep, really well respected, amongst the green socialist conspiracy theorists. Chomsky. FFS MAN!

        • [Deactivated] on 01/06/2016 - 10:06

          @Gershom: my comment= reasonable. Your comment=conspiracy theories. Why you gotta troll? Now we know you just being contrary.

  • Flowerbomb on 26/05/2016 - 13:58
    +2

    I use my Facebook and Instagram accounts to stalk other profiles. Barely any personal photos. I don't feel the need to "show off" my latest purchases, diet or whinge online. That's the way it should be especially if you are working in a professional and conservative environment.

  • antzz on 26/05/2016 - 17:01
    +2

    No work friend, no customer, no supplier on social media is my motto

  • ronnknee on 26/05/2016 - 18:38

    If people followed some basic rules of using social media, then it would be fine.

    1. Keep your profile private if possible.
    2. Don't say anything that could be used to incriminate yourself.
    3. Avoid befriending colleagues (especially managers) unless you 100% trust them.
  • belongsinforums on 26/05/2016 - 21:31
    -2

    I recently discovered an excellent solution that I used to think was impossible: deactivation or deletion of your facebook account! May as well now, considering how facebook is censoring users

  • [Deactivated] on 26/05/2016 - 21:44

    One time it happened to me where I was off sick one day (genuine sickness) and my mother did me a favour that day by getting my car serviced for me while I was sick. My girlfriend wrote on my wall "I hope your car had a good service". A co-worker (who was a sticky nose) had my girlfriend and I on Facebook, noticed this, assumed that I got my car service while I was supposedly sick, reported it to my supervisor. I got accused of taking a sickie by my boss. My boss believed my story, but if she hadn't, I could have been fired.

    • tomsco on 27/05/2016 - 06:40
      +2

      I could have been fired.

      At which point, Fairwork would tear them a new hole.

      • NBAD25 on 27/05/2016 - 10:05

        Or he would get investigated by HR and fired, and then a post of his story would end up on ozbargain, where people will call him scum.

        • jenkemjunkie on 29/05/2016 - 08:09
          +1

          I dunno man, he sounds like an ISIS apologist to me

    • ronnknee on 27/05/2016 - 10:52

      Your mistake was adding an untrustworthy colleague on Facebook.

      • [Deactivated] on 27/05/2016 - 11:50
        +1

        Agreed. That person, while influential, never gave me a reason not to trust before. In fact I thought we were work "friends".

        After that some Facebook privacy settings were changed so that they could never see anything useful again (without me having to fully unfriend them and face that awkwardness) on both our accounts

  • belongsinforums on 26/05/2016 - 21:48

    An old workmate stupidly posted photos of himself partying while taking a sickie. Work was nice enough to simply correct his behaviour, rather than dismiss him.

  • [Deactivated] on 27/05/2016 - 08:59

    For all the people who say 'don't befriend coworkers on social media' are you friends with your coworkers in real life?
    Like do you go out together on weekends or days off?

    • damnscenekids on 28/05/2016 - 00:12

      What do the two have to do with each other?

      • [Deactivated] on 28/05/2016 - 07:31

        Normally if you are close enough to socialise on the weekends by choice you would have pictures together. What do you do with them?

    • mjjeje on 28/05/2016 - 23:52

      I'm very selective when friending my coworkers, and I only friended the ones I really trust. And with the others, eventhough I go out together, I simply tell them I don't use my social media a lot.

    • jenkemjunkie on 29/05/2016 - 08:10

      I simply don't shit where I eat.

  • NBAD25 on 27/05/2016 - 09:57
    +1

    Let me get this straight, this guy commented on a shared or liked video on FB, these days even liking a video is enough for FB to post it on other peoples feeds.

    Then when he was questioned he said that he said he supports fully the governments stance against the organisation, deleted the comment and even said that he is in a group that opposes religious extremism. Plus he's a Sikh, good Sikhs are tolerant of all religions and things, and at worse bad Sikhs are just anti-Pakistan/Muslim.

    Then he was fired.

    All right… sounds like a stitch up, maybe the issue will be 'investigated' by peoples other than their inhouse HR and AFP buddies.

  • Gershom on 27/05/2016 - 10:29
    +1

    John Doe posts something controversial about a hot topic like ISIS. The company finds out and fires him. HOW?

    Beats me. Just coz he published it on the WORLD WIDE web for anyone on the planet to see, and someone saw it? Go figure!

  • centrelink on 27/05/2016 - 12:29
    +2

    If we had this technology 500 years ago. You'd all lynch someone for saying he world is not flat.

    • cypher67 on 27/05/2016 - 13:54
      +4

      Wow spoiler alert

  • henryph-am on 27/05/2016 - 12:49
    +1

    A few things to consider:
    1. Do not add people who you work with.
    2. Do not add your workplace to your profile, unless it's linkedin
    3. Use a dummy account for work if you really need one
    4. Utilise the privacy settings, utilise the block function

  • stralya on 27/05/2016 - 13:55
    +1

    '+ 1 for everyone who says 'Don't add your work colleagues'. I learnt it the hard way. Not so long ago, I used to work at Woolworths head office in Sydney. My manager was on my LinkedIn network. One day, I liked an article titled "Employees don't leave a bad company, they leave a bad manager". My manager was livid, threatened to fire me, and launched into an intense process of bullying. Of course, I de-linked him on LinkedIn, but I suspect one of my co-workers was forwarding him a list of articles I liked on LinkedIn on a daily basis. So any time I liked an article, the bullying would escalate - ranging from verbal abuse to threats of sacking. Eventually, after HR refused to interfere, I just quit Woolworths Ltd.

    • Euphemistic on 27/05/2016 - 23:44
      +5

      Sounds like you left a bad manager!

    • [Deactivated] on 28/05/2016 - 07:32
      +2

      WHAT LOSER DOBS IN another staff member?
      That irks me. If the staff member wants to post things then the risk is on them. Why intentionally dob them in?

      • wyrmy on 28/05/2016 - 09:19
        +4

        Lots of arse-kissing show ponies out there. If they can't succeed on their own skills and merit they try and bring other people down.

        • Johndemonic on 28/05/2016 - 23:52

          Unemployment has its perks sometimes, not being exposed to shallow and dishonest people on a daily basis. Can we just hurry with a basic income for all?

  • [Deactivated] on 27/05/2016 - 15:40

    Mr Singh maintains he did nothing wrong by posting “We All Support ISIS” on Facebook and said he was in fact a member of a secret group against religious extremism.

    Wow. A secret group, huh? Sounds like a delusional cockhead. You know who else was a delusional cockhead? This guy:http://www.abc.net.au/7.30/content/2015/s4242253.htm

    • airzone on 27/05/2016 - 20:07
      +1

      Please, it's an 18" barnyard garden sculpture, not a cock.

  • Serapis on 27/05/2016 - 21:58

    Normally when someone takes a picture or video with your browser in the background and sees you have porn tabs open. Kinda like this lol

    Virginia Congressional candidate Mike Webb shares screenshot with porn

  • Neverpayretail on 28/05/2016 - 09:26

    http://www.tsu.co/NBray/125286026 This is basic but gives you a true idea of your actually reach with a friends only post. TLDR Its many more than just number of people on your friends list.

    Combine that with the 6 Degree of sepration idea and its not a matter of IF your post will be discovered but WHEN your post will be discovered. Even if you never friend any other employees or employers or like your companies page you can still get cuaght out. This was eye opening for me.

    • [Deactivated] on 28/05/2016 - 09:38
      +1

      I cull people when we no longer socialise in real life.
      Having 700 friends or whatever seems weird to me. Would you really walk around showing your pictures to 700 people? It's the same thing.

      • Neverpayretail on 28/05/2016 - 09:46

        That doesn't really make much of a difference if your friends have that person in common as if you exisiting friends just like or comment it appears on THEIR feed. So your reach is actually friends and friends of friends. So unless you get all your friends to unfriend them as well it may not make a difference.

  • kima on 28/05/2016 - 10:18
    +3

    Yeah i still don't understand why companies are allowed to fire people for things they do outside of work hours that they are not being paid for that time. Nintendo just fired a girl for moonlighting. Even if someone commits and illegal activity in their private time, the courts decide punishment. I don't see how its accepted when employers take action. Cases where they leak sensitive workplace information i can understand. Complaining about work doesn't always cross the line to me unless they name them and whats said not true.

    But If I have nothing on facebook saying where I work and I said (to friends only) "My boss was horrible today" then you can be fired and people have. I actually think that the employer should be the one getting into trouble for interfering in the employees private conversations outside of work (spying of people), and that its a clear statement from the employee of bullying which they are also responsible for. Some of these situations even caused the employee depression and then they punish them for having depression.

    • nobro25 on 29/05/2016 - 06:13

      Well I'm not trying to disagree or agree with you. Here's just my thoughts on it.

      1.For the company "maybe', they don't want any gossip/pictures/videos posted or shared outside of the work environment which "may" potentially harm the company's image in any shape or form.

      1. That fact that these companies have the right to do so probably means they have a legal sector to write these policies up to is "supposedly protect and maintain the integrity of the business".

      2. Living your life outside the company is fine. But I think they consider that anything associated "with" the company deemed company property! And if it's found out in the public it has every right to take ownership of it and make the person/persons who created it liable for any damaged caused! It's more or less the matter of the face value of the company. No one likes rumors or pictures of their dirty landuary aired out into the public, otherwise they will lose their sense of professionalism and integrity to possible shareholders and business partners depending how viral things may escalate. They want to control how the social norm thinks about the company rather a random viral leak, where trolls will flock to possibly damaging the reputation of the company, or it could make it famous!
        Either way it's just one man's opinion take it or leave it.

      • kima on 29/05/2016 - 12:51
        +1

        yes of course they want that and that is my point.

        Employers are doing more than protecting their company - they are actually interfering in employees private affairs that are none of their business - literally.

        Companies want to not hire women, not hire disabled people, not hire unwed mothers or homosexuals or people of different race or religion, or fat people or ugly people or short people or tall people. This has been proven by the abuse that has lead to discrimination laws being made. Companies even want people to be unpaid slaves if they can. which they have done and still do sadly

        people are not company property and the company shouldn't have a right to dictate their private lives outside of work. A lot of business these days find it acceptable to demand the employers be switched on 24/7 and answer calls and emails in out of work hours.

  • StewBalls on 29/05/2016 - 10:07
    -1

    I'm often staggered by the really inappropriate stuff people openly post on social media. You'd be surprised at the number of potential job applicants we immediately cull because of what's on their social media, and I think it's going to be a significant ongoing workplace issue very soon.

    One of our (female) staff has some really lurid photos of herself in lingerie on her FB page…a couple of my (male) colleagues regularly check them out using their own personal FB accounts. Luckily, I don't do the social media thing, and whenever they've tried to show me I'm not interested…blatantly skanky actually isn't a turn-on for me.

    It's my understanding that FB keeps logs of accounts that view these kind of things; so whilst it's not really professional for her to have such revealing pics posted, I suppose it's still her choice; but I often wonder if these guys are not opening themselves up to a world of workplace sexual harassment hurt if she finds out they've been leering at her online?

    • kima on 29/05/2016 - 11:46
      +1

      blatantly skanky does work on a lot of men though, i have seen big corporations hire women purely because the men got aroused and their professional intelligence stopped working.

      one of the positions was a graduate position and it was competitive, a girl who had not even started the course, who had no experience in the field and was simply a receptionist before came in blouse unbuttoned, had half the board supporting her - guess which half.

      All the "heads" had personal assistance who were simply staying back after work getting more personal.

      • StewBalls on 29/05/2016 - 11:58
        +1

        i have seen big corporations hire women purely because the men got aroused and their professional intelligence stopped working.

        Not just big corps, a lot of the smaller NGOs we deal with are guilty of exactly the same thing…

    • [Deactivated] on 29/05/2016 - 11:48

      If they view them on company time then they would probably be in more trouble than viewing them at home. As you said, she is making an informed choice to share those images and make them public or at least share them with everyone she has friended which presumably includes her colleagues.

      When they are trying to show you I would be even more explicit in saying you don't want them to even try to show you because if it does hit the fan you could be implicated even though you've made no effort to view them.

      It would be absurd for her report them for viewing the images she puts up as sexual harassment It'd be like wearing a ridiculously low-cut top with no bra to work everyday and then complaining about people noticing your breasts. You don't have to dress like a Nun or don a burka but you don't have to emphasise your body parts either.

      • StewBalls on 29/05/2016 - 12:17
        +1

        When they are trying to show you I would be even more explicit in saying you don't want them to even try to show…

        Good advice, yes I am always really explicit with this stuff in the workplace, as I'll go on to say, I've had the benefit of learning vicariously through others' mistakes.

        It would be absurd for her report them for viewing the images she puts up as sexual harassment…

        Whilst I do agree 110% with you, working in the human services field I've seen some spectacularly frivolous & vexatious charges of harassment actually get over the line with management. Like you said, best to be really straight down the line with this kind of stuff at work & steer well clear of any ambiguity.

      • [Deactivated] on 10/06/2016 - 10:12

        Juddy - Having body parts does not entitle other people to leer at/ogle/sexually harass you at work. Even if someone is dressed inappropriately, it's still illegal.

Login or Join to leave a comment
Login Join