How to lose your job on your own time

The Web is a window on personal lives, and employers can peer in.
The New York Times

The story "How to lose your job on your own time" published December 30, 2007 at 11:05 AM is no longer available on CNET News.

Content from The New York Times expires after 7 days.

[Penguinisto]

Overblown...

First off, corporations simply do not have time go snooping around the average employee's web-doings (assuming that would even be possible in most cases).

This means that only if an employer (or, let's face it, a manager) is really looking to fire someone, or if the employee did something really outrageous and public that reflects on the corp, would they even bother.

I suspect it would be a rare case indeed, because it cuts both ways. Board Members often have skeletons in their closets too...

Long story short - if an employer has enough free time to go nosing around in what employers do at home, then they're obviously not a company you'd want to work for in the first place. Either they're wasting money and time, they're short on active business, or they prefer image over talent (which IMHO is a sure recipe for strangling future business growth).

Personally, I wouldn't give a damn if one of my junior admins was a flaming BDSM freak who showed up daily wearing bondage pants and had a website at home dedicated to slash pr0n... if the guy/gal can build services and write hella elegant script, I'll do everything I can to keep him or her on the payroll.

/P

[Had_to_be_said]

I think you kinda missed the point...

"Employers" should be prevented, by law, from "firing" employees (read that: denying them their livelihood) because they [the "employer"] disagrees with the lifestyle, or rights-exercised (on an employees OWN-time). PERIOD.

If employers cannot understand the, basic truth, (that they do not OWN their employees and, that every human-being has certain INALIENABLE BASIC-RIGHTS)... then that business -should- be severely penalized.

Of course... the Government wont do that. They [the Government] have spent, literally, decades actually asking "private business" to do things to -citizens-, that the Government would have found to be completely-illegal to do directly to -citizens-. So, expect to see a lot more of this kind of BULLSH*T.

The "Internet" is fundamentally-irrelevant to this issue (as is, "bad-mouthing" an employer... which most often isnt even the case).

America, where everybody is equal... Some people are, clearly, just a hell-of-a-lot more "equal", than others (...loose transcription from: "Animal Farm"... though, Orwells "1984" is equally applicable).

[Andy kaufman]

Well now you know

why all of the emo liberal whiners cannot hold a job. They are too busy whining about their job and managers on the Internet rather than doing the job they are paid to do. When management learns about how they really feel about the job or managers, that is when they get fired or laid off.

It is mostly people who cannot control their emotions, the emo person. It is mostly a left-wing person like a liberal because they cannot control what they say and just talk badly about everything. It is usually the whiner type, that blames everyone but themselves for their own failure at life. Rather than take responsibility for their own actions and behaviors, and learn from their mistakes, they just blame whatever scapegoat they can get. Be it the President, or some rich person, or a corporation, or maybe their employer who just fired them for spending too much time on the Internet trashing the company and its managers?

Sure they have the freedom of speech, but that does not protect them from an employer discovering it and using it to fire them. After all, there is no civil right for people who choose to slack off on the job and refuse to do their fair share of the work and make it a lot harder for the rest of us who do more than our own fair share and usually have to carry on 3 or more slackers on our team just to get things done.

9 times out of 10, its a Mac User as well, we know how emotional they can get about loving a computer platform and hating any employer who forces them to use Windows at work.

[The_Decider]

That comment

Was either the funniest thing ever written or the most dumb.

Given your posting history I would say the latter.

[Penguinisto]

Nice Attempt, but Fails Miserably.

You sorta didn't read the part about employees doing these sites and such on their own time, brain trust.

Gotta love it...

/P

[ralfthedog]

Just a few points.

Listen to talk radio some time. It is not the Liberals that are ultra emo whiners. Most liberals think the world is a good place that could be a bit better. Listen to any Conservative.

"Taxes are far to high, I can hardly pay for food or gas anymore...."

"The great liberal conspiricy won't let me take my laptop batteries or my gun on a plane..."

"WAAAA, The liberals in Hollywood don't make the movies I want to see. They should all be kicked out and people should only watch westerns...."

Fact, Liberals test higher than conservatives on standardized tests. Smarter people may not have less emotion than stupid people, but intelligence tends to moderate emotion (How can you quantify emotion?). If you understand why you are sitting at a red light or why you pay taxes, you may be just as mad, but you can control your anger.

Fact, liberals tend to be better educated than conservatives. Like intelligence, knowledge is a buffer to emotion. A person who has little knowledge of the world must live in fear.

In psychology, there is a phenomenon called transference. If you are scared of rabbits, you see a person run across the street, you will think that they are running from a rabbit. You transfer your fear to your image of them. As you assume liberals are emo whiners who can not hold a job, and you are one of the biggest whiners I have seen on the internet, I would assume that deep down, you see yourself as a an incompetent emo and are afraid of loosing your job.

Most liberals I know make 100k or more a year (that is the low side, many I know make 10 times that much.). Most conservatives I know live paycheck to paycheck if they have a job. Most Mac users are in the top income bracket, want the best product on the market, and don't care what it costs.

PS. As a liberal I don't have time to whine. I prefer to spend my time running my corporation.

PPS. I know you are tempted to make some snide remark about my intelligence because of some spelling or grammar mistake I have made. I will save you the trouble. I am profoundly dyslexic. My spelling bites the big pickle.

[Marcus Westrup]

It's My life.

I decided long ago, that I had to be true to myself first and foremost. If I lost a job over something I post online, then that was the wrong job for me anyway. I will NOT let my soul be stripped away one piece at a time - that is not what life is about.

In fact, this link sums up my feelings exactly:
http://xkcd.com/137/

[dargon19888]

You are correct.

It is your life and at least you are willing to take responsibility for your own personal actions.

Another poster is correct. What you say and do online can and will haunt you later in life.

If a company is looking for an excuse they will use anything to fire you, even in an "at will" state.

[Leria]

Right on

No one should really lose their job for what they post online, and we should be pushing for STRONG worker protection laws that make it so that NOTHING done outside of a workplace, even if it is illegal, can be taken into account when hiring and firing someone.

We should FORBID employers from running criminal background checks (which prove absolutely nothing in most cases since most convictions don't turn up on them) and forbid them from snooping online.

[KTLA_knew]

Like it or not, internet posting == publishing

Whether anyone wants to admit it or not, posting to the internet is no different that your content published in a magazine. If you have a racy photo that you publish to the net, expect the same treatment as if you published it in Playboy.

Should you be fired for that? I'm not saying anything about that, but just don't expect the internet to somehow be a place you can PUBLISH your content PUBLICLY and expect it to be somehow protected from anyone taking action based on it.

[No Man]

Absolutely

Its kind of ironic that half the bloggers of the world expect to receive the protections of journalists over content and sources, while the other half expect to receive the protections of personal property and privacy over the same type of information. You can't have it both ways.

[Penguinisto]

Agreed.

And very well-said.

/P

[WJeansonne]

Only Backstabbing Creeps Would Use it Against You

While Henry Ford was considered a genious, the guy was disgusting in so many ways. He hated Jews and snooped on his employees. A typical WASP in a leadership position during the industrial age. Or more precisely a CONTROL FREAK and anti-semite.

That said, it's most likely some creep in your office that will use any "dirt" they find on you the Web or elsewhere. As a manager, I don't give a rat's a** what you do in your private life so long as your are not aiding Al Qaeda.

[ralfthedog]

It depends.

If you were running a day care center, and one of your workers liked to talk about molesting children, you would have a moral and legal responsibility to fire the person on the spot (Assuming it was not someone else pretending to be your worker.)

If you run a trucking company and one of your workers started talking about how they packed away a bottle of vodka every night, you would need to check that out.

On the other hand, I have nothing to hide. That is why I post under my real name.

[sanenazok]

More like the proverbial straw

These privacy experts sure know how to pick'em. Of all the people that get fired for stupid photos posted on the web they had to pick a student teacher was was doing an UNSATISFACTORY job in any event. This points to only two conclusions: either the media is too lazy to investigate and find better/plausible cases OR this so called problem is really limited to CRAPPY workers. Given that the article is essentially a report on an article in a Chronicle laziness may be plausible.

The way I see it no corporation or other institution is going to fire someone of ANY WORTH for stuff the employee does on her own time. If they fire someone then the reasons will be multiple, just like with the student teacher. A school should be able to decide that a bad employee who posts pictures of herself as the "drunken pirate" is not worth keeping.

[JoeSmoe10]

Point still being missed.

Regardless of this particular case I have heard other similiar stories ( Sorry I am to lazy to dig up the URL's but feel free to locate them ).

Assuming the off-time activity was both legal and is the primarry reason for termination I have a scenerio for you.

What happens when all the worker is qualified to do is flip burgers or clean hotel rooms and they get fired because some random person snaps a picture of said worker 'Vince' at the local bar with a drink in his hand while were making a funny face in order to cheer up his girlfriend?

Are you implying that these people are not of ANY WORTH because they can easily be replaced? I sure hope not otherwise you got some other problems.

Without protection I wouldn't even have to explain why I fired Vince. Just that he engaged in inappropriate acts. Any believe me this is a damning statement. No employer is gonig to hire Vince once they hear that.

What? You think people don't check you out before you get hired? Vince can't lie about his previous employment because that IS a valid reason to be fired. If I fired Vince ( as above ) then the next potential employer *YOU* called me asking about him and I said that they engaged in inapropriate acts and they were summarily fired. Odds are you would think that the person you wanted to hire was surfing porn in front of customers or whatever YOU deem inaproppriate. Vince doesn't get the job. Why? Because there are other candidates that don't have this issue, why even ask Vince about it.

Employee's need to be protected from the whims of the random e-tarded manager's ability to ruin their lively hood without a good reason.

It IS true that if a company REALLY want's you gone they will come up with something (like being one minute late to work, forgetting to turn a light off etc.) however if the employee is protected then they will have to find something that you did wrong at work and is much less subjective.

[JoeSmoe10]

A new wrinkle for the nay-sayers

While oversees in the Corps I had a Sgt. who had it out for me because I slept with his wife. No, I didn't know she was married but that doesn't really matter. The only thing that matters is that we were 2 consenting adults AND she was not in the Military. Anyway this Sgt. did everything he could to do mess with me and in one instance went over the line, which got him in trouble and me moved to another unit. If I wasn't protected by the USMJ ( Military Law ) this Sgt. could have easily had me Dishonorably discharged and I would still have a hard time getting a decent job.

Employees have to be protected from these kinds of retaliatory actions which DO happen everyday.

[Penguinisto]

You violated the UCMJ yourself.

If you slept with the guy's wife, you violated article 134 of the UCMJ: That specific article prohibits adultery - and yes, section 3 applies:

[b]That, under the circumstances, the conduct of the accused was to the prejudice of good order and discipline in the armed forces or was of a nature to bring discredit upon the armed forces.[/b]

It does not matter if you knew about her marital status or not. Ignorance isn't an excuse if she was under-aged, so why would it be an exception if she decided to not wear a ring the night you met?

Also, the Military is a bad example of employee privacy in the first place, because of three factors:

1) a huge chunk of your legal rights (including privacy rights) are suspended and non-enforceable during your enlistment or commission,

2) there are specific standards of behavior that you are required to adhere to during that time, and...

3) ...you agreed to all of that by contract and by oath before you even left for boot camp.

[i]"this Sgt. could have easily had me Dishonorably discharged"[/i]

He would have been within his rights to.

/P

[The_Decider]

No he could not

"Sgt. could have easily had me Dishonorably discharged"

He does not have the power to dishonorably discharge you and you know it. If you went through boot camp you would know that a dishonorable discharge can only be carried out by a military court and commanding officers under certain circumstances.

He could have written you up, but that is all.

[suyts]

Your telling me

that you didn't know your NCO's wife? Right. If you were in the military, then you know that adultery is forbidden. The fact that there were two consenting adults doesn't apply in this case. That's U.S. military. You don't have rights and freedoms extended to most citizens. If you were in the military and you did sleep with your NCO's wife and you did know it, you should have been dishonorably discharged. It is btw, UCMJ. Personnel in the military do have a typical employer/employee relationship. Anyone that has ever HONORABLY worn the uniform understands this. Not only are there explicit codes of conduct but also implicit ones. You must have contributed greatly to the esprit de corps, you must be proud. But even in the civilian world, would you expect to have a job after screwing your bosses wife? And do you really think we should have laws protecting people that do?

[Dezl0ck]

Not going to be an issue to future executives

With the Baby Boomers entering retirement over the next 10 years this is not going to be of much concern. Generation X has already started making entry into executive management and state level politics. People in their late 20's and early 30's have grown up with social networks and the internet. When those people in Gen X and Gen Y are Directors and Vice Presidents, doubt they will care about the college student doing a keg stand on Facebook. At issue here is the fact that employees have ALWAYS done certain things on their off hours. The fact that employers have been unaware of them until now does not change the fact that they exist or the fact that workers are ordinary human beings. The employers that do care about off hours activities sound like the high school football coach that tried to regulate your behavior on and off the field. Nobody wants to play football for an idiot coach. Nobody will want to work for companies that make moral judgments about employee time outside the office.

[btalex1990]

That is Discrimination

So they are gonna use spying to make us all imprisoned slaves, we are back in the slave trade belieeve it or not, if your not a some perfect slave then all the sudden you could be fired.

You can't speak your mind, you can't unionize, you can't assemble, your whole life is controlled unless people rebelled going to work and try not to pay taxes, and boycotted the companys products.

It is illegal for a company to discriminate your age, illegal to pull random drug tests, illegal to discriminate religious or spiritual people, we are becoming like Gatica, where you have to be perfect, you have to be a non-questionable slave to get insurance, and get a job.

We need to protest, stage rallies, before this gets worse.

Stop illegal spying, hold Dick Cheney and Bush accountable for illegal spying and war crimes.

[sanenazok]

I don't beleive it

Slave trade? Why not throw in the Nazis in there as well? Also who's doing spying? Employers have a "right" to look at what the employee WILLINGLY posts on-line. It ain't spying if the information is posted publicly and instantly connected to the employee's name.

What's Bush got to do with it? War crimes? Get some rest after the New Year's!

[bluemist9999]

Everything we say on the Internet is public

Many things, such as MySpace postings, are available for everyone to see. Therefore, like it or not, anything we post to a chat room, newsgroup, or discussion board like this one, can and will be found out.

Put simply: don't say or post anything in an online posting that you wouldn't shout with a bullhorn (or perform) to a packed stadium full of strangers.

Do I feel it is fair to use one's personal conduct, off working hours and off the corporate network, against the person at work? Not at all. But my thinking it's fair or not doesn't magically change what other people will or won't do.

So I try to live my life according to what I wrote above.