An interesting article on CiF – even if it tells us nothing new – that serves as a reminder about what can happen if employers decide to search for our online activities.
Professional conflict around internet use is a subject I’m well-versed in, having experienced everything from management looking up my Twitter page in search of evidence that I was unhappy at work, to being blacklisted from a well-known arts title for apparently “showing disrespect” towards it in a blog entry. The latter, which happened early in my career, was particularly baffling and happened after I had applied there for work experience and openly listed the blog on my CV – would anyone really want to work for nothing somewhere they disrespect? Similarly, a friend and comedy-sketch writer was once turned down for an administration job after being told matter-of-factly that the company had found his comedy blog during an internet search and had considered it “completely inappropriate”.
I have mixed feelings about this issue. On the one hand, when we publish online as I am here, it is available for anyone to see. That is in part why I publish pseudonymously. Sure, if you want to, you can find out who I am, but a casual google on my name won’t just turn it up. Mostly what you will find is my cat stuff or out of date information relating to my Network Rail days. If you dig into some of the links, then yes, here it is in all its glory. Not that I feel ashamed of what I write, it’s just that “Longrider” is not entirely who I am, just as the “Devil’s Kitchen” is not entirely who the author is. The pseudonym is a persona through which we vent and express perhaps some of our more extreme thoughts. Thoughts, maybe, that we might not want to readily share with our employers for the sake of a quiet life. I don’t swear as much in real life – although I am prone to dropping the odd extreme libertarian idea into conversations to see what comes out the other side.
That said, I do have concerns about employers seeking out the witterings of employees. It is akin to slipping into their local and eavesdropping on their conversations with the express purpose of holding those conversations against them. What we say online really is nothing to do with the employer. They pay us to do a job of work. During work hours, what the employer says; goes, and that’s fair enough. Outside of work, providing it does not impinge detrimentally on the employer, it is none of their business and that is the way it should stay.
Upon which point; I would never give my blog details to an employer, let alone put it on my CV. This is outside of work and outside of work is where it stays. I resist absolutely any and every attempt by employers to probe into my personal life. What I do in the way of extracurricular activities is none of their business and I have always ensured that it stayed that way.
But just because it’s possible for employers to unearth background information that once would have been the preserve of the most diligent East German spy, does that mean they should?
Probably not, but human nature being what it is, they will. So, the best thing to do is to be careful about what we share, how we share it and with whom. Pseudonymous or anonymous publishing helps here.
There is a common belief that people who share information online are deliberately seeking attention, and therefore have it coming. Yet thinking that anyone with an online presence is out for publicity is as boneheaded as the idea that anyone who dresses up nicely is out to have indiscriminate sex.
I’m inclined to agree here. I don’t publish this blog to seek attention, I do it as a catharsis. It started (six years ago, now) as a way of raging against the government’s control freakery and erosion of civil liberties. And here I am still doing it. It’s a way of getting the rage off my chest without bursting some serious blood vessels. If people read it and it causes them to think about the issues, then that’s a bonus. So, yes, I’m no more attention seeking than the girl in the short skirt is asking for it.
The article refers to Facebook specifically. As people commenting point out, a more competent user would have set the privacy setting so that the casual uninvited visitor could not see the offending remarks. For me, this is not an issue as I don’t have a Facebook account, nor do I have a LinkedIn one. Neither have I felt tempted by Twitter, so there’s only this place, really. And, as I am self-employed, my employer doesn’t give a stuff.
Ditto to what you say. I blog pseudononymously with the understanding that anyone, certainly the authorities, could track me down very easily if they wanted to, but this way no one in my working life can accuse me of bringing any disrepute down on them. It’s also quite fun to have a separate persona, in my case paying homage to a little-known hero of this nation.
.-= My last blog ..One of my favourite singers =-.
“I do have concerns about employers seeking out the witterings of employees”
Sorry, don’t share them. As long as an individual has full privacy settings on their social network profiles and has not released them name online, an employer has no right (and no ability) to snoop on them. The basic right to privacy should be respected so long as people set up their profiles that way.
However, if someone leaves their profiles and information openly available to the public, they are fair game.
My point is that employers really shouldn’t be going looking in the first place. What people say and do outside of work is no concern of theirs. Hence my pub allegory. And, frankly, even if what they say is outrageous, it is still none of the employer’s business. They are paid to work, not be an owned drone.
6 years? Tempus fugit.
.-= My last blog ..Pre-election – a few words on each party =-.