My Space and kids

[orljustin]

And Myspace is the only location for photographs of said models?

As far as I know, when I ask for images, and I get a link to a myspace page.

 

[Ariel Mae]

Well of course you do.

Ditto.

Why on earth would you think that what you say, where you go and how you act are irrelevant to whether or not a potential employer finds you desirable to hire?!

Because it's seeming that what you do on the internet is far more applicable than who you really are.

As long as you do not belong to a protected class, i.e. race, religion, ethnic background, handicap status, age, sexual orientation, I can hire you or not hire you on any criteria I want.

Actually, no. You cannot hire based upon discrimination, unless it is neccessary, and in this day and age, the internet falls under such.

I can decide not to hire anyone who chews gum in the interview, or anyone who was late to the interview, or anyone who wears mismatched socks or has spelling mistakes in their resume or posts naked pictures of themselves on the internet.

If you have applicable, bonified reasons. You can't just not hire someone because they chew gum in the interview. That doesn't fall under EEOC or BFOQ regulation.

How do you hire anyone, for any job? You interview them, check their references, and decide if they are a good fit for the job. You aren't ever going to know if they will be good at the job or not - you have to make a judgement based on your thoughts and feelings. You make judgements based on the way they come across - in their resume, in their interview, in their appearance...

You interview them, check their provided sources/references, and you decided based on that, not based on the cover.

I wear tight shirts.

Does that mean I'm a s**t?

No, it just means I like tight shirts.

You make judgements based on how they apply themselves, not how they dress.

Any employer will tell you that.

Ariel Mae, with all due respect, you are extrapolating your CJ professor's advice into an arena where his expertise does not lie, which any licensed attorney will tell you is a VERY bad idea. This isn't criminal law.

His expertise lies in determining a 'good' employee from a 'bad' employee. It's not about criminal law, but law, period.

Your impression of what is and is not allowed under the various federal laws within the EEOC's charge is mistaken on several counts. (And by the way, there are six federal laws which the EEOC is charged with enforcing, but none of the laws is *called* the EEOC. The EEOC is an agency, not a law.) I suggest that you brush up on your case law and take a long look at this website before broadcasting your opinions on this matter any further: http://www.eeoc.gov/


The EEOC is an agency that regulates law. If the EEOC deems it inappropriate, based on a certain law, it's inappropriate, no ifs, ands, or buts

PS: If, as it appears in your postings, your CJ professor is a LEO, you should understand that his opinions may not be fully valid outside of civil service settings. Hiring rules that apply for government agencies may be more strict than those for private enterprises in certain areas.

Hiring rules for government agencies are actually more flax than federal and regular agencies. Hiring rules will vary from place to place, but work force discrimination sticks and stands.

 

[orljustin]

It's what we're taught in College. One's Myspace, one's websites, does not matter in credibility of being hired.

Well guess what?

Employers use 'internet reputations' to make decisions about job applicants:
http://www.personneltoday.com/Artic...-reputations-to-make-decisions-about-job.html
"A quarter of HR decision-makers have actually rejected applicants on the basis of dubious personal information found online."

Over half of employers say internet activity affects recruitment decisions
http://www.tgdaily.com/content/view/31380/118/
"According to a recent survey one in five employers finds information about candidates on sites such as MySpace and Facebook, and 59% of those said it influences recruitment decisions, with one quarter having rejected candidates based on internet research."

There's plenty more:
http://news.google.com/news?q=employers myspace

Because it's seeming that what you do on the internet is far more applicable than who you really are.

I don't understand this. You seem to be under the impression that what you do online or anywhere else is some fantasy world. Whatever you put online is a reflection of you. If you say you like to do bong hits while doing vodka shots, everyday, that's relevant. If that was some kind of fantasy made up to impress friends, then you're a liar and a publicity hound.

And most people are living in that fantasy from the stuff I've seen - it's a record on who they went out with last weekend and what they did.

 

[bluesaturn]

Not sure about the last few pages... but I'm just responding to the OP. I think if you can encourage your older daughter and her boyfriend and whoever else was involved to talk to your younger daughter she may be more likely to open up to them. Obviously she has a very strong desire to use this website, and you want someone to talk to her about it. I know your younger daughter is mad now, but I think it could be very useful to encourage her to talk to your older daughter. I monitor my younger sister's myspace, and there is nothing inappropriate on it. I tell her right away when something is questionable and needs to be changed... and I tell her WHY... how it reflects badly on her and makes her seem like someone she is not. She doesn't mind me looking at her page either because i'm not "mean ol' mom".

Another thing I wanted to mention is that sometimes when you think you picked a really good punishment, but it just doesn't work, because the kids don't really care about what you're taking away. My sister told me one day that she didn't really care when she got her cell phone taken away, because she could just use the computer and the home phone, and therefore the threat meant nothing. Sometimes you have to hit them where it hurts, and it might take a while to discover where that is. Taking the whole computer works sometimes. Maybe try taking away her make up, hair straightener, digital camera. Or maybe you can even give her extra chores to do, since she obviously has time on her hands. Ask the school to ban her from the library if you think she's going on the computer there (if that is possible at your school). Hopefully she'll finally snap out of it when she realizes life locked down isn't any fun.

I guess the last suggestion I have is to offer her some hope. Explain to her that you would like to trust her again, and when she earns that trust back you are willing to give her back some of those privledges she lost. I know sometimes teenagers feel liek they are already in the hole so far, mom and dad will NEVER let them do anything again, so why not just keep doing whatever you can get away with. Maybe even an inkling that there is freedom in the future will help change her mind.

I don't know what will work, but these are the things I thought of as I remembered what it was like to be in trouble in high school. Good luck with it all!

 

[Maleficent13]

Ariel Mae, please take this in the spirit in which it is intended. The world is not the case study it appears from the protected walls of college. I assure you, if a manager does not want to hire you based on the fact that you chewed gum in the interview, you will not get hired, even if you have the POTUS as a job reference. They do not have to have a "bonafide reason". I can hire whomever I feel is the best fit for the job I'm trying to fill. The most qualified person may not be the best fit, believe it or not.

You may not like to hear it, but your internet interactions, if traceable back to your real name, may be used against you if they are of a "questionable nature" to those looking to hire. It doesn't matter if you feel that is "unfair", or judging a book by its cover. If you don't want your internet actions to follow you to your job interviews, then don't have any. It is the only way to ensure you won't have to deal with this.

 

[orljustin]

Actually, no. You cannot hire based upon discrimination, unless it is neccessary, and in this day and age, the internet falls under such.

That isn't discrimination. That's making a decision based on information. It's the same thing as not hiring someone in an interview because you didn't think they'd make a good fit with the team. You have information, you evaluate it and make a decision.

But I don't even do that complex of hiring. I just need people who like to smile. If I can't easily find images like that, they don't get the job. It tells me they aren't serious about modeling.

 

[Ariel Mae]

I don't understand this. You seem to be under the impression that what you do online or anywhere else is some fantasy world. Whatever you put online is a reflection of you. If you say you like to do bong hits while doing vodka shots, everyday, that's relevant. If that was some kind of fantasy made up to impress friends, then you're a liar and a publicity hound.

Who you are online isn't neccessarily who you are offline.

I'm more open online, shy offline.

It's not a reflection on who I am offline.

Not at all.

Now, can I change who I am online? Probably not. I just have this easier feeling opening up onlin than I do offline. It's not something I can change with the flip of a switch.

Well guess what?

Employers use 'internet reputations' to make decisions about job applicants:
http://www.personneltoday.com/Articl...about-job.html
"A quarter of HR decision-makers have actually rejected applicants on the basis of dubious personal information found online."

Over half of employers say internet activity affects recruitment decisions
http://www.tgdaily.com/content/view/31380/118/
"According to a recent survey one in five employers finds information about candidates on sites such as MySpace and Facebook, and 59% of those said it influences recruitment decisions, with one quarter having rejected candidates based on internet research."

There's plenty more:
http://news.google.com/news?q=employers myspace

Employers do it, but it's not credible, nor preferred.

At least, not locally.

When they hire, they hire based on the person's resume, interview, and application to the job. They hire based on what the person provides, the sources, and their references, not on some second hand form of information. They don't look to word of mouth, and they certainly don't look to websites that aren't on that preferred reference list.

At least, that's how many of the banks, schools, and law offices work.

 

[Ariel Mae]

That isn't discrimination. That's making a decision based on information. It's the same thing as not hiring someone in an interview because you didn't think they'd make a good fit with the team. You have information, you evaluate it and make a decision.

It's discrimination based on a second hand source, a source not provided in the reference list.

You evaluate and decided based on what is given, not what is given second hand

But I don't even do that complex of hiring. I just need people who like to smile. If I can't easily find images like that, they don't get the job. It tells me they aren't serious about modeling.

Really? One inappropriate picture means that they aren't serious, period? Now that is judgement. That has no regulation, you can probably do that, but I highly disagree, because it's inappropriate in itself.

Ariel Mae, please take this in the spirit in which it is intended. The world is not the case study it appears from the protected walls of college. I assure you, if a manager does not want to hire you based on the fact that you chewed gum in the interview, you will not get hired, even if you have the POTUS as a job reference. They do not have to have a "bonified reason". I can hire whomever I feel is the best fit for the job I'm trying to fill. The most qualified person may not be the best fit, believe it or not.

You have to apply to the BFOQ. Period. Any and every job applies to that standard, because, likewise, it goes against the law.

You can't not hire just because someone chewed gum in an interview.

Why? Because there's no bonified reason that says the person shouldn't chew gum in the workforce. Unless it's written in the rules, which is a different tide.

Just like with an arrest, with probable cause, you have to have 'bonified reasons'.

If you didn't, such would not exist in law.

You may not like to hear it, but your internet interactions, if traceable back to your real name, may be used against you if they are of a "questionable nature" to those looking to hire. It doesn't matter if you feel that is "unfair", or judging a book by its cover. If you don't want your internet actions to follow you to your job interviews, then don't have any. It is the only way to ensure you won't have to deal with this.

It's not about being 'unfair', it's about following rules, regulations, and law.

 

[MrsPete]

Ariel Mae, please take this in the spirit in which it is intended. The world is not the case study it appears from the protected walls of college. I assure you, if a manager does not want to hire you based on the fact that you chewed gum in the interview, you will not get hired, even if you have the POTUS as a job reference. They do not have to have a "bonified reason". I can hire whomever I feel is the best fit for the job I'm trying to fill. The most qualified person may not be the best fit, believe it or not.

You may not like to hear it, but your internet interactions, if traceable back to your real name, may be used against you if they are of a "questionable nature" to those looking to hire. It doesn't matter if you feel that is "unfair", or judging a book by its cover. If you don't want your internet actions to follow you to your job interviews, then don't have any. It is the only way to ensure you won't have to deal with this.

Maleficent's absolutely right. This IS the way things work in the real world; thinking otherwise is naive.

 

[orljustin]

You evaluate and decided based on what is given, not what is given second hand

Second hand? It's not second hand. It's right from your hand. It can't be more fresh than that?

Really? One inappropriate picture means that they aren't serious, period? Now that is judgement. That has no regulation, you can probably do that, but I highly disagree, because it's inappropriate in itself.

I'm not talking about inappropriate pictures. Let me clearer, if that is possible. When I post an online ad, looking for models, I specify that I need clear, professional, or at least really nice amateur, head and body shots. Not webcam or celphone shots. When someone sends me a link to a myspace page, inevitably the images are buried in a blog post, or in an unaccessible section of the profile. Even when I find them, it is shots from the bar, or the frat house, or the concert. I do not have time to dig through their perceived persona. If they cannot supply what I have asked for, I don't have the time to waste on them for a freelance gig.

 

[AprilShowers]

There seems to be a bit of a thread hi-jack here. I'd like to refer to the OP.
You've got me scared out of my wits. I have two DD's 13 & 11. How do I even know IF they have MYSPACE pages? How can I look for them? I've never even been on that website.
Do I just go on there and search for their names? How did you find her pages? Can you help me check up on my kids?
Thanks and good luck with your DD.

 

[Maleficent13]

Let me state it more simply: if I have 1 opening, and 10 qualified candidates, I'm still only hiring 1 person. Of the 10 qualified, I'm not hiring the gum chewer. I'm going to pick one of the others. I don't have to hire all 10 simply because they are qualified.

 

[Monte Cristo]

It's discrimination based on a second hand source, a source not provided in the reference list.

You evaluate and decided based on what is given, not what is given second hand



Really? One inappropriate picture means that they aren't serious, period? Now that is judgement. That has no regulation, you can probably do that, but I highly disagree, because it's inappropriate in itself.



You have to apply to the BFOQ. Period. Any and every job applies to that standard, because, likewise, it goes against the law.

You can't not hire just because someone chewed gum in an interview.

Why? Because there's no bonified reason that says the person shouldn't chew gum in the workforce. Unless it's written in the rules, which is a different tide.

Just like with an arrest, with probable cause, you have to have 'bonified reasons'.

If you didn't, such would not exist in law.



It's not about being 'unfair', it's about following rules, regulations, and law.

Can I politely ask where you are from? The statements you have put here in this thread are incredible.

 

[MrsPete]

It's not about being 'unfair', it's about following rules, regulations, and law.

There are no laws protecting people from their own online words (or pictures). When you put something on the 'net, it's out there -- perhaps forever. Employers ARE allowed to look at anything that's public domain, and it CAN either help or hurt you.

Taking it one step further, they are also allowed to look at your credit history, perhaps even your medical records. Employers ARE able to make hiring decisions based upon all these things.

Employers also don't have to give a bonafide reason for NOT hiring a certain applicant. (Sure, people bring up discrimination sometimes, but it's incredibly difficult to win such a case, and if there's a website out there, that's going to be a huge factor AGAINST a discrimination case.) It's entirely possible that the most qualified applicant isn't hired -- nothing wrong with that. Perhaps the employee fears that he's only looking for a short-term job, and he wouldn't stay long. It's entirely possible that the interviewer just doesn't feel that the applicant would mesh well with the office, or he just doesn't have the feeling that the applicant would be dedicated to his or her work -- even if there's no concrete reason for thinking this. One inappropriate picture COULD easily lead the interviewer to a negative first-impression of a potential employee, and that first-impression could easily be a make-or-break factor.

Before being hired, applicants don't have a whole lot of rights.

 

[Sandy V.]

When they hire, they hire based on the person's resume, interview, and application to the job. They hire based on what the person provides, the sources, and their references, not on some second hand form of information. They don't look to word of mouth, and they certainly don't look to websites that aren't on that preferred reference list.

At least, that's how many of the banks, schools, and law offices work.

You are incorrect about how many law offices hire. Both public and private ones. They are VERY concerned with what you're like away from the office as well as what you're like when you're there. Your known personal traits/habits may be a reason you are rejected, and yes, word of mouth (your reputation in the community) can cross you off the list of possible hires, no matter how well-qualified you are on paper and how glowing your recommendations are.

I can't speak to other professions, but that is how the "real world" works as to the legal profession. You would NEVER (or rarely) hire someone without asking around.

 

[NotUrsula]

You know, normally I wouldn't pick on spelling, but in this context I think it is relevant.

I also wouldn't hire a CJ student who consistently mis-spelled bona fide as "bonified", and I defy you to find ANY attorney who would take the discrimination case if I didn't. Bad spelling is the kiss of death for anyone whose job requires handling legal documents.

BFOQ (Bona Fide Occupational Qualifications) are specifically required in defense of cases where an employer wishes to discriminate against a person who would otherwise be a member of a protected class, the defining factors of which are, as we have already mentioned: age, religion, race/ethnicity, pregnancy, disability, and gender. If the point on which I am discriminating is not affected by class protection, BFOQ's don't matter at all.

 

[MrsPete]

Let me state it more simply: if I have 1 opening, and 10 qualified candidates, I'm still only hiring 1 person. Of the 10 qualified, I'm not hiring the gum chewer. I'm going to pick one of the others. I don't have to hire all 10 simply because they are qualified.

Exactly! If I've decided that gum-chewing is one of my criteria, then the gum-chewer is going to weed himself out of the competition -- and he may never know that.

Just today I was going through a huge stack of applications (not for jobs, but for a highly-coveted student group), and a large number of students "weeded themselves out", though they probably didn't realize it. I took late application forms with a smile, but I put them aside and didn't even consider them (if the student can't meet the application deadline, he's probably going to miss deadlines for me too). Incomplete applications, of course, automatically went into my reject pile. Incomplete sentences, misspelled words, messy applications -- immediate rejects (this is a writing group, so those applications make me believe that the students aren't going to put the effort in to complete a polished, professional product). Once I'd done that, I read the rest of the applications for content. That's the way the real world works. Some of those incompete applications might've come from fantastic students who'd have been fantastic group members and who would've brought spark and creativity to the project, but they won't get a chance -- they screwed themselves over. First impressions matter.

 

[va32h]

Why? Because there's no bonified reason that says the person shouldn't chew gum in the workforce. Unless it's written in the rules, which is a different tide.

If you were applying for a job with me, I would refuse to hire you because "bonified" is not the same as bona fide, and I have no idea what the hell that last sentence was supposed to mean.

So sue me.

 

[MrsPete]

You are incorrect about how many law offices hire. Both public and private ones. They are VERY concerned with what you're like away from the office as well as what you're like when you're there. Your known personal traits/habits may be a reason you are rejected, and yes, word of mouth (your reputation in the community) can cross you off the list of possible hires, no matter how well-qualified you are on paper and how glowing your recommendations are.

I can't speak to other professions, but that is how the "real world" works as to the legal profession. You would NEVER (or rarely) hire someone without asking around.

I don't know anything about law offices, but this same thing is true for teachers. I personally know a couple teachers who were fired for their "after hours" behavior -- not many, but a few; these things DO reflect upon the teacher and DO affect his or her ability to present a professional face to students. Teachers all know that this morality clause is in effect.

 

[DemonLlama]

There seems to be a bit of a thread hi-jack here. I'd like to refer to the OP.
You've got me scared out of my wits. I have two DD's 13 & 11. How do I even know IF they have MYSPACE pages? How can I look for them? I've never even been on that website.
Do I just go on there and search for their names? How did you find her pages? Can you help me check up on my kids?
Thanks and good luck with your DD.

The easiest way for you to see if your DDs have been on MySpace is to check the history on your internet browser. Typically, it stores the URLs to all sites visited in the past number of weeks. That is, if someone isn't already aware of it and is clearing it out on a regular basis. If they are frequently over a friends houses and playing on the computer, that may be another place to check the history, if it's something you could bring up with the friend's mom.

But honestly, the first thing I would do is just ask them.

MySpace needs to be used carefully, like any other public forum, but there are lots of folks on MySpace who are there to stay connected with their friends and nothing more. I've got a page, as does my husband, and our 14 year old son. His must stay set to private and he must keep us on his friends list. The other rule we have is that he "friends" only people he knows in real life. It's worked fine for us. Do some of his friends use language I'd rather they not? Yes. Does he? No. And that's my main focus.