Return Styles: Pseud0ch, Terminal, Valhalla, NES, Geocities, Blue Moon.

Pages: 1-

How does it feel to be unemployable?

Name: Anonymous 2015-07-05 21:11

"We will not hire applicants who do not allow us to view their facebook accounts."

Name: Anonymous 2015-07-05 21:15

I have nothing incriminating on mine. I do all my embarrassing antics on this board.

Name: Anonymous 2015-07-05 22:55

I'm sorry but just whom are you quoting?

Name: Anonymous 2015-07-05 23:53

>>3
whom are you quoting?
Who are you quoting?

Name: Anonymous 2015-07-06 1:49

>>2
having a facebook
FUCK OFF

Name: RedCream 2015-07-06 2:21

Luckily I have a Facebook page under the name John Smith.

Name: Anonymous 2015-07-06 3:07

>>5
no u

Name: Anonymous 2015-07-06 3:12

What if I don't have Shitbook account?

Name: Anonymous 2015-07-06 19:49

>>4
Whom is grammatically correct while who isn't, you stupid sack of shit.
>>5
Whom are you quoting?

Name: Anonymous 2015-07-06 20:56

>>8
everyone does, you're lying if you don't

Name: Check em 2015-07-06 22:24

>>9
They are both correct, actually.

Name: Anonymous 2015-07-06 22:49

>>9
Whom are you quoting?
Who are you quoting?

Name: Anonymous 2015-07-09 22:35

could it be considered discrimination to not hire someone for not having a facebook?

>>10
i deleted mine 4 or 5 years ago.

Name: Anonymous 2015-07-10 3:18

>>13
http://www.dmagazine.com/publications/d-ceo/2012/january-february/why-recruiters-use-social-media-background-checks
survey in September 2011 ... revealed that a stunning 91 percent of recruiters screen applicants using social networks.
Nearly 70 percent of the recruiters responded that they had rejected a candidate because of what they viewed on a social networking site. The reasons range from the predictable posting of inappropriate photos or comments (cited by 11 percent of the recruiters) to online depictions of alcohol or drug use (9 percent and 10 percent, respectively) to even more troubling workplace-related red flags. These include posting negative comments about a previous employer (a factor relied on by 11 percent of the recruiters), lying about their qualifications (at 13 percent, the most widely-cited reason), and sharing confidential information from a former employer (7 percent).

Name: Anonymous 2015-07-10 3:23

Belonging to or “liking” an online group like “This Is America, I Shouldn’t Have to Press 1 for English,” for example, is not likely to win over a future employer keen on maintaining a tolerant workplace. And with the growing number of photo- and video-gathering sites that use facial recognition software, a prospective employer can find you in a rioting crowd the same way the police can.

Name: Anonymous 2015-07-10 3:39

>>13
could it be considered discrimination to not hire someone for not having a facebook?
Consider that: you company mostly employs african-americans to do menial work. Some white male applies by mistake. Hiring him into your black collective would make no sense.

Name: RedCream 2015-07-10 9:20

EXCLUSIVE BLACK COALLECTIVE

Name: Anonymous 2015-07-10 13:30

>>16
my company is literally 100% white. The closest we have to a non white is a greek guy. its great.

>>14
this is citing times employers have refused to hire based on seeing social media posts, not refusing based on not having access to their social media.

Name: Anonymous 2015-07-10 13:33

Name: Anonymous 2015-07-10 13:34

lack of a Facebook profile means there were so many violations that the account had to be deleted, or that the person in question has psychopathic tendencies.

Name: Anonymous 2015-07-10 13:45

>>20
Fuck you must be a sandnigger or chink because the language of Whites is english and you just slaughtered it so it clearly must not be your first language

Name: Anonymous 2015-07-10 14:33

✔ em

Don't change these.
Name: Email:
Entire Thread Thread List