zlacker

My point is that just having the profile is data. He can’t predict what impact making this data public will have.

>>travis+(OP)
Companies that are worth a shit don't retaliate against people for looking at other opportunities. That's precisely why your Tinder example is not just off base, it's wrong.

Another way to look at it: either you're a replaceable cog, or you're essential to running the business. If you're essential, they're going to do whatever they can to keep you. If you're replaceable, they probably don't care that much whether you in particular stay or go, but it will certainly cost money to replace you, which they'd rather avoid spending.

Only a completely irrational company would cut someone loose just because an online profile with that person's name on it appeared somewhere.

>>pmille+W
It's additional risk that nobody asked for.

>>pmille+W
Very few companies are worth a shit.

>>pmille+W
Being fired because you're perceived to be looking for other jobs probably isn't a realistic concern. But being passed up for promotions or missing out on desirable opportunities because you're perceived to be looking for other jobs is a very real possibility, even if you're not easily replaceable.

The Tinder analogy is imperfect because of that, but it's still a good illustration of how just the existence of a profile can destroy your plausible deniability.

>>pmille+W
If I had to lay off one of two employees in a role, both do the role fine, but I strongly suspect one of the two has been looking to leave... Which of the two am I keeping?

>>tfehri+IE
> Being fired because you're perceived to be looking for other jobs probably isn't a realistic concern.

It definitely is.