Montana City Requires Workers' Internet Accounts

justinlindh writes "Bozeman, Montana is now requiring all applicants for city jobs to furnish Internet account information for 'background checking.' A portion of the application reads, "Please list any and all, current personal or business websites, web pages or memberships on any Internet-based chat rooms, social clubs or forums, to include, but not limited to: Facebook, Google, Yahoo, YouTube.com, MySpace, etc.' The article goes on to mention, 'There are then three lines where applicants can list the Web sites, their user names and log-in information and their passwords.'"

Comments

Unpopular

[mlingojones]

According to the online poll accompanying the article, 98% of respondents think it's an invasion of privacy.

That's as big a landslide as it gets, folks.

Re:They really understand what they are asking for

[gujo-odori]

Judging by TFA, it was apparently vetted by their city attorney. Maybe even written by him.

Oh, wait. Anyone with a clue. Never mind. Nothing to see here, folks. Move along, move along.

Re:I call FUD

[YrWrstNtmr]

Its on the Background check form.

You know what to do

[stbill79]

I've just contacted the Montana ACLU Here

The article links to a video interview with Greg Sullivan Bozeman City Attorney here (right side of page), who defends the policy.

His Contact info:

City Attorney Greg Sullivan gsullivan@bozeman.net 406-582-2309

What I just emailed off to Mr. Sullivan

Greg Sullivan

Your city's requirement for job applicants to provide a list of all personal internet memberships, logins, and passwords has recently come to my attention. I have just requested that the Montana ACLU investigate this policy as it seems a severe invasion of privacy. I have always appreciated the state of Montana's noble defense of the Constitution, exemplified with recent decisions by the state to support 2nd amendment rights. Your city's applicant policy is the exact opposite of what I'd expect from the state of Montana, and I would urge you to seriously reconsider this requirement.

Re:WTF

[schmiddy]

You jest, but it's actually common to see job postings phishing for all sorts of personal information up to and including SSNs and DOBs. Be careful with any job postings, particularly from companies you don't know/trust. http://blog.washingtonpost.com/thecheckout/2007/02/looking_for_a_job_phishers_are.html

Re:WTF

[dgatwood]

Depending on the union, you may just be exchanging one set of meaningless crap for another... like the union person at a conference I attended recently in which he couldn't leave the side of the computer unlocked so that people could plug cards in for testing purposes. He had to stand around for an hour and a half just in case he needed to unlock it. Or the TV unions in which you have your job and if you even touch a piece of equipment that's not on your list---even outside of work hours to lean how to use it---instant union grievance. Of course, the people who aren't jackasses poke fun at this and laugh about it, but there are enough people who take it seriously and crack the whip that it can make life for the workers genuinely unpleasant. And so on.

If unions were solely about collective bargaining, were entirely run by regular full-time workers (without significant time off for being the union boss or whatever), and were not designed around bizarre apprenticeship models dating back to the middle ages, there's no question but what unions would be great for workers. Unfortunately, enough unions stray far enough outside those lines that in many cases they are a worse taskmaster than the companies from which they are supposedly trying to protect you.

Re:WTF

[element-o.p.]

Unfortunately, enough unions stray far enough outside those lines that in many cases they are a worse taskmaster than the companies from which they are supposedly trying to protect you.

That's been my experience in the one union I was in. My working relationship with my employer was great...until the group went union (it was a done deal by the time I started working there). At that point, my boss became paranoid about being grieved for anything and everything, and therefore, the freedom I had had to just do what needed to be done disappeared. Two examples: 4-10 work weeks ("No, the Collective Bargaining Agreement specifies 5-8s for your position") and combining two 15 minute breaks and the 30 minute lunch break into a single lunch break of 1 hour ("No, the Collective Bargaining Agreement says that you have to be given a 15 minute break after 2 hours, a 30 minute lunch at four hours and another 15 minute break at 6 hours").

The Collective Bargaining Agreement that governs your workplace is truly a double-edged sword. It limits what your employer can require you to do, but it also limits what your employer can allow you to do as well.