You are correct. But, again, proving discrimination is very difficult, and in fact it's just about impossible for a plaintiff to win unless there exists somewhere in writing (or on a recording) that you didn't hire so-and-so specifically because of their race/religion/sex/etc. And most people won't even bother to sue because of that.
While I am not old enough to be discriminated against by age (yet), having known people who were let go due to age, it turns out that age discrimination is notoriously difficult to prove and prosecute. It almost never works. So, you know, good luck. "Rejected for not having a Facebook account" is not a straight line to "Rejected for being too old," so that would make it much, much harder. Hard enough that it won't be worth anyone's time to pursue.
They aren't forbidden to know that information, they just aren't allowed to not hire you as a result of it (was that enough negatives for you?).
It is not illegal to deny you a job just because you wouldn't share your Facebook info, though. There is just no law about that, as far as I know. There are things they definitely can't ask, but social networking info isn't one of them.
Well, I guess it depends on who is vetting the candidates. If someone in HR is doing this screening, then your resume may not ever make it to someone technical who can see that you're a good candidate for the position. HR just throws you in the trash since you wouldn't cooperate and open up your Facebook details.
And it's not like the development department is typically going to be setting HR's recruitment policies.
So... if you are the AC who made the post I originally replied to, your point doesn't hold up. The employer won't care that you walked out. You'll be out of a job, they'll easily have someone else fill the position.
I don't think what you are talking about falls under any kind of anti-discrimination law. Privacy law, perhaps. But the US is notoriously lax about protecting people's privacy in just about any context, with the big bold exception of health information.
I do think employers should be forbidden from examining what you do off the clock, unless they have what you would legally call a "demonstrable need" for such information. Say, for instance, you are a TV news anchor--therefore a recognizable, public individual. What people see you doing during your off time would obviously reflect on your employer.
But Joe Programmer? Nobody knows who the fuck he is, so if he gets shitfaced on the weekends and pics are put on Facebook, does that really reflect on his employer at all? You'd be hard-pressed to make that case.
Well, I was just viewing it from the perspective of your typical HR dunce.:) "What do you mean, you don't have a Facebook account? Is something wrong with you??"
There's only a difference if you allow there to be. I only friend people that I actually know on some level--I know them in real life, or I've interacted with them substantially online. I don't approve requests from people I don't know at all, or just barely know. Some people make it a game, seeing if they can collect over 1000 friends or whatever. Just because they do it doesn't mean you have to. I have about 150 and that's not likely to fluctuate much.
Except an employer doesn't need you. They just need someone. If it's a highly competitive position, they aren't going to give a shit if you walk out--they've got 100 other candidates to pick from, and only a handful might pull the same "I'm not sharing my Facebook info" routine.
Clearly, some people's solution to rudeness is to be passive-aggressive assholes. No thanks.
If I have a problem with someone chatting on their cell in an inappropriate venue (or talking way too loud, as is most often the case), I am happy to say so.
Sounds like you went to a shitty college. I hang out with some college students, including a couple philosophy majors, and all they ever do is debate about Kant, et al. They seem pretty well-versed in the history of philosophy.
"Population" is a really vague descriptor, don't you think? North Korea has roughly 21 million people. With some very, very rough calculations, 240,000 metric tons of food is a bit over 5 days' worth of food for all 21 million people. Of course, there are massive variables here, like how much food each person would really get, and how long all this is meant to last, but I'm just trying to illustrate that this isn't very much food in terms of any sort of long-term assistance for the whole country. It will be rationed and most likely hoarded by those in positions of political/military power, so it will primarily benefit the regime, not the citizenry as a whole.
Further talks with North Korea are important, though, and I hope some good comes of this eventually.
Apple's not in the business of researching, producing, and selling bleeding-edge computers. Apple's focus is primarily on pleasant design, intuitive user interfaces, and an overall integrated experience using commodity-grade hardware.
(I say this as someone who doesn't even buy their products.)
1. Most users don't back anything up. 2. Most users have no clue whatsoever how to set up a server of any kind, nor to properly configure their firewall/router for remote access. 3. It's easier to share things on a platform your friends and family are already using than for everybody to have their own. 4. Bandwidth has become cheap and prevalent enough that pushing data around public networks is relatively quick and convenient.
Everyone could have their own "Cloud" on their home PC, but until someone develops a perfectly slick package that does everything Cloud services do in a completely idiot-proof fashion, Cloud services are going to keep gaining momentum.
Yeah, but the school system can only hold its own employees accountable, so their hands are basically tied. Fire teachers, fire administrators, etc. You can't fire students, you can't fire parents.
Slashdot Mirror
You are correct. But, again, proving discrimination is very difficult, and in fact it's just about impossible for a plaintiff to win unless there exists somewhere in writing (or on a recording) that you didn't hire so-and-so specifically because of their race/religion/sex/etc. And most people won't even bother to sue because of that.
While I am not old enough to be discriminated against by age (yet), having known people who were let go due to age, it turns out that age discrimination is notoriously difficult to prove and prosecute. It almost never works. So, you know, good luck. "Rejected for not having a Facebook account" is not a straight line to "Rejected for being too old," so that would make it much, much harder. Hard enough that it won't be worth anyone's time to pursue.
They aren't forbidden to know that information, they just aren't allowed to not hire you as a result of it (was that enough negatives for you?).
It is not illegal to deny you a job just because you wouldn't share your Facebook info, though. There is just no law about that, as far as I know. There are things they definitely can't ask, but social networking info isn't one of them.
Well, I guess it depends on who is vetting the candidates. If someone in HR is doing this screening, then your resume may not ever make it to someone technical who can see that you're a good candidate for the position. HR just throws you in the trash since you wouldn't cooperate and open up your Facebook details.
And it's not like the development department is typically going to be setting HR's recruitment policies.
So... if you are the AC who made the post I originally replied to, your point doesn't hold up. The employer won't care that you walked out. You'll be out of a job, they'll easily have someone else fill the position.
I don't think what you are talking about falls under any kind of anti-discrimination law. Privacy law, perhaps. But the US is notoriously lax about protecting people's privacy in just about any context, with the big bold exception of health information.
I do think employers should be forbidden from examining what you do off the clock, unless they have what you would legally call a "demonstrable need" for such information. Say, for instance, you are a TV news anchor--therefore a recognizable, public individual. What people see you doing during your off time would obviously reflect on your employer.
But Joe Programmer? Nobody knows who the fuck he is, so if he gets shitfaced on the weekends and pics are put on Facebook, does that really reflect on his employer at all? You'd be hard-pressed to make that case.
Well, I was just viewing it from the perspective of your typical HR dunce. :) "What do you mean, you don't have a Facebook account? Is something wrong with you??"
There's only a difference if you allow there to be. I only friend people that I actually know on some level--I know them in real life, or I've interacted with them substantially online. I don't approve requests from people I don't know at all, or just barely know. Some people make it a game, seeing if they can collect over 1000 friends or whatever. Just because they do it doesn't mean you have to. I have about 150 and that's not likely to fluctuate much.
You're either a liar, a paranoid lunatic, or socially crippled. Either way, they don't want you.
Except an employer doesn't need you. They just need someone. If it's a highly competitive position, they aren't going to give a shit if you walk out--they've got 100 other candidates to pick from, and only a handful might pull the same "I'm not sharing my Facebook info" routine.
Punching a hole right in the center ought to do it.
Clearly, some people's solution to rudeness is to be passive-aggressive assholes. No thanks.
If I have a problem with someone chatting on their cell in an inappropriate venue (or talking way too loud, as is most often the case), I am happy to say so.
Sounds like you went to a shitty college. I hang out with some college students, including a couple philosophy majors, and all they ever do is debate about Kant, et al. They seem pretty well-versed in the history of philosophy.
But where are you going to find an inverted tachyon pulse generator?!
"Population" is a really vague descriptor, don't you think? North Korea has roughly 21 million people. With some very, very rough calculations, 240,000 metric tons of food is a bit over 5 days' worth of food for all 21 million people. Of course, there are massive variables here, like how much food each person would really get, and how long all this is meant to last, but I'm just trying to illustrate that this isn't very much food in terms of any sort of long-term assistance for the whole country. It will be rationed and most likely hoarded by those in positions of political/military power, so it will primarily benefit the regime, not the citizenry as a whole.
Further talks with North Korea are important, though, and I hope some good comes of this eventually.
Apple's not in the business of researching, producing, and selling bleeding-edge computers. Apple's focus is primarily on pleasant design, intuitive user interfaces, and an overall integrated experience using commodity-grade hardware.
(I say this as someone who doesn't even buy their products.)
The Cloud is successful for a few reasons:
1. Most users don't back anything up.
2. Most users have no clue whatsoever how to set up a server of any kind, nor to properly configure their firewall/router for remote access.
3. It's easier to share things on a platform your friends and family are already using than for everybody to have their own.
4. Bandwidth has become cheap and prevalent enough that pushing data around public networks is relatively quick and convenient.
Everyone could have their own "Cloud" on their home PC, but until someone develops a perfectly slick package that does everything Cloud services do in a completely idiot-proof fashion, Cloud services are going to keep gaining momentum.
Everything that goes wrong is either the fault of the government doing too much, or not enough--or even both. Count on it!
Yes, but I don't think most people are willing to go to prison over their right to play non-DRMed games.
Yeah, but the school system can only hold its own employees accountable, so their hands are basically tied. Fire teachers, fire administrators, etc. You can't fire students, you can't fire parents.
Ah, so another way to punish the poor. No thanks.
Quite true. But doing something about that is much, much harder (read: politically difficult) than just firing teachers and closing schools.
Spend that money on nicotine gum/patches so you'll live to see your daughter grow up.
Older generations didn't really have good options for quitting smokes (besides cold turkey). We do. Use them.
OK, that's one of the funniest twists on that meme I've seen in quite a while. Wish I had mod points for you. :)
I meant "firing all the teachers in a school." Oops. :)