That's a pretty awful idea. Likely anyone who caved did so because they either have a face FB profile, or they're desperate for a job. Neither one really says anything about their ability as a candidate. Anyone who refused would either not have a FB account, or they would be so insulted by the question they wouldn't want to work for your company anyway. Most of them would probably not buy the "oh, it was just a test" explanation, and avoid your company like the plague.
So in essence, you would be selecting out the very candidates you'd want to hire.
On the other, I think it would be stronger to let market forces end this practice
No, it wouldn't Not with the high unemployment levels we're currently experiencing.
If enough people simply stand up and walk out when asked to cough up their facebook information, the practice would stop immediately because the company would be unable to hire anyone
No it wouldn't. They'd simply claim there's no qualified applicants, and get an H1-B visa to do it.
If the work force were more united and less divided, market forces could dictate more workplace friendly policies
That would be a great thing. Unfortunately half the workforce has fallen under the influence of the ultra right-wing, Tea Party, "not allowing business to do whatever they want is anti-business!"
However, because Americans live in such abject fear, most are likely to just aquiesce so we need a law to provide a security blanket for the fearful.
Or, it's because of reality, and the fact that most people simply do not have the bargaining position necessary to rebuff these requests.
I hate laws like this, which are so needlessly specific to handle ephemeral trends. Why didn't they just make it illegal to impersonate other people? Who profited by lobbying against that?
I would far, far, far rather employers be told "NO! You can't do this! Bad employer!" pre-emptively than for the practice to actually take hold. It would be a lot harder to get rid of it, and business would bitch and moan even more how saying they can't do it is "anti-business".
If you are one of the uber controlling assholes who would dare not hire someone because they won't let you do something illegal, I hope your business goes bankrupt and brings you down with it, leaving you to live under an overpass.
Interviewer: Well, it's been nice meeting you. We've decided to go with Ben over here, who really needs the job, and is willing to surrender his credentials. Don't let the door hit you on the ass on the way out.
Regarding 2 and 3, there are many LEGAL substances which do the same thing. Alcohol has a demonstrable negative effect on a person's mental faculties. If that was the reason they were drug checking, then why not check for alcohol? I'd imagine it'd be just as common, if not more so, than weed.
I can see not wanting people to be under the influence while at work, and that would be perfectly ok.
"I'm going to choose the guy without a substance habit, because there's less likelihood the "sober" guy is going to spiral out of control and leave my business hanging at the worst possible moment."
Really? So sober guys never develop gambling addictions? Never get hooked on WoW? Never decide to flake off because you treat your employees like shit?
"Drugs actually *do* affect performance, no matter how much you and your stoner friends like to pretend your habit doesn't impair you."
Depends on the drug, and many of them don't have an effect when you're not on them.
Further, I really don't give a shit about your business. You still have no right to anything outside of the workplace regarding your employee.
Probably because they like paying rent and eating rather than starving in a gutter.
It is just asking for more heartache and headaches in the future.
Not nearly as much as one where you don't have a place to live or food in your belly.
Get it through your fucking head: NOT EVERYONE HAS THE ABILITY TO TURN DOWN JOBS. Should these people simply be fucked over like this, just because they can?
If I asked somebody for their Facebook password in a job interview, and they gave it to me, that would tell me that they don't have enough clue to be worth hiring:-)
If you are out of work for almost 2 years, and you're insanely desperate for any kind of paycheck, you'd do almost whatever they'd ask to try and get a job. And people like you would look down on them for this.
1). Where does an unemployed person find the money for a lawyer?
2). In just about every "Right to Work" state there is, the employer does not actually have to state the reason why they are firing you. Leaving the burden completely on you to prove that the fired you because of not handing over the FB password. And likely they will have something else stored away for just such an occasion, like a violation of the "Network Acceptable Use Policy" (He browsed Slashdot at work!).
Going on Twitter or Facebook and marketing "I was fired for not giving my Facebook Password" would create enough backlash that the company would lose in the end
Unlikely. That doesn't mean that the person shouldn't spam every news outlet and social media site with the info, I just don't think it would have the effect you believe it would.
And why would you want to work for such a company in the first place?
I'm going to assume he enjoys paying rent and eating food. Not everyone has the perfect job mobility you apparently do, and some people really do have to tough out very shitty jobs for a while. This is just a measure to cut down on the abuse and make those jobs a little less shitty.
It really does depend on what those charges are. In the case you're talking about, they were corruption charges. But there are a number of felony misdemeanors, or any felonies for that matter, which wouldn't really show corruption. A governor getting arrested for a DUI, for example, would probably show that said governor is an idiot, but not necessarily that they are corrupt. If anything, I'd almost say that their conviction on that charge might prove the opposite.
Slashdot Mirror
In that case, I made the choice to log into FB at work. In this case, I'm not having any real choice in the matter, especially if I'm on unemployment.
So you are o.k. with an employer whose HR policy involves routinely breaking contracts?
As stated above, it really depends on how long it was since I could last afford food.
In most cases, a shitty employer is still better than having no employer (and no paycheck) at all.
That's a pretty awful idea. Likely anyone who caved did so because they either have a face FB profile, or they're desperate for a job. Neither one really says anything about their ability as a candidate. Anyone who refused would either not have a FB account, or they would be so insulted by the question they wouldn't want to work for your company anyway. Most of them would probably not buy the "oh, it was just a test" explanation, and avoid your company like the plague.
So in essence, you would be selecting out the very candidates you'd want to hire.
Bullshit. There are absolutely no rights being eroded in this bill. Go back to FoxNews.com and rant about the government some more.
My point is that killing a bunch of people, which is what you were obviously implying, is not going to solve anything.
If the lawyer will take the case for a cut of the proceeds, what do you have to lose?
That's a pretty big IF. And the fact that you have to prove said wrongdoing makes it less likely that IF will happen.
Again, you have to be able to actually prove it. That's not going to be easy.
I still like the idea of explicitly telling employers, "NO! You can't do this!"
If your future employer asks you to break contracts, you are fine with that?
Depends. How long since I was last able to afford food?
On the other, I think it would be stronger to let market forces end this practice
No, it wouldn't Not with the high unemployment levels we're currently experiencing.
If enough people simply stand up and walk out when asked to cough up their facebook information, the practice would stop immediately because the company would be unable to hire anyone
No it wouldn't. They'd simply claim there's no qualified applicants, and get an H1-B visa to do it.
If the work force were more united and less divided, market forces could dictate more workplace friendly policies
That would be a great thing. Unfortunately half the workforce has fallen under the influence of the ultra right-wing, Tea Party, "not allowing business to do whatever they want is anti-business!"
However, because Americans live in such abject fear, most are likely to just aquiesce so we need a law to provide a security blanket for the fearful.
Or, it's because of reality, and the fact that most people simply do not have the bargaining position necessary to rebuff these requests.
I hate laws like this, which are so needlessly specific to handle ephemeral trends. Why didn't they just make it illegal to impersonate other people? Who profited by lobbying against that?
Debt collectors and private investigators.
If it's already public and accessible, then why are they asking for my password?
There's more stuff on a FB account that might not be public. Direct messages, for one.
I would far, far, far rather employers be told "NO! You can't do this! Bad employer!" pre-emptively than for the practice to actually take hold. It would be a lot harder to get rid of it, and business would bitch and moan even more how saying they can't do it is "anti-business".
If you are one of the uber controlling assholes who would dare not hire someone because they won't let you do something illegal, I hope your business goes bankrupt and brings you down with it, leaving you to live under an overpass.
Not everything on a Facebook profile is public.
Interviewer: Well, it's been nice meeting you. We've decided to go with Ben over here, who really needs the job, and is willing to surrender his credentials. Don't let the door hit you on the ass on the way out.
Regarding 2 and 3, there are many LEGAL substances which do the same thing. Alcohol has a demonstrable negative effect on a person's mental faculties. If that was the reason they were drug checking, then why not check for alcohol? I'd imagine it'd be just as common, if not more so, than weed.
I can see not wanting people to be under the influence while at work, and that would be perfectly ok.
"I'm going to choose the guy without a substance habit, because there's less likelihood the "sober" guy is going to spiral out of control and leave my business hanging at the worst possible moment."
Really? So sober guys never develop gambling addictions? Never get hooked on WoW? Never decide to flake off because you treat your employees like shit?
"Drugs actually *do* affect performance, no matter how much you and your stoner friends like to pretend your habit doesn't impair you."
Depends on the drug, and many of them don't have an effect when you're not on them.
Further, I really don't give a shit about your business. You still have no right to anything outside of the workplace regarding your employee.
No, the problem is that employees have very little bargaining power compared to employers today, and that many of them still like to eat.
I hope the idea that you still "have balls" would provide you comfort when you're unable to find a job.
Why would you want to work for such a place?
Probably because they like paying rent and eating rather than starving in a gutter.
It is just asking for more heartache and headaches in the future.
Not nearly as much as one where you don't have a place to live or food in your belly.
Get it through your fucking head: NOT EVERYONE HAS THE ABILITY TO TURN DOWN JOBS. Should these people simply be fucked over like this, just because they can?
If I asked somebody for their Facebook password in a job interview, and they gave it to me, that would tell me that they don't have enough clue to be worth hiring :-)
If you are out of work for almost 2 years, and you're insanely desperate for any kind of paycheck, you'd do almost whatever they'd ask to try and get a job. And people like you would look down on them for this.
No, not even close.
1). Where does an unemployed person find the money for a lawyer?
2). In just about every "Right to Work" state there is, the employer does not actually have to state the reason why they are firing you. Leaving the burden completely on you to prove that the fired you because of not handing over the FB password. And likely they will have something else stored away for just such an occasion, like a violation of the "Network Acceptable Use Policy" (He browsed Slashdot at work!).
I hope that thought gives you comfort while you're starving in a gutter.
Going on Twitter or Facebook and marketing "I was fired for not giving my Facebook Password" would create enough backlash that the company would lose in the end
Unlikely. That doesn't mean that the person shouldn't spam every news outlet and social media site with the info, I just don't think it would have the effect you believe it would.
And why would you want to work for such a company in the first place?
I'm going to assume he enjoys paying rent and eating food. Not everyone has the perfect job mobility you apparently do, and some people really do have to tough out very shitty jobs for a while. This is just a measure to cut down on the abuse and make those jobs a little less shitty.
It really does depend on what those charges are. In the case you're talking about, they were corruption charges. But there are a number of felony misdemeanors, or any felonies for that matter, which wouldn't really show corruption. A governor getting arrested for a DUI, for example, would probably show that said governor is an idiot, but not necessarily that they are corrupt. If anything, I'd almost say that their conviction on that charge might prove the opposite.