RE: Privacy v. Employment

Collarspace Discussion Forums

Home Login Search

RE: Privacy v. Employment

View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid >> RE: Privacy v. Employment

Page: << < prev 1 2 [3]

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

RE: Privacy v. Employment - 3/27/2012 5:56:41 AM

Iamsemisweet

Posts: 3651
Joined: 4/9/2011
From: The Great Northwest, USA
Status: offline

How ironic, since companies are now demanding the right to make decisions based on their religious beliefs.

quote:

ORIGINAL: GrandPoobah

What you'd like to know is not in doubt, and you might well have great reasons for wanting that information. On the other hand, the LAW says you can't ask some of those things, and if you do, the applicant can claim discrimination...and YOU'LL LOSE! It really is that simple. I have a close friend who is an HR consultant, and she often talks about cases where she's appeared as an "expert witness." She talks about things like applicants who got thousands of dollars because the employer asked them their age, or one I recall where a group of five applicants got something like $10 million (collectively) because they were each asked about their religion.

_____________________________

Alice: But I don't want to go among mad people.
The Cat: Oh, you can't help that. We're all mad here. I'm mad. You're mad.
Alice: How do you know I'm mad?
The Cat: You must be. Or you wouldn't have come here.

(in reply to GrandPoobah)

Profile

Post #: 41

RE: Privacy v. Employment - 3/27/2012 7:19:31 AM

kalikshama

Posts: 14805
Joined: 8/8/2010
Status: offline

quote:

How ironic, since companies are now demanding the right to make decisions based on their religious beliefs.

I was reading about polygamy yesterday and found this and wonder how it applies to the contraception issue. My take is that religious employers must follow employment law because to do otherwise would constitute an action.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reynolds_v._United_States#Religious_Duty_argument

In the ruling, the court quoted a letter from Thomas Jefferson in which he stated that there was a distinction between religious belief and action that flowed from religious belief. The former "lies solely between man and his God," therefore "the legislative powers of the government reach actions only, and not opinions." The court argued that if polygamy was allowed, someone might eventually argue that human sacrifice was a necessary part of their religion, and "to permit this would be to make the professed doctrines of religious belief superior to the law of the land, and in effect to permit every citizen to become a law unto himself." The Court believed the true spirit of the First Amendment was that Congress could not legislate against opinion, but could legislate against action.

_____________________________

Curious about the "Sluts Vote" avatars? See http://www.collarchat.com/m_4133036/mpage_1/key_/tm.htm#4133036

(in reply to Iamsemisweet)

Profile

Post #: 42

RE: Privacy v. Employment - 3/27/2012 1:18:02 PM

GrandPoobah

Posts: 120
Joined: 11/20/2008
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: kalikshama

quote:

How ironic, since companies are now demanding the right to make decisions based on their religious beliefs.

I was reading about polygamy yesterday and found this and wonder how it applies to the contraception issue. My take is that religious employers must follow employment law because to do otherwise would constitute an action.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reynolds_v._United_States#Religious_Duty_argument

In the ruling, the court quoted a letter from Thomas Jefferson in which he stated that there was a distinction between religious belief and action that flowed from religious belief. The former "lies solely between man and his God," therefore "the legislative powers of the government reach actions only, and not opinions." The court argued that if polygamy was allowed, someone might eventually argue that human sacrifice was a necessary part of their religion, and "to permit this would be to make the professed doctrines of religious belief superior to the law of the land, and in effect to permit every citizen to become a law unto himself." The Court believed the true spirit of the First Amendment was that Congress could not legislate against opinion, but could legislate against action.

Jefferson's position makes sense, and I doubt the Action clause would stand up in any case. Suppose, for example, that you were arrested for murder, and claimed that your religious beliefs required that you kill the person...because of their religion or their actions. Not likely that would fly, even if you truly believed it was true.

Now, on a related subject, I wonder what would be said if, during an employment interview, you asked the company if they discriminated against employees by not allowing them to have medical coverage that included birth control as a part of their benefits package. First, I'm betting they wouldn't answer, but, assuming they did, I wonder what would happen if they said that they did, you promptly stood up and said "Well, I would never want to work for a company that openly discriminated against their employees and tried to force their own religious beliefs upon their employees. Any company that does that would, obviously, discriminate for any number of other reasons, since they clearly provide a workplace that is not free of discrimination." You could add that you would report the company to the EEC, because they openly acknowledged that they allow discrimination in their workplace.

Obviously you wouldn't get the job, but the results once you left the room would be truly interesting.

(in reply to kalikshama)

Profile

Post #: 43

RE: Privacy v. Employment - 3/27/2012 6:45:57 PM

LookieNoNookie

Posts: 12216
Joined: 8/9/2008
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: LafayetteLady

quote:

ORIGINAL: LookieNoNookie

quote:

ORIGINAL: GrandPoobah

I have seen one instance where FB was directly related to work, and the application of that data was, in my opinion, reasonably valid.

The company has a policy that employees can be disciplined or terminated if they create a "hostile work environment." Usually that would mean things like bullying behavior or leaving threats or whatever. In this case, the employee was posting some pretty extreme things about another employee on their FB page, and, not surprisingly, amongst their "friends" were other employees. So...the boss determined that the person was 'creating a hostile work environment" even if the creation wasn't happening on company time or a company computer. It might have been one thing if it was posted here on CM, where it's unlikely other employees would see it, but posting it on FB, with known employee "friends" crossed a different boundary. THAT seemed reasonable to me, but this "pre-employment checking up on you" doesn't.

Bullshit.

With so many news stories about some freak loading up a carbine and snapping off a few close friends on his or her (usually a guy) way to the local pub, as an employer, I'd like to know EVERYTHING about a potential employee/psycho fuck.

FUCK privacy.

I've had people come in to my office, sit down on my couch and their record says "fired/layed off/transitioned" (and frankly, in this economy....any and all can mean any and all things) and then when I sit down with this person and I ask "so....why were you let go from such and such company?" and then they proceed to tell me (with an absolutely straight face) "well....I was late for the 5th time by just barely 2 hours....and my boss was pissed ('can you believe that???!!!).....so I just decked the fucking son of a bitch straight away....dropped the bastard flat out".

I've actually had a potential employee tell me this TO MY FACE! (No shit....word for fucking word).

Fuck privacy.....I want to know everything I can about some of these gawdamn psychos.

Trust me...as an employer...if I could keep a 357 magnum legally under my desk.....I'd have 7 of them.

All that says is that your vetting process of simply going through resumes needs some serious re-examination.

So you want to know "everything" about your potential employees...ok. Are you willing to divulge the same information to them?