leejosepho
Active member
- Joined
- Aug 5, 2005
- Messages
- 348
- Reaction score
- 1
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
Greetings to all.
After arriving at work on 12/11/06, I noticed biometric hand scanners ...
"The HandPunch Hand Scanners use RSI's field-proven hand-geometry biometrics technology ... [taking] over 90 measurements of the length, width, thickness, and surface area of the hand and four fingers ... in [nearly any environment] where a fingerprint time clock would not work properly ...
"Among biometric technologies, hand geometry has the highest user acceptance. With the highest level of accuracy and ease of use, the HandPunch has become the most widely accepted biometric technology in use today." (excerpted from some HandPunch sales literature)
... have been installed near the swipe-card time clock I have used for the past twenty months where I work. At the end of my shift that day, I did as my supervisor had advised earlier in the day and I told someone in "Human Resources" I would not be using the hand scanners. Little was said to me at that time, and when I again went to inquire at that office eight days later, I was asked to present something in writing for the company’s considearation. The essence of the letter I offered at that office on 12/20/06 is this:
--------------------
"And [the beast] causes all ... to receive a mark [an identifier] upon their hands or upon their foreheads, and that no one should be able to buy or sell [even his own labor] except he that has the mark [or identifier] ...” (Revelation 13)
Am I saying (the company) or its HandPunch system is "the beast" (or any element of it) now attempting to "mark" me? No, I am not. Rather, I am simply and quietly reporting that my personal and exclusive allegiance to The Creator of all that exists, including each of us, would become compromised by my own hand [both literally and figuratively] if I were to ever willingly offer [any additional] biometric information to be used as personal identification so that I might be permitted to "sell my labor" to any earthly entity.
--------------------
Now I already know many people may have just dismissed me as a screwball, but even screwballs occasionally ask nevertheless-relevant questions:
1) Is it an employer’s place or responsibility to openly challenge an employee's personal beliefs, understandings, convictions, practices or anything else not directly related to his or her specific performance while on the job?
2) Is it an employer’s place or responsibility to purposefully suggest or even "press" upon an employee any specific action known to be in direct conflict with an employee's own (previous or present) decision about anything that is not directly related to his or her personal performance of assigned duties?
In defense of the presumptuous and rhetorical nature of those questions, here is what took place on 12/20/06, when I delivered my letter to “Human Resources”:
As my letter was being considered, the "human resources supervisor" reported to me that he had some kind or degree or other level of training in theology, and that my quotation from "Revelations" - the name of that book is actually only "Revelation" - was "out of context". Rather than "out of context", however, my quotation from the book of Revelation actually *is* the context for my letter.
What the supervisor must have meant, then, is that my personal interpretation or understanding of the quoted passage is mistaken, as he next described "the mark of the beast" as a tattoo in essentially the same way I was first taught nearly 50 years ago. Today's religious teachings now more usually describe "the mark" as some kind of electronic chip under the skin, but identifying "the mark of the beast" was not the reason for our conversation anyway. Rather, I had been told every employee “has to use the scanner” (in order to work there, I assume).
Also during my 12/20/06 conversation with the "human resources supervisor", I was shown (in a rather melodramatic manner) that my driver's license already contains biometric information - age, height, weight, eye and hair color - previously and willingly offered by me for a certain purpose, my employment eligibility verification form (with my driver's license referenced) was placed before me to reveal my general offering of biometric information for the purpose of employment is thus something I have already done, and the suggestion or implication was made that I might, therefore, now just as well go right on ahead and also place my hand under the company’s HandPunch scanner.
Acknowledging I had inadvertently not previously recognized my current driver's license as a crude form of biometric identification, I then explained that the "personal decision I have pondered ... and that I finally made about three years ago" (excerpted from my letter) is to not go past even that incremental level of biometric identification. Hence, I have known for some time that I will never again be permitted to renew my driver's license - 05/08 is to be the beginning of one or another type of biometric identification being required in every state - and that my eligibility for employment anywhere at all might then also become seriously threatened. At that point, the supervisor’s comments made it clear to me that he already knew about the 05/08 state-by-state biometric ID requirement, and that if I had not already mentioned that, he might have done so himself as even more reason for me to just go ahead and submit to the scanner even now.
Once again, and with the above in mind, here are my rhetorical questions:
1) Is it an employer’s place or responsibility to openly challenge an employee's personal beliefs, understandings, convictions, practices or anything else not directly related to his or her specific performance while on the job?
2) Is it an employer’s place or responsibility to purposefully suggest or even "press" upon an employee (under seeming threat of circumstantial termination) any specific action known to be in conflict with an employee's own decision about anything not related to his or her performance of assigned duties?
After arriving at work on 12/11/06, I noticed biometric hand scanners ...
"The HandPunch Hand Scanners use RSI's field-proven hand-geometry biometrics technology ... [taking] over 90 measurements of the length, width, thickness, and surface area of the hand and four fingers ... in [nearly any environment] where a fingerprint time clock would not work properly ...
"Among biometric technologies, hand geometry has the highest user acceptance. With the highest level of accuracy and ease of use, the HandPunch has become the most widely accepted biometric technology in use today." (excerpted from some HandPunch sales literature)
... have been installed near the swipe-card time clock I have used for the past twenty months where I work. At the end of my shift that day, I did as my supervisor had advised earlier in the day and I told someone in "Human Resources" I would not be using the hand scanners. Little was said to me at that time, and when I again went to inquire at that office eight days later, I was asked to present something in writing for the company’s considearation. The essence of the letter I offered at that office on 12/20/06 is this:
--------------------
"And [the beast] causes all ... to receive a mark [an identifier] upon their hands or upon their foreheads, and that no one should be able to buy or sell [even his own labor] except he that has the mark [or identifier] ...” (Revelation 13)
Am I saying (the company) or its HandPunch system is "the beast" (or any element of it) now attempting to "mark" me? No, I am not. Rather, I am simply and quietly reporting that my personal and exclusive allegiance to The Creator of all that exists, including each of us, would become compromised by my own hand [both literally and figuratively] if I were to ever willingly offer [any additional] biometric information to be used as personal identification so that I might be permitted to "sell my labor" to any earthly entity.
--------------------
Now I already know many people may have just dismissed me as a screwball, but even screwballs occasionally ask nevertheless-relevant questions:
1) Is it an employer’s place or responsibility to openly challenge an employee's personal beliefs, understandings, convictions, practices or anything else not directly related to his or her specific performance while on the job?
2) Is it an employer’s place or responsibility to purposefully suggest or even "press" upon an employee any specific action known to be in direct conflict with an employee's own (previous or present) decision about anything that is not directly related to his or her personal performance of assigned duties?
In defense of the presumptuous and rhetorical nature of those questions, here is what took place on 12/20/06, when I delivered my letter to “Human Resources”:
As my letter was being considered, the "human resources supervisor" reported to me that he had some kind or degree or other level of training in theology, and that my quotation from "Revelations" - the name of that book is actually only "Revelation" - was "out of context". Rather than "out of context", however, my quotation from the book of Revelation actually *is* the context for my letter.
What the supervisor must have meant, then, is that my personal interpretation or understanding of the quoted passage is mistaken, as he next described "the mark of the beast" as a tattoo in essentially the same way I was first taught nearly 50 years ago. Today's religious teachings now more usually describe "the mark" as some kind of electronic chip under the skin, but identifying "the mark of the beast" was not the reason for our conversation anyway. Rather, I had been told every employee “has to use the scanner” (in order to work there, I assume).
Also during my 12/20/06 conversation with the "human resources supervisor", I was shown (in a rather melodramatic manner) that my driver's license already contains biometric information - age, height, weight, eye and hair color - previously and willingly offered by me for a certain purpose, my employment eligibility verification form (with my driver's license referenced) was placed before me to reveal my general offering of biometric information for the purpose of employment is thus something I have already done, and the suggestion or implication was made that I might, therefore, now just as well go right on ahead and also place my hand under the company’s HandPunch scanner.
Acknowledging I had inadvertently not previously recognized my current driver's license as a crude form of biometric identification, I then explained that the "personal decision I have pondered ... and that I finally made about three years ago" (excerpted from my letter) is to not go past even that incremental level of biometric identification. Hence, I have known for some time that I will never again be permitted to renew my driver's license - 05/08 is to be the beginning of one or another type of biometric identification being required in every state - and that my eligibility for employment anywhere at all might then also become seriously threatened. At that point, the supervisor’s comments made it clear to me that he already knew about the 05/08 state-by-state biometric ID requirement, and that if I had not already mentioned that, he might have done so himself as even more reason for me to just go ahead and submit to the scanner even now.
Once again, and with the above in mind, here are my rhetorical questions:
1) Is it an employer’s place or responsibility to openly challenge an employee's personal beliefs, understandings, convictions, practices or anything else not directly related to his or her specific performance while on the job?
2) Is it an employer’s place or responsibility to purposefully suggest or even "press" upon an employee (under seeming threat of circumstantial termination) any specific action known to be in conflict with an employee's own decision about anything not related to his or her performance of assigned duties?