Are Employers Now Theologians And Government Agents?

[leejosepho]

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?

 

[Thelost1]

If an employer requires smething it is their right. You can protest, work something out with them, or quit. They are not infringing on your rights by requesting those who recieve their money to use a biometric system.

 

[leejosepho]

If an employer requires something it is their right. You can protest, work something out with them, or quit. They are not infringing on your rights by requesting those who recieve their money to use a biometric system.

Understood, yet that is not a question here.

I have made a "protest" by reporting my personal conflict with the new system, I have offered my willingness to cooperate in any way possible short of placing my hand under the scanner, and I will not be quitting ... although it could be argued that I should do that in place of causing my employer any inconvenience.

The questions here, however, are whether an employer has any place or responsibility along the line of saying my conflict stems from an erroneous understanding of something (Scripture) and presuming to help me change my mind, and along the line of using government activity to justify their own and to suggest I might now just as well do at work what I have already done (in a lesser form) at the Bureau of Motor Vehicles.

 

[rathi]

This is just a security device. You could try to go to ACLU but for something this pointless, you don't really have a case. I think that biometrics suck as a security device, but that is just because of its weakness. And as far as "marking the beast" that would be if your employer tattooed a big Evilcorp on your but.

 

[leejosepho]

This is just a security device.

Yes, but in this case it was implemented to stop the "time theft" connected to "buddy punching", as when employees swipe each others' ID cards without all involved parties always being there. So then, my employment is now being threatened because of others' wrong-doings ... but no, we do not need a pity party here!

The real irony (hypocrisy?) one can see here, however, is that a big deal was made of the fact that the new system does not read fingerprints - that was always the *first* response given both by management and supervision (after their own orientation, I plausibly assume) whenever anyone at all objected - as the company surely does have a high percentage of immigrant workers ... and with a large percentage of those coming in through a temporary-employment agency that does *not* use biometric IDs! At the moment, and until the company decides what to do in response to my letter, I am punching in and out with the "temps", legal or not, at the - ahem - "swipe" clock.

You could try to go to ACLU but for something this pointless, you don't really have a case.

I have read somewhere that the ACLU does oppose biometric identification, but yes, I suspect you are correct. I work for an international (North American) multi-facility company with employees numbering in four digits, this new time system is connected directly to some "banking system" (I was told) that will now be processing the payroll to thereby somehow save the company some time and money, and no, I cannot imagine any court telling the company it must now allow me to turn in paper time slips and collect my pay from a cigar box at the end of each week.

And as far as "marking the beast" that would be if your employer tattooed a big Evilcorp on your but.

Okay, okay, but my beauty of a wife nevertheless likes my hump!

Over the past couple of days, I have been thinking more about what Thelost1 had said, and I should not have dismissed those comments as I did:

If an employer requires something it is their right. You can protest, work something out with them, or quit. They are not infringing on your rights by requesting those who receive their money to use a biometric system.

Yes, and even though I question the above "why" of this - who first gave what to whom? - I nevertheless do realize I do not have any specific inalienable or legislated "right" to biometric-ID-free employment.

Combined with the title of this thread, my initial questions were rhetorical:

1) An employer has no place in or responsibility for impressing any particular theology upon on an employee (even though the government is already doing that to everyone);
2) An employer has no place in or responsibility for drawing or bringing an employee into compliance with global-community or global-governance requirements (even though the government is already doing that to everyone).

Stepping up on my soap box for just a moment:

Near the end of my 12/20/06 conversation with the human resources supervisor, and for the purpose of trying to let him know there is far more behind all of this than we could have possibly covered in our 30-minute-or-so conversation, one of my final comments was that I am a "conspiracy nut" ... meaning this:

In Scripture we can each (who care to do so) read what is said: "And ... no one should be able to buy or sell [even his own labor] except he that has 'the mark' [or identifier]."

By strict definition, mankind is not being brought to that point via a clearly-describable "conspiracy" among witting executors. The Illuminati, the Masons, the Bilderbergers, the Tri-Lateral Commission, the Rosicrucians and many other people or organizations (including some NGOs) are variously accused or blamed for some or all of what is going on ...

... and now, and whether or not employers realize this or care or might even have their own reasons or outside pressures toward doing whatever they do, now employers - corporations have no conscious, remember? - are bringing others along into at least we-gotta-eat reverence for "the beast".

 

[rathi]

1) An employer has no place in or responsibility for impressing any particular theology upon on an employee (even though the government is already doing that to everyone);

Making you use a biometric scanner is not impressing religion on you. And our constitution forbids our government from impressing religion on it.

Whats so bad about having a biometric of your hand print? What could they possibly use it to harm you with? Its not like they are building a database and giving it to the government.

I hate biometrics because they rely on a poorly protected secret that you can't replaced, but I don't see how this instance violates your rights.

 

[Thelost1]

Making you use a biometric scanner is not impressing religion on you. And our constitution forbids our government from impressing religion on it.

Whats so bad about having a biometric of your hand print? What could they possibly use it to harm you with? Its not like they are building a database and giving it to the government.

I hate biometrics because they rely on a poorly protected secret that you can't replaced, but I don't see how this instance violates your rights.

or so you think...

 

[tryreading]

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?

Your fingerprint has nothing to do with the mark of 'the beast.' All of us have a fingerprint.

The guy from HR who tried to interpret the Bible for you is a damn fool. If the company knew he did this (I'm assuming it doesn't) I would think it would worry them enough to tell him to keep his big mouth shut. His version of whatever religion shouldn't ever be presumed by him to be more accurate than yours, and for him to relay that thought to you in a work-related conversation that could involve your job is something that could easily cause a lawsuit if you were later fired. He is a pompous jackass.

Regardless, the company is asking you to comply with a rule that everybody else has to follow too. A lot of them are Christians, I'm sure. So, if you are the only employee objecting on the basis of your religion, I think you are being unreasonable. They are not violating your rights, even though you think they may be based on a scripture verse. If they are saying you have to become a Jew in order to continue working for the company, then you are protected by anti-discrimination laws, but using your fingerprint for ID isn't violating you, I don't think.

The information on your driver's license is public really, because anybody can look at you and see whether you are male, eye color, age and weight more or less, etc. Course if someone stole your license they could use that info without seeing you.

1) Employers can demand some types of behavior and information from you. I don't think they are questioning your beliefs in this case.

2) Yes. For instance, if you smoke, even after work, and the company has a no smoking policy, they can legally fire you if they discover you smoke after hours.

 

[leejosepho]

Making you use a biometric scanner is not impressing religion on you ...

I believe I could argue otherwise, but in relation to my specific situation at work, I am at the moment simply saying the "human resources supervisor" (as an agent of the company and on its behalf) had no place and/or responsibility toward me as nevertheless displayed by his beginning his argument against my decision by informing me of his theological training and thereafter presuming to correct my personal or "religious" understanding(s) of whatever.

And our constitution forbids our government from impressing religion on it.

A little later, I will post some excerpts from GWB's 09/20/01 (9-11) speech that easily proves to me that the constitution is now being ignored at least in the area of government-impressed religion.

What's so bad about having a biometric of your hand print?

You have already answered that:

... they rely on a poorly protected secret you can't replace [by getting a different one] ...

What could [the company] possibly use it to harm you with? Its not like they are building a database and giving it to the government.

Ah, now think about that for a moment! You and I already have to prove to the company our government-controlled eligibility for employment, and the company has to have said proof on file, and in the days ahead (such as after state drivers' licenses effectively become national IDs (05/08)), it will ultimately be far easier and more efficient for companies to prove via electronic exchange that they only employ the eligible.

... I don't see how this instance violates your rights.

I am not saying any of my rights *are* being violated. In fact, I am clearly being allowed to exercise my personal "right" to either place my hand under the scanner or not.

 

[leejosepho]

Your fingerprint has nothing to do with the mark of 'the beast.' All of us have a fingerprint.

No argument there! In fact, I have always heard what just about everybody else has likely heard, and that is that "the mark of the beast" will in effect be his/its "fingerprint" placed upon each individual who (willingly and wittingly?) receives it. In other words, "the mark" would then simply identify any individual as one who has decided to "worship the beast" (and is therefore allowed to buy and sell) rather than uniquely identifying that particular individual (as would his or her own fingerprint). Or in yet different words: "The mark", then, would simply be like a universal, same-for-each "passport" at a theme park ... although I have recently heard biometrics are now being used to assure such "passports" are no longer used by more than one individual.

The guy from HR who tried to interpret the Bible for you ... If the company knew he did this (I'm assuming it doesn't) I would think it would worry them enough to tell him to keep his big mouth shut.

If my e-mail got through at the end of last week and was passed along at corporate headquarters, the company has a copy of the same letter and attached notes and comments you have read at the beginning of this thread. However, it would not shock me to eventually learn that particular man had been strategically placed to do exactly as he did.

His version of whatever religion shouldn't ever be presumed by him to be more accurate than yours, and for him to relay that thought to you in a work-related conversation that could involve your job is something that could easily cause a lawsuit if you were later fired ...

Since my (paranoid-delusional?) imagination can so easily come up with stuff even without working overtime, for now I am just going to wait to see what happens next. However, and with thoughts like your own in mind, it seems simply logical to believe some kinds of either strategic or damage-control discussions are now (or have been or will be) taking place within "the company". Personally, I suspect they might be allowing me to work until after the first of the year to get past (and to pay me for) "the holidays" and to then escort me to the door and send me a final check including my accrued vacation days.

Regardless, the company is asking you to comply with a rule that everybody else has to follow too. A lot of them are Christians, I'm sure. So, if you are the only employee objecting on the basis of your religion, I think you are being unreasonable.

Well, maybe we have some kind of class-action deal in the works here! In fact, there actually were several others (but I do not know how many) who *did* object, and when called to the scanner to register, at least one woman I do personally know clearly said to a supervisor, "No! I don't believe in that!" and immediately walked away. That supervisor (or possibly another) then followed after that woman, caught up with her and gave her what I strongly suspect was a previously-prepared, corporate-strategic and in-unison "no fingerprints" pitch, and the woman ultimately "gave in" and later told me how troubled she is about having done that.

They are not violating your rights, even though you think they may be based on a scripture verse.

No, and here again respectfully said, that is not how/what I think. As concerning nothing other than a comprehensive matter of "worship" as I understand it, here is what I have said:

"I am simply and quietly reporting that my personal and exclusive allegiance to The Creator of all ... would become compromised *by my own hand* [both literally and figuratively] if I were to ever willingly offer [any additional] biometric information ... so that I might be permitted to 'sell my labor' to any earthly entity."

The company has definitely not violated my "right" to believe the above and act accordingly. At the same time, however, I do believe "the company" was either poorly- or well-prepared ahead of time to argue that matter with any single employee or group of employees rather than to simply escort me and/or others to the door. And of course, and with labor pools and costs for training new employees considered, that would seem to make good sense at least until possibly after bumping into one or more nuts like me, eh?!

If they are saying you have to become a Jew in order to continue working for the company, then you are protected by anti-discrimination laws ...

Many years ago, I was shocked when a man who required all employees to participate in religious "devotions" at every morning break had pulled my time card before I had arrived at work and next fired me (when I went to ask about my card), clearly volunteering that he would not give me a reason for terminating my employment but would allow me to collect unemployment from his account. In fact, he made a call to that agency while I was still standing there. In any case, either that man felt terribly sorry for me about something and did not want to hurt or rouse my feelings in any way, or else he knew he could be facing trouble over a discriminatory action ... but the best I can figure is that he must not have enjoyed my participation in those "devotions" as much as I had!

... but using your fingerprint for ID isn't violating you, I don't think.

A fingerprint is not involved in my case at the moment, just a scan of the top of the hand, yet I am with you on the "I don't think" or "do not know for sure" as to the matter of fingerprint ID possibly being a personal violation. I did not feel personally offended while being fingerprinted there at the booking window many years ago, but that could have been because I had far more pressing matters on my mind (and wrists) at that time!

The information on your driver's license is public really, because anybody can look at you and see whether you are male, eye color, age and weight more or less, etc. Course if someone stole your license they could use that info without seeing you.

The question there might be whether someone might be able to use my lost or stolen license or even nothing more than the identifying information that happens to be on it either for personal gain or some kind of harm, but I was actually being careful to not laugh out loud when that HR supervisor first began spinning that you-have-already-done-it idea from my driver's license.

1) Employers can demand some types of behavior and information from you. I don't think they are questioning your beliefs in this case.

Whenever anyone objected at the recent implementation of the HandPunch system, "the company" did immediately question the validity of whatever had been said, then it presented and argued its own "beliefs" as being best for all. Did the company do that as a willing and witting "agent" serving some kind of evil and sinister entity or force? Overall, I would have some difficulty believing that. However, the company's implementation of the new system surely did place me in such an objectionable situation, and a trained and paid agent of "the company" definitely did question, challenge and attempt to change my own "beliefs" related to the overall matter.

2) Yes. For instance, if you smoke, even after work, and the company has a no smoking policy, they can legally fire you if they discover you smoke after hours.

Yes, my wife just told me about that specific matter just moments before I began reading your post. I had never before heard that, and that kind of power over someone who adds value to a company's inventory or potential (even if only by grudgingly cleaning the company toilet) is completely insane! Why, now just how long will it be before that man who fired me so long ago next begins requiring all of his employees to either use only the "missionary position" or abstain from sexual intercourse altogether, eh?! Who in "this world" ever decided employers might have such kinds of controls over the lives of their, uh, "human resources" ... and ah yes, that explains it. No one is really his or her own.

 

[BubbaBob]

Nutcase? No. Don Quitote-ish? Yes...but that's OK...sometimes tilting at windmills is a good thing. I've been known to do it quite often.

With that said, be aware that tilting at windmills is an all or nothing thing. You either win big, and are a hero (Thomas Jefferson, et al) or go down in flames big time (Randy Weaver). There is no middle ground.

BTW...I agree with you.

BubbaBob

 

[leejosepho]

If my e-mail got through at the end of last week and was passed along at corporate headquarters, the company has a copy of the same letter and attached notes and comments you have read at the beginning of this thread ...

Oops! I just realized I had only posted some excerpts above. That entire letter can be read here:

Saying "No more!" To Biometric Identification

 

[tryreading]

No argument there! In fact, I have always heard what just about everybody else has likely heard, and that is that "the mark of the beast" will in effect be his/its "fingerprint" placed upon each individual who (willingly and wittingly?) receives it. In other words, "the mark" would then simply identify any individual as one who has decided to "worship the beast" (and is therefore allowed to buy and sell) rather than uniquely identifying that particular individual (as would his or her own fingerprint). Or in yet different words: "The mark", then, would simply be like a universal, same-for-each "passport" at a theme park ... although I have recently heard biometrics are now being used to assure such "passports" are no longer used by more than one individual.



If my e-mail got through at the end of last week and was passed along at corporate headquarters, the company has a copy of the same letter and attached notes and comments you have read at the beginning of this thread. However, it would not shock me to eventually learn that particular man had been strategically placed to do exactly as he did.



Since my (paranoid-delusional?) imagination can so easily come up with stuff even without working overtime, for now I am just going to wait to see what happens next. However, and with thoughts like your own in mind, it seems simply logical to believe some kinds of either strategic or damage-control discussions are now (or have been or will be) taking place within "the company". Personally, I suspect they might be allowing me to work until after the first of the year to get past (and to pay me for) "the holidays" and to then escort me to the door and send me a final check including my accrued vacation days.



Well, maybe we have some kind of class-action deal in the works here! In fact, there actually were several others (but I do not know how many) who *did* object, and when called to the scanner to register, at least one woman I do personally know clearly said to a supervisor, "No! I don't believe in that!" and immediately walked away. That supervisor (or possibly another) then followed after that woman, caught up with her and gave her what I strongly suspect was a previously-prepared, corporate-strategic and in-unison "no fingerprints" pitch, and the woman ultimately "gave in" and later told me how troubled she is about having done that.



No, and here again respectfully said, that is not how/what I think. As concerning nothing other than a comprehensive matter of "worship" as I understand it, here is what I have said:

"I am simply and quietly reporting that my personal and exclusive allegiance to The Creator of all ... would become compromised *by my own hand* [both literally and figuratively] if I were to ever willingly offer [any additional] biometric information ... so that I might be permitted to 'sell my labor' to any earthly entity."

The company has definitely not violated my "right" to believe the above and act accordingly. At the same time, however, I do believe "the company" was either poorly- or well-prepared ahead of time to argue that matter with any single employee or group of employees rather than to simply escort me and/or others to the door. And of course, and with labor pools and costs for training new employees considered, that would seem to make good sense at least until possibly after bumping into one or more nuts like me, eh?!



Many years ago, I was shocked when a man who required all employees to participate in religious "devotions" at every morning break had pulled my time card before I had arrived at work and next fired me (when I went to ask about my card), clearly volunteering that he would not give me a reason for terminating my employment but would allow me to collect unemployment from his account. In fact, he made a call to that agency while I was still standing there. In any case, either that man felt terribly sorry for me about something and did not want to hurt or rouse my feelings in any way, or else he knew he could be facing trouble over a discriminatory action ... but the best I can figure is that he must not have enjoyed my participation in those "devotions" as much as I had!



A fingerprint is not involved in my case at the moment, just a scan of the top of the hand, yet I am with you on the "I don't think" or "do not know for sure" as to the matter of fingerprint ID possibly being a personal violation. I did not feel personally offended while being fingerprinted there at the booking window many years ago, but that could have been because I had far more pressing matters on my mind (and wrists) at that time!



The question there might be whether someone might be able to use my lost or stolen license or even nothing more than the identifying information that happens to be on it either for personal gain or some kind of harm, but I was actually being careful to not laugh out loud when that HR supervisor first began spinning that you-have-already-done-it idea from my driver's license.



Whenever anyone objected at the recent implementation of the HandPunch system, "the company" did immediately question the validity of whatever had been said, then it presented and argued its own "beliefs" as being best for all. Did the company do that as a willing and witting "agent" serving some kind of evil and sinister entity or force? Overall, I would have some difficulty believing that. However, the company's implementation of the new system surely did place me in such an objectionable situation, and a trained and paid agent of "the company" definitely did question, challenge and attempt to change my own "beliefs" related to the overall matter.



Yes, my wife just told me about that specific matter just moments before I began reading your post. I had never before heard that, and that kind of power over someone who adds value to a company's inventory or potential (even if only by grudgingly cleaning the company toilet) is completely insane! Why, now just how long will it be before that man who fired me so long ago next begins requiring all of his employees to either use only the "missionary position" or abstain from sexual intercourse altogether, eh?! Who in "this world" ever decided employers might have such kinds of controls over the lives of their, uh, "human resources" ... and ah yes, that explains it. No one is really his or her own.

I don't see any problem with the company's attempt to explain to you the advantages, in the company's opinion, of the new system, as long as there were no illegal threats involved. Threatening to fire you if you don't comply is legal.

The thing is that most of the employees where you work will give in and submit to the new rule. At some point in the future there will be an even more intrusive form of ID required, like an eye scan, or even DNA sampling. Some people will balk at first but will eventually submit to that too.

This reminds me of the first time I was confronted with a request to supply a fingerprint on a check when cashing it at a bank. I was very surprised. Seemed like a violation of personal privacy. I have given the fingerprint many times, but hate it every time. One difference from your situation, though, is I had no relationship with the bank. The institution and its employees were strangers to me, and should not have requested anything other than my endorsement and an ID, which was customary at the time.

I disagree with you on the smoking issue. If the company provides health insurance, and its a 'no smoking' employer, I don't see any problem with it hiring non-smokers rather than smokers. I don't even have a problem with it firing people who only smoke on their own time. The cost of smoking drives health insurance higher for all of us, and if the company gets a lower rate from an insurance company for enforcing a no smoking policy, that is an advantage for all the employees. Smoking is an addiction, and its risks don't deserve to be treated as normal health issues like arthritis and MD, for example.

 

[leejosepho]

I don't see any problem with the company's attempt to explain to you the advantages, in the company's opinion, of the new system ...

Understood, but nothing like that took place during my conversation with the HR supervisor. Previously, other supervisors had been standing near the swipe-card time clocks to thwart "buddy punching", and one supervisor had mentioned to me that the new system was to be "directly connected to a banking system" that will be handling company payroll. Other than that, the only "advantage" ever actually mentioned to me was but a presumption I made on my own (as to being allowed to work there) when yet another supervisor said, "Every employee has to use the new system".

... as long as there were no illegal threats involved. Threatening to fire you if you don't comply is legal.

Understood. The state in which I presently live and work is an "employment-at-will" state, and that is the end of that matter, eh?! Now, there is a union contract that *might* be somehow related or involved here, but I am inclined to doubt even that thought. So then, the immediate questions here are practical and moral ones:

1) Do the company and I enjoy our relationship and desire to keep it going?
2) Should the company presume to correct my personal "beliefs" behind my personal objection to the hand scanner?
3) Should the company in any way attempt justify its own actions by either informing or reminding an employee that the government has already required some of this and will in the future be requiring even more?

The thing is that most of the employees where you work will give in and submit to the new rule. At some point in the future there will be an even more intrusive form of ID required, like an eye scan, or even DNA sampling. Some people will balk at first but will eventually submit to that too ...

Kind of like sheep being led to the slaughter, eh?!

This reminds me of the first time I was confronted with a request to supply a fingerprint on a check when cashing it at a bank. I was very surprised. Seemed like a violation of personal privacy ... The institution and its employees were strangers to me, and should not have requested anything other than my endorsement and an ID, which was customary at the time.

That is part of a governmental "Know Your Customer" or "Who has been in your bank?" requirement. I once sold a vehicle to pay off a debt some years ago, I was paid in cash, and the bank where my wife and I have had an account for many years nevertheless had to fill out some kind of government-required form including personal info from me before they could give me a large cashier's check without risking government trouble for themselves.

I have given the fingerprint many times, but hate it every time ...

I have never done that, and will not. However, my reason for that has mostly to do with simple necessity then forcing me to find other ways to do things. For example, I once went for a little over two years without *ever* purchasing *anything* across a UPC scanner -- a "6-6-6" is shadowed within the beginning, middle and end bars -- and now I know at least a little about obtaining food or whatever even when I ultimately might not be permitted to "buy or sell" in usual ways.

I disagree with you on the smoking issue. If the company provides health insurance, and its a 'no smoking' employer, I don't see any problem with it hiring non-smokers rather than smokers.

Neither do I, I suppose, but the matter of health insurance was not in the equation as I first saw it.

I don't even have a problem with it firing people who only smoke on their own time.

Is the health insurance optional, making the smoking ban only against insured employees? Would a smoker be allowed to work there as long as s/he was not enrolled in the health plan and did not smoke on company property?

The cost of smoking drives health insurance higher for all of us, and if the company gets a lower rate from an insurance company for enforcing a no smoking policy, that is an advantage for all the employees. Smoking is an addiction, and its risks don't deserve to be treated as normal health issues like arthritis and MD, for example.

Ah, I see ... but all of that is still not for me! I have now lived most of my 56 years without health insurance, and the medical costs I have paid out total far less (even after a heart attack 7 years ago) than what the total premiums would have been over all that time. Wanna drive health costs down? Ban health insurance and intrusive government, not smoking!

 

[Billo_Really]

When I was at Fluor Corp. we had ID badges (with pictures) and I (or anyone else working on the same project) had to use a four digit access number to get through the door to go to my (our) work station. I don't see why that isn't enough to handle security issues.

 

[leejosepho]

When I was at Fluor Corp. we had ID badges (with pictures) and I (or anyone else working on the same project) had to use a four digit access number to get through the door to go to my (our) work station. I don't see why that isn't enough to handle security issues.

I do not know anything about Fluor Corp., but I just took a quick look at its website and I would suspect there are very few unskilled workers there. Where I work, most jobs would be considered "unskilled labor", and I would suspect Fluor Corp. seldom has to deal with payoll theft via employees punching each other in and out at the time clock. So, and while doubting actual "facilities security" was a major factor here, the company has implemented a hand-scan (but no fingerprint) system to keep everybody honest at the time clock without scaring away any temporary worker (coming in through an outside agency) or anyone else who might not be interested in being fingerprinted.

Personally, I can appreciate the comany's dilemma, but having to replace someone such as myself -- any decent and motivated forklift driver who can keep track of a few part and lot numbers can do the job -- would cost less than what was being lost at the time clock.

 

[leejosepho]

A little later, I will post some excerpts from GWB's 09/20/01 (9-11) speech that easily proves to me that the constitution is now being ignored at least in the area of government-impressed religion.

http://www.debatepolitics.com/war-terror/16506-what-war-terror.html

 

[doughgirl]

“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?”

Yes, if in fact the image the person is presenting does not align with the place in which they work.

Example……….a teacher who strips part time at the local strip bar.

If they are not allowed too challenge them, then as a private business owner they should have the right to fire the person who does not represent them in the image that they want.

If I own a Christian bookstore, I should not be forced to hire a cross dresser or someone who say is an atheist or does not believe in God.
If I required all employees to wear a christian pin while working, do you think a non-believer would want to do this?

If I own a Hooters, I should not have to hire a girl who does not fit into the costume.

I am a franchise owner of a chain of restaurants. I basically hire teenagers and young adults. I will NOT hire anyone with excessive tatoos and peircings all over their bodies, particularly on their face. I could care less how many tatoos and piercing they have that are covered up……..but if I can see them and if they are a distraction they don’t get hired.

I feel I have that right as its my business and I want certain kids working that represent our image.

 

[rathi]

Yes, if in fact the image the person is presenting does not align with the place in which they work.

Example……….a teacher who strips part time at the local strip bar.

I'm not sure that a public school teacher could be fired for it, but all of your other examples hold true.

```````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````
Your company has put in a security system to validate the time of its employees. I agree that system is a stupid one, but the company is justified in requiring its employees to follow the system. Security procedures are often time consuming and pointless, but companies still have the right to use them.

 

[leejosepho]

Your company has put in a security system to validate the time of its employees ... the company is justified [has a right] in requiring its employees to follow the system.

Yes, the company can legally require compliance with the new system, but I still challenge the overall morality of that decision. For example, how many of us would agree to speed governors being installed in all motor vehicles in order to stop the few who continually exceed speed limits? And of course, maybe that is what you mean by "stupid" or "pointless", as in locks only keeping honest people honest!

If I own a Christian bookstore, I should not be forced to hire a cross dresser or someone who say is an atheist or does not believe in God.

I certainly agree you should not be forced to do that, but neither should you be allowed to categorically deny employment for those reasons. Surely somewhere there is an allegedly atheistic cross-dresser who would do a fine job selling whatever you might have to offer and while properly dressed, and I could find no reason for not considering such a person.

If I required all employees to wear a christian pin while working, do you think a non-believer would want to do this?

Maybe, or maybe not -- he or she should be asked. But the questions I am asking go beyond the matter of one's dress or other adornment at work.

If you told me I either had to wear a pin or to remove one in order to work for you, I could either comply or not (as with the hand scanner) and find out what happened next. But in my situation at work, I was essentially told my personal belief is incorrect and that one of my previous and related decisions was foolish, or actually, "too late"! My questions here are not about companies having time-clock or work-dress policies, but about employers stepping into religious and governmental arenas.

 

[tryreading]

Yes, if in fact the image the person is presenting does not align with the place in which they work.

Example……….a teacher who strips part time at the local strip bar.

If they are not allowed too challenge them, then as a private business owner they should have the right to fire the person who does not represent them in the image that they want.

If I own a Christian bookstore, I should not be forced to hire a cross dresser or someone who say is an atheist or does not believe in God.
If I required all employees to wear a christian pin while working, do you think a non-believer would want to do this?

If I own a Hooters, I should not have to hire a girl who does not fit into the costume.

I am a franchise owner of a chain of restaurants. I basically hire teenagers and young adults. I will NOT hire anyone with excessive tatoos and peircings all over their bodies, particularly on their face. I could care less how many tatoos and piercing they have that are covered up……..but if I can see them and if they are a distraction they don’t get hired.

I feel I have that right as its my business and I want certain kids working that represent our image.

You can discriminate in hiring. You can refuse someone a job because she's a stripper, or someone else because he has tattoos. But you can't discriminate against anyone based on religion. That is illegal.

If you did own a Christian bookstore, or any business, you would be making a serious mistake even asking a potential hiree what his religion is, or whether or not he is religious. And if you ended up not hiring him based on their answer to that question, you'd be breaking the law. Maybe you wouldn't mind that. But if the person found out about it, he could start a process that would keep your lawyer happy by sending large bills to you for a couple of years.

 

[leejosepho]

Well, the company has granted me the status of someone having no hand to scan. My previous swipe card has been replaced with one that works in the new system, but after swiping my card to begin my clock-in or clock-out, anything at all (such as the blank white back of anyone's card) can be placed under the scanner to "break its beam" and complete my time-clock "transaction". Before handing the new card to me, an assistant manager in the department where I work first used it to demonstrate that to me, and at the end of my shift a little while later, I finished "punching out" by simply sticking the back of my pay envelope under the hand scanner.

Nothing was said to me as to "why", and I did not ask. I had talked with a newspaper reporter last week, I do not know whether the company knows that, and when I updated the reporter (on 01/12/07), she said her article will probably appear next week.

 

[tryreading]

Well, the company has granted me the status of someone having no hand to scan. My previous swipe card has been replaced with one that works in the new system, but after swiping my card to begin my clock-in or clock-out, anything at all (such as the blank white back of anyone's card) can be placed under the scanner to "break its beam" and complete my time-clock "transaction". Before handing the new card to me, an assistant manager in the department where I work first used it to demonstrate that to me, and at the end of my shift a little while later, I finished "punching out" by simply sticking the back of my pay envelope under the hand scanner.

Nothing was said to me as to "why", and I did not ask. I had talked with a newspaper reporter last week, I do not know whether the company knows that, and when I updated the reporter (on 01/12/07), she said her article will probably appear next week.

A victory for the working man.

Like I said earlier in the thread, I don't think the company is being unreasonable in its request that everybody has to use the hand scan. But protection of privacy is so important now, your concern is not unreasonable either. So you fought the company, and have gotten what you want, even if it may be temporary. Not saying it will be, but you never know with an employer.

I think the reporter's story might make life tough for you when its printed. Did you tell the reporter about the HR supervisor's presumptive lecture to you on the meaning of certain Bible scripture?

 

[leejosepho]

A victory for the working man.

Possibly the longest month I can recall in a while, but yes, still working more as a man than as a mere "human resource" for corporate consumption!

I think the reporter's story might make life tough for you when its printed. Did you tell the reporter about the HR supervisor's presumptive lecture to you on the meaning of certain Bible scripture?

Yes, I told the reporter everything, yet I was sure to offer that the company was "doing nothing wrong" otherwise. Overall, I believe this particular reporter will avoid trouble either for myself or for the company. But, we should find out about that next week, eh?!

 

[ludahai]

I'm not sure that a public school teacher could be fired for it, but all of your other examples hold true.

In most states, she most certainly could face nonrenewal of contract at the very least.