We don't like government in our private lives so why our boss?

[Captain Adverse]

I DON'T know that I am invading a person's privacy when I establish a condition for that person to be allowed to work for me. Only THAT PERSON can decide what is invading his privacy.

If I, as the employer, decide that I need certain information before I will accept someone as my employee, then that is all the validity I need.

Your opinion about the validity of my decisions...unless you are a prospective employee...is irrelevant. In other words, if you are a prospective employee, then you decide whether you will meet my requirements to work for me. If you are not a prospective employee, then you don't have a dog in the fight and your opinion is irrelevant.

I see. Let's put it this way. I want to you to give me all your personal information so I can run a background check, credit check, and I want you to do a drug test for me. Oh, and I am not offering you a job, I just think I have a right to know all this stuff.

Am I invading your privacy?

 

[Mycroft]

I see. Let's put it this way. I want to you to give me all your personal information so I can run a background check, credit check, and I want you to do a drug test for me. Oh, and I am not offering you a job, I just think I have a right to know all this stuff.

Am I invading your privacy?

Nope...you are not invading my privacy...because I have no reason to give you any of that information.

Come on, dude. Maybe I was wrong. Maybe you are NOT that smart. Heck, now you are removing one part of the equation so you can prove that the equation is wrong. Really???


You know...it just occurred to me that you might have switched from talking about employers to talking about the government. If that's what you did, you need to say so...and you, perhaps, need to direct your remarks to someone who is advocating for the government to be all in your business.

 

[Lord of Planar]

I see. Let's put it this way. I want to you to give me all your personal information so I can run a background check, credit check, and I want you to do a drug test for me. Oh, and I am not offering you a job, I just think I have a right to know all this stuff.

Am I invading your privacy?

On the flip side of that, employers are now being sued for doing these after the job offering.

What solution do you have?

 

[Captain Adverse]

Nope...you are not invading my privacy...because I have no reason to give you any of that information.

Come on, dude. Maybe I was wrong. Maybe you are NOT that smart. Heck, now you are removing one part of the equation so you can prove that the equation is wrong. Really???

LOL Way to dodge the question. You refuse to admit that requesting this information is an invasion of privacy by trying to imply that it isn't if there in a need for the info and the person can refuse to give it. In fact, that is hardly the case in almost every situation personal information is required of a citizen because the alternative places him at a severe disadvantage. Personally I am sick and tired of giving personal information only to find it used to send me offers, questionnaires, track my movements and purchases, trend me, profile me, etc. etc. etc..

If I really have an option which does not cause me a disadvantage so I can make a valid choice I'd always choose to keep my business to myself. I have no problem with random drug tests or for cause drug tests at the workplace, because an employer has a right to know I don't pose a danger to his business by being intoxicated at work.

While I provided reasons used by employers for doing background and credit checks those are really used to discriminate based on assumptions past bad acts require permanent suspicion and rejection rather than taking a chance.

Regardless, I understand the rationales, but sometimes business does it just to be nosy, prying ****'s and it is an invasion of a person's privacy.

 

[Captain Adverse]

On the flip side of that, employers are now being sued for doing these after the job offering.

What solution do you have?

I'm confused? You quoted a scenario question I was using to show how such requests are an invasion of privacy....how did that lead to your question?

 

[Mycroft]

LOL Way to dodge the question. You refuse to admit that requesting this information is an invasion of privacy by trying to imply that it isn't if there in a need for the info and the peson can refuse to give it. In fact, that is hardly the case in almost every situation personal information is required of a citizen because the alternative places him at a severe disadvantage. Personally I am sick an tired of giving personal information only to find it used to send me offers, questionnaires, track my movements and purchases, trend me, profile me, etc. etc. etc..

If I really have an option which does not cause me a disadvantage so I can make a valid choice I'd always choose to keep my business to myself. I have no problem wit random drug tests or for cause drug tests at the workplace, because an employer has a right to know i don't pose a danger to his business by being intoxicated at work.

While I provided reasons used by employers for doing background and credit checks those are really used to discriminate based on assumptions past bad acts require permanent suspicion and rejection rather than taking a chance.

Regardless, I understand the rationales, but sometimes business does it just to be nosy, prying ****'s and it is an invasion of a person's privacy.

sigh...

Instead of pissing and moaning that someone is asking for information you don't want to give...just don't give it. Problem solved. Your privacy has not been invaded and they didn't get the information.

Or, do you demand that the government pass yet another law so you don't have to take personal responsibility?

 

[Lord of Planar]

I'm confused? You quoted a scenario question I was using to show how such requests are an invasion of privacy....how did that lead to your question?

My question is, what limits are there to vetting employees? Do you propose no vetting?

 

[Captain Adverse]

Or, do you demand that the government pass yet another law so you don't have to take personal responsibility?

Excuse me? Okay, you don't really need to know anyone's background beyond skills, training, education and prior experience in order to determine if someone can work for you. With that information you can make a decision about hiring or not. You do not NEED to know credit scores; you do not NEED to know about a person's background. NONE of that has ****-all to do with performing any job you might offer. Drug testing? I'll give that to you.

Requiring someone provide the other information is just you exercising a little power in order to discriminate beyond skin color, sex, and religious preference. So, if a law is necessary to stop needless prying before offering a person a job, then hell-yeah I'd push for it since people have a Constitutional right to a little personal privacy.

My question is, what limits are there to vetting employees? Do you propose no vetting?

See answer above.

 

[Mycroft]

Excuse me? Okay, you don't really need to know anyone's background beyond skills, training, education and prior experience in order to determine if someone can work for you.

Really?? Perhaps you should tell that to the Football Team Owner who is considering paying some youngster millions of dollars for a few years. I'm sure he doesn't need to know if that kid is a meth addict, eh? LOL!!!

With that information you can make a decision about hiring or not. You do not NEED to know credit scores; you do not NEED to know about a person's background. NONE of that has ****-all to do with performing any job you might offer. Drug testing? I'll give that to you.

How about if that football kid beat up his girlfriend back in college...don't you think that information would be useful when he considers hiring that kid to be his quarterback?

Requiring someone provide the other information is just you exercising a little power in order to discriminate beyond skin color, sex, and religious preference. So, if a law is necessary to stop needless prying before offering a person a job, then hell-yeah I'd push for it since people have a Constitutional right to a little personal privacy.



See answer above.

LOL!! Nothing more needs to be said to you. Your opinions have nothing to do with the real world.

wait...a "Constitutional right"??? LOL!!! You are going to have to explain THAT one to me. Is that something like a right to healthcare???

 

[Captain Adverse]

LOL!! Nothing more needs to be said to you. Your opinions have nothing to do with the real world.

wait...a "Constitutional right"??? LOL!!! You are going to have to explain THAT one to me. Is that something like a right to healthcare???

Let's see... In regards to the meth addict part, did you MISS the part of my post that said:

... Drug testing? I'll give that to you.

Or did you intentionally skip that part to give your little show more credibility?

As for beating up a girl back in college? Nope, has nothing to do with life right now, and damn sure nothing to do with working for YOU!

Going "lol" doesn't detract from the point that you don't NEED anything more than information about skills, training, education and prior experience in order to determine if someone can work for you. Which point you again dodged rather than show ANY REAL support for your own point.

What you did indicate is a willingness to discriminate against someone who could do the job for you on the basis of personal prejudices over prior history. Something that has NOTHING WHATSOEVER TO DO WITH EITHER AN ABILITY TO WORK OR DOING A GOOD JOB FOR YOU! So who's laughing now "laffing boy?"

P.S. Check Griswold v. Connecticutt 381 U.S. 479 (1965) 7-2 SCOTUS decision regarding a constitutionally guaranteed right to privacy.

 

[Mycroft]

Let's see... In regards to the meth addict part, did you MISS the part of my post that said:



Or did you intentionally skip that part to give your little show more credibility?

As for beating up a girl back in college? Nope, has nothing to do with life right now, and damn sure nothing to do with working for YOU!

Going "lol" doesn't detract from the point that you don't NEED anything more than information about skills, training, education and prior experience in order to determine if someone can work for you. Which point you again dodged rather than show ANY REAL support for your own point.

What you did indicate is a willingness to discriminate against someone who could do the job for you on the basis of personal prejudices over prior history. Something that has NOTHING WHATSOEVER TO DO WITH EITHER AN ABILITY TO WORK OR DOING A GOOD JOB FOR YOU! So who's laughing now "laffing boy?"

Maybe you don't know anything about football. Players are public figures. They do something like beat up their girlfriends in college...or their wives...they lose their jobs. Millions of kids want to buy the shirts those guys wear. The owner wants to sell them. He's not going to hire a kid who can't sell t-shirts.

Like I said...Your opinions have nothing to do with the real world.

 

[Captain Adverse]

Maybe you don't know anything about football. Players are public figures. They do something like beat up their girlfriends in college...or their wives...they lose their jobs. Millions of kids want to buy the shirts those guys wear. The owner wants to sell them. He's not going to hire a kid who can't sell t-shirts.

Like I said...Your opinions have nothing to do with the real world.

That is the lamest justification I have even seen. As if any employee in YOUR little business will suddenly become a "public figure" and cost you millions in t-shirt sales. duh! (psst! Just in case he does...pink slips are always an option). LOL

 

[Mycroft]

P.S. Check Griswold v. Connecticutt 381 U.S. 479 (1965) 7-2 SCOTUS decision regarding a constitutionally guaranteed right to privacy.

BTW, that court case applied to a government...not to a private entity like an employer.

In reality, that court case could pretty much destroy your proposed law to prevent employers from asking questions.

 

[Mycroft]

That is the lamest justification I have even seen. As if any employee in YOUR little business will suddenly become a "public figure" and cost you millions in t-shirt sales. duh! (psst! Just in case he does...pink slips are always an option). LOL

LOL!!! Damn, dude...you are making me laugh again!! Heck...if I'm trying to sell used cars and my employer finds out I'm a pedophile...do you think I'll get hired? Or will the fact that I have a lot of experience talking people into doing what they don't want to do all that should matter to my prospective boss?

Come on...real world...

 

[Captain Adverse]

BTW, that court case applied to a government...not to a private entity like an employer.

In reality, that court case could pretty much destroy your proposed law to prevent employers from asking questions.

You don't understand law much do you. The importance of SCOTUS decisions goes beyond the base case. You asked where did I get the idea the Constitution protected a right to privacy. I provided you with a case that shows the Fourth Amendment right to privacy does exist and how it can be applied. NOPE, it does not destroy my position, despite your uninformed opinion.

So keep laughing, but you still have no NEED to know all the crap you demand from your applicants. There's nothing in your state law that says you can't ask now though, although in some other states it is against the law for example, to ask about criminal history in an employment application. So yes, again to your original question I would support laws preventing employers from asking more than they need to ensure a person seeking employment is qualified for a job.

 

[Mycroft]

You don't understand law much do you. The importance of SCOTUS decisions goes beyond the base case. You asked where did I get the idea the Constitution protected a right to privacy. I provided you with a case that shows the Fourth Amendment right to privacy does exist and how it can be applied. NOPE, it does not destroy my position, despite your uninformed opinion.

So keep laughing, but you still have no NEED to know all the crap you demand from your applicants. There's nothing in your state law that says you can't ask now though, although in some other states it is against the law for example, to ask about criminal history in an employment application. So yes, again to your original question I would support laws preventing employers from asking more than they need to ensure a person seeking employment is qualified for a job.

I think it is YOU who doesn't understand law any more than you understand the real world.

That case struck down a law enacted by a State government. It doesn't apply to a private entity. Constitutionals "rights", whether expressly stated in the Constitution or granted by court decisions ONLY apply to what a government body may do...not to a private citizen...like the owner of a football team or the owner of a used car lot.

 

[Captain Adverse]

I think it is YOU who doesn't understand law any more than you understand the real world.

That case struck down a law enacted by a State government. It doesn't apply to a private entity. Constitutionals "rights", whether expressly stated in the Constitution or granted by court decisions ONLY apply to what a government body may do...not to a private citizen...like the owner of a football team or the owner of a used car lot.

Go to school, learn how to understand the law and how constitutional law works, and then you can speak with authority. I never said that ruling particularly applied to private business. Once again, like I am talking to a 5 year-old: It. Is. An. Example. Showing. Constitutional. Privacy. Rights. Exist. For some reason you didn't seem to think so, although for the life of me I don't know where you could have gotten that idea.

Also I pointed out there was no law currently denying your actions in seeking all that unnecessary personal info, and never said there was one. I did say that I would SUPPORT it on behalf of privacy rights if need be.

LOL!!! Damn, dude...you are making me laugh again!! Heck...if I'm trying to sell used cars and my employer finds out I'm a pedophile...do you think I'll get hired? Or will the fact that I have a lot of experience talking people into doing what they don't want to do all that should matter to my prospective boss?

Of course you might not get hired if your boss did a background check. You might if he didn't though. Also, if you got hired and it was later learned somehow that you were, you might very well get fired. So? 200 years ago if people found out you were a witch you'd get hung or burned; and 50 years ago if you were on the Black List as a commie or socialist things would be a problem...duh!

Doesn't explain why you'd need to know if someone had served his time for a crime, and was now free of all restrictions and seeking a job he was fully qualified for. But oh well, keep justifying your "need to know" by showing it's simply to discriminate on the basis of things that may have absolutely nothing to do with the applicants current ability to do the job.

 

[Mycroft]

Go to school, learn how to understand the law and how constitutional law works, and then you can speak with authority. I never said that ruling particularly applied to private business. Once again, like I am talking to a 5 year-old: It. Is. An. Example. Showing. Constitutional. Privacy. Rights. Exist. For some reason you didn't seem to think so, although for the life of me I don't know where you could have gotten that idea.

Also I pointed out there was no law currently denying your actions in seeking all that unnecessary personal info, and never said there was one. I did say that I would SUPPORT it on behalf of privacy rights if need be.



Of course you might not get hired if your boss did a background check. You might if he didn't though. Also, if you got hired and it was later learned somehow that you were, you might very well get fired. So? 200 years ago if people found out you were a witch you'd get hung or burned; and 50 years ago if you were on the Black List as a commie or socialist things would be a problem...duh!

Doesn't explain why you'd need to know if someone had served his time for a crime, and was now free of all restrictions and seeking a job he was fully qualified for. But oh well, keep justifying your "need to know" by showing it's simply to discriminate on the basis of things that may have absolutely nothing to do with the applicants current ability to do the job.

There are no constitutional privacy rights that apply to a private business...and that's what we are talking about here. Or, are you just trying to move the goalposts or something? That court case you mentioned, like I said, has nothing to do with anything we are talking about. You should just let that one go. But, of course, you won't...you'd rather see the government tell private businesses what to do and justify it by citing a court case that applies to the government. Go figure...

Now...about the background check. You say the guy could always be fired if something is found out later, right? Well...why do you want to hamstring the employer...why do you want to cost him money? If he could have found out about the pedophile before he hired him to sell cars, he wouldn't have had to pay his salary and commission for however long it took him to find out. Or that football team owner wouldn't have had to pay millions to the kid before he had to fire him because he couldn't sell any t-shirts.

Dude...you just keep reinforcing the fact that you live in a dream world of your own making.

 

[Binary_Digit]

The Constitution says what the government can and cannot do, it doesn't say what employers can and cannot do. So the Constitution has nothing to do with employer-mandated drug testing.

I see a lot of comments like "Drug test to see if you pose a danger to the operation of the business" and "I have no problem with random drug tests or for cause drug tests at the workplace, because an employer has a right to know I don't pose a danger to his business by being intoxicated at work." Captain Adverse, can you please explain why you aren't equally concerned about a prospective employee's drinking habits? You want to test for drugs to make sure they aren't "intoxicated at work", but drugs can show up in tests long after the intoxicating effects are gone. Marijuana in particular can stay in the system for up to 6 weeks. No reasonable person could believe that someone may pose a hazard at work if they smoked a joint over a month ago, or even the night before for that matter.

Employers should be allowed to screen applicants how they want, and I'm not proposing any laws to limit their right to do so. But I think the culture should change, because it doesn't make sense to me. It's hypocritical to test someone for something they did in their off-time, falsely assuming that a positive result means they must have been stoned at work, all the while not giving two ****s about how many six-packs they go through in a week. It's total BS.

 

[Verthaine]

Maybe they do have a problem, but feel they have to do things they don't agree with for the chance to get a job.

That is not MY problem as an employer,now is it?

For ten years I hated working under someone else's rules,so you know what I did?
I worked my ass off,saved my money,went to culinary school,got my degree,and open up my OWN restaurant where I am the one who makes the rules.
It wasn't easy but it sure as hell wasn't impossible.

I'm sure there are plenty of people who hate the fact that they have to show up to a job and actually do work as opposed to just showing up and getting paid to do nothing.

The idea that people can just choose not to take a job if they don't like certain conditions is not the reality in the vast majority of cases.

My 2 file cabinet drawers filled with job applicants tells me differently.

Here is a list of the criteria that I use for perspective employees.
Let me know how unreasonable these sounds to you.

1-Be a legal citizen of the United States with a valid state i.d. and a social security or have documentation that proves that you are in this country legally and allowed to work in the United.
2-Be of legal age to work in the United States.
3-Have actual experience in the job that one is applying for.
4-Not have any warrants out for your arrest.
5-Not be high on drugs or drunk when applying for this job.
6-Show up to the job interview on time.
7-Show up looking presentable (if you show up in a dirty t-shirt,shorts,and flip-flops,you are not going to get the job)
6-No facial tattoo's or piercings if applying for a waiter's position, (I actually don't have a problem with it for cooks and dishwashers).

 

[ReformCollege]

It is none of your boss's business any more than the government and you need a job.

Doesn't mean you have the right to that job.

 

[Captain Adverse]

There are no constitutional privacy rights that apply to a private business...and that's what we are talking about here.

That would actually be incorrect, depending on which state you reside in. For example, some states forbid employers to ask about or access prior criminal records, and others that allow this but prohibit employers from disqualifying an applicant on this basis. (That latter restriction is constantly ignored by employers, which has resulted in a number of civil lawsuits). Other states may have other restrictions on what an employer may ask prior to employment.

wait...a "Constitutional right"??? LOL!!! You are going to have to explain THAT one to me. Is that something like a right to healthcare???

You made no reference to business in that question; but in any case why do you think there would be no natural limitations on a BUSINESS' power to invade personal privacy? Your replies tend to indicate that you want to know certain information so you can discriminate in your hiring practices. The law denies you the power to do this on the basis of race, religion, sex, national origin, disability, or age.

Society and the law recognizes an employer's right to discriminate of the basis of work related concerns, including technical skill level, prior training, educational requirements, experience, legal employment status (work permit, immigration/naturalization standards) as well as personality assessment i.e. do you feel the person is a good fit. Drug testing is also accepted as a method of preventing workplace problems and hazards. (Some states may require employers to offer rehabilitation options before an employee can be discharged.) In certain cases, specific past criminal acts must apply to prevent employment; ex. sex crimes where the job concerns protected classes (like children, rape victims, etc.)

But back to your denial of privacy invasion on the basis of an employer’s “need to know” in order to determine if an employee would be a good fit. Where does this need to know stop? Employer’s regularly demand to know what clubs and organizations employees belong to, as if membership in the ACLU or a gun club have anything to do with work. Do you really need to know everywhere an employee has lived? Can an employer demand an inspection of the employee’s home, or an interview with his entire family to help decide? Should an employer hire a private investigatorto contact friends and neighbors, or spy on the employee in order to get a sense of who the person is? WTF does any of that have to do with THE JOB?!?

So yes, I’d say business can and should be limited in what it requires from an employee in the way of personal information that has no direct relationship with the employment being offered. I say this because a business owner needs to respect a person’s right to privacy as much as, if not more so, than any government agency.

 

[Mycroft]

That would actually be incorrect, depending on which state you reside in. For example, some states forbid employers to ask about or access prior criminal records, and others that allow this but prohibit employers from disqualifying an applicant on this basis. (That latter restriction is constantly ignored by employers, which has resulted in a number of civil lawsuits). Other states may have other restrictions on what an employer may ask prior to employment.



You made no reference to business in that question; but in any case why do you think there would be no natural limitations on a BUSINESS' power to invade personal privacy? Your replies tend to indicate that you want to know certain information so you can discriminate in your hiring practices. The law denies you the power to do this on the basis of race, religion, sex, national origin, disability, or age.

Society and the law recognizes an employer's right to discriminate of the basis of work related concerns, including technical skill level, prior training, educational requirements, experience, legal employment status (work permit, immigration/naturalization standards) as well as personality assessment i.e. do you feel the person is a good fit. Drug testing is also accepted as a method of preventing workplace problems and hazards. (Some states may require employers to offer rehabilitation options before an employee can be discharged.) In certain cases, specific past criminal acts must apply to prevent employment; ex. sex crimes where the job concerns protected classes (like children, rape victims, etc.)

But back to your denial of privacy invasion on the basis of an employer’s “need to know” in order to determine if an employee would be a good fit. Where does this need to know stop? Employer’s regularly demand to know what clubs and organizations employees belong to, as if membership in the ACLU or a gun club have anything to do with work. Do you really need to know everywhere an employee has lived? Can an employer demand an inspection of the employee’s home, or an interview with his entire family to help decide? Should an employer hire a private investigatorto contact friends and neighbors, or spy on the employee in order to get a sense of who the person is? WTF does any of that have to do with THE JOB?!?

So yes, I’d say business can and should be limited in what it requires from an employee in the way of personal information that has no direct relationship with the employment being offered. I say this because a business owner needs to respect a person’s right to privacy as much as, if not more so, than any government agency.

I'm going to disregard your references to State laws regarding what a business may and may not do because it is irrelevant to our discussion. When you were talking about a Constitutional right to privacy, I responded thinking about our Federal Constitution...not the myriad State constitutions and their various laws. Your deflections are nothing but a distraction and serve no useful purpose...therefore they do not deserve consideration.

In fact, pretty much ALL of your post deserves no consideration except the question you pose: Where does this need to know stop?

The need to know stops when one or both of the parties involved decide that it stops. Your opinion...the government's opinion...about where it needs to stop is irrelevant and if a law is passed that supports your opinion...or anyone else's opinion...then that law is a government imposition and barrier to the right for two parties to freely enter into an agreement. That is wrong. It is bad. That kind of government imposition should stop.

Heck, with your kind of thinking, my right to freely associate with any other individual on a social level should come under the same kind of government control you want to impose on businesses. Are you going to tell me that I can't question some person about his character before I decide to make him my friend?

(you see how that works? when I come up with something that is irrelevant to the topic? that's what you did with your "State law" crapola.)

 

[Captain Adverse]

Heck, with your kind of thinking, my right to freely associate with any other individual on a social level should come under the same kind of government control you want to impose on businesses. Are you going to tell me that I can't question some person about his character before I decide to make him my friend?

(you see how that works? when I come up with something that is irrelevant to the topic? that's what you did with your "State law" crapola.)

State laws are not always based on State Constitutions although their content can be limited by them. The Fourth Amendment was incorporated as applying to the states (and all citizens) in Wolf v. Colorado, 388 U.S. 25 (1949). But what citizens like yourself fail to realize is that advocates of the Bill of Rights established it to prevent the Federal Government from limiting rights they ALREADY CONSIDERED ALL CITIZENS POSSESSED. Experience had taught them that no prior government had been a respecter of those rights. An individual's right to privacy is inherent in his very existence. All constitutions and laws do is try to ensure protection from unnecessary infringement or abridgement of such rights.

There is no free negotiation when 12 applicants stood before the current employee and 12 more stand behind, all seeking your job. YOU have all the power (much like oh say our government?) and there is little in the way of negotiation going on in that scenario. Before you will even TALK to a potential employee you demand all sorts of information in the application process so you can first reduce the applicant pool, and then confront the remainder with "here's my offer, take it or leave it." Up to a point I even agree with the process.

However, having worked in Human Resources and also 3 years in a state unemployment office, this activity is exactly why I argue in other threads against government propaganda concerning unemployment figures. Especially when the government dismisses 3.5 million "marginally attached" and "discouraged" workers from the set of all workers in need of employment to make it seem like unemployment isn't quite as bad as we think it is.

Finally, I repeat I never stated there was any overall law preventing employers from being as nosy as they want in most cases. I just said in my first reply that you are invading a person’s privacy whenever you ask them questions which really have nothing to do with whether or not they can do the job. They either give you what you want when they file their application or they don't even get to speak to you about a job...that's not negotiation.

 

[Kal'Stang]

Going under someone's employ does not give that person a license to know the entire life story of that person. It is a breach of privacy.

The Right to Privacy only extends to the government.