- Joined
- Feb 26, 2007
- Messages
- 13,988
- Reaction score
- 6,593
- Location
- Charlottesville, VA
- Gender
- Female
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
lol.
Actually, there is one job I can think of where the employer is completely justified in having their employees or potential employees submit to performing sex acts for the job and/or for promotions.
A fake Kewpie doll to whoever guesses which job I'm thinking about.
A pie maker??? :shock:
It's not a straw man. In fact, you literally just parroted back what I wrote...you just replaced "the market" with "the people" even though they mean exactly the same thing in this context. It's not that "the people" or "society" have determined that submission to these tests is the optimal outcome; I highly doubt many employees are beating down the doors of employers begging to have their credit checked or their DNA tested to prove their commitment to the job. Nevertheless, they might grudgingly submit to it...ESPECIALLY if, as you said, enough other people are doing it that they are SOOL if they don't do it. That is NOT a socially optimal outcome just because employers are able to coerce employees to do something they don't want to do.
So far, everything you have written has indicated that you have a Panglossian view that whatever outcome occurs is the socially optimal outcome, as long as it was decided by the free market (or "society" if that is your preferred euphemism).
You just stated that if they don't submit and everyone else does, then they're SOOL (and that that's OK with you). Make up your mind.
Porno audition?
Well, I know what job *I* had to do that for in order to get the job. :lol:
A pie maker??? :shock:
Drug tests
Credit checks
Criminal background checks
Sexual favors in order to be hired or get promotions
I was limitting it to legal professions so I excluded that, but then I remembered Nevada, so you win a fake Kewpie doll, too.
No, market and the people do not mean the same thing in this context. They are totally different things in this context. The "market" would be the people who purchase, use, partake of products/services offered by the company and thus generating profit for the company. They aren't going to be the one's being directly affected by the companies hiring strategies in any way shape or form.
Which is why this isn't about the market. It's about what people are willing to submit to in order to work for a particular company. this isn't a case of peopel ignoring the bad **** a company does simply because they want cheap crap made in china.
This is about what a company does to those people. If society as a whole submits to these things, then society as a whole is saying that this is socially optimal.
If the people are willing to submit to averse conditions in order to attain employment, that is their prerogative. I wouldn't do something I had a fundamental disagreement with simply to get a job, regardless of it's payscale. That's why I don't think the slippery slope fallacy you presented before has any merit (aside form teh fact that it was fallacious reasoning, of course).
I beleive that people won't sbject themselves to something that they are fundamentally opposed to. I believe enough small businesses would exist which are owned by people who have a fuindamental disagreement with these policies that they would not become universal and that options will always exist for those who have that fundamental disagreement.
Will those people who have that fundamental disagreement be SOOL when it comes to getting the jobs where these are requirements? Absolutely. And that sucks for them. But at the end of the day, if they aren't willing to deal with some discomfort in order to live by their principles, they don't really have any principles.
So far everything you have written hass indicated you aren't interested in discussing my actual views, but instead would rather do battle with an imaginary libertarian.
If that's what you want to do, go right ahead, but please don't pretend that it is me that you are discussin gthis with. Admit that you are doing battle with an invisible libertarian.
There's nothing to make my mind up about. The two statements I made are not contradictory in any way.
In the second statement, I was talking about the people who were willing to submit.
In the previous statement, the people who were SOOL were those who were unwilling to submit.
As we all know, someone cannot be willing to submit and unwilling to submit at the same time. They are mutually exclusive situations.
While they are unwilling to submit, their unhappiness is not "their own fault". In that case, they are SOOL. For them, I do have sympathy, and I respect them for taking a stand on principle.
But the moment they become willing to submit, however, their unhappiness is entirely their own fault and no one elses.
By becoming willing to submit, they made the choice to be party to their own unhappiness AND to **** on their own principles. They not only are at fault for their own unhappiness, they deserve to be unhappy because they didn't have the balls to take a stand on principle.
I believe that peopel should approach life like this more often. The fact of the matter is that most people in our society are the cause of their own unhappiness. Nowadays most people seem to have a victim mentality hwere they prefer to muddle along impotently bitching about how "unfair" everything is without ever actually doing anything to take control of their own destiny.
Ironically, their in action is an action of it's own. Their inaction is a choice to be unhappy.
Hopefully they some day realize that they are the primary cause of their own unhappiness.
This issue is a primary example. Instead of doing things for themselves, peopel are complacent to allow otehrs to do it for them by having the government step in and save them from themselves.
Que sera sera. Personally, I'd rather be in charge of my own destiny.
If I could thank this like 10000 times, I would.
You both are very... VERY wrong. You are making the workers of America sad.
You are making the workers of America sad.
The bolded section is exactly what I was talking about, Noodle.
I'm not doing anything to anybody. If someone is saddened by my words, it is becuase they choose to be saddened by them.
Thats a bit of a lame argument. Americans have lost jobs to outsourcing to other countries.
Those people choose to be sad.
They did nothing wrong.
They just made more money than what the company wanted. :roll: I feel ANY company that outsources jobs unless 100% nessasary, should be fined for the difference in what they gained by taking jobs from Americans.
Anyhow... YOu are wrong.... I am correct. :2wave:
Just because one feels sorry for themselves doesn't mean they're sitting around doing it. There's nothing wrong with feeling sorry for yourself. Nobody else cares about you more than you.
The thing about feeling sorry for one's self is that it is a self-defeating action. When someone slips into that cycle, it becomes increasingly difficult to pull themselves out of it. Everything becomes disasterized, even small things.
I've been in that state before, and I'm speaking as someone who has come out the other side of it. Even though I thought I was being proactive, I was actually stuck in a rut. I was unable to get out of myself out of there until I changed my entire paradigm.
What I'm arguing in favor of here is the resulting paradigm.
Bottom line is....
the Blackhawks wont win another championship in 50 years.... and because YOU feel its the right of a company to ABUSE an applicant by submitting them to revealing their PERSONAL life and dance like a chicken on a hot plate to get a job is dead WRONG!
Its ETHICALLY wrong. We should NOT be pressured into giving up any of our life! All they need to do is interview me and look at my WORK history. PERIOD!
Bottom line is....
the Blackhawks wont win another championship in 50 years.... and because YOU feel its the right of a company to ABUSE an applicant by submitting them to revealing their PERSONAL life and dance like a chicken on a hot plate to get a job is dead WRONG!
Its ETHICALLY wrong. We should NOT be pressured into giving up any of our life! All they need to do is interview me and look at my WORK history. PERIOD!
The "Two parts hyperbole with a dash of 'because I said so' argument" isn't a particularly compelling one, to be honest.
It doesn't present a case for your vehemently held opinion in any way.
In truth, it damages your position because it makes it appear to have no legitimate logical basis.
He doesn't...it appears that he is butthurt because there's something in his background that he doesn't want disclosed to an employer because it would be a deal breaker. That's PRECISELY why background checks are important in the hiring process. :shrug:
Or the reason people go back to a life of crime. Because they did their jailtime and paid fir what they did but instead of getting a clean slate upon release they're treated like second class citizens because they have a "record". All because of a bar fight or possession of coke (personal use) when they were in their early 20's.
Well there's a way around that...don't get into a bar fight or get caught possessing cocaine if you care about your career. :shrug:
Or, mayb, we could let them get on with their lives after paying their debt to society like a logical, and modern society should [IMO].
Such primitive thinking, and backwards to boot - think about the impact on said person if after being let out of jail, paying his debt to society, etc he was treated like **** - even if it wasn't something like rape or murder. Bet he'd be REALLY motivated to steer clear of crime now. :roll:
Well see, here's the thing...I wouldn't even take note of a possession charge older than 3 years on a person's background check. An assault charge, however, is a deal breaker especially if it's in concert with domestic violence (I might reconsider if it was a REALLY old charge and it was a bar fight situation). Any kind of sexual offense is going to find their file in the trash; I don't care if it was just urinating in public. It's too much of a liability to hire someone who has that kind of record if something were to happen while they were at work. It would immediately come back on our organization that we knew he was a sex offender. You can blame the litigious nature of our society for that one, not the background check.
It's not my concern how society treats a candidate. It's my concern to pick the best candidate possible while considering things like liability issues. Criminal background checks will ALWAYS be done as long as I am in charge at work.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?