View Poll Results: What should an employer be able to have an employee or potential employee submit to?

Voters
51. You may not vote on this poll
  • Drug tests

    35 68.63%
  • Credit checks

    14 27.45%
  • microchip implants

    2 3.92%
  • perform sexual acts for job and or promotion

    11 21.57%
  • Criminal background checks

    37 72.55%
  • DNA tests

    3 5.88%
  • wiretapping of employee's personal phones or other communication devices

    2 3.92%
  • ankle bracelets on 24 hours a day to track where the employee goes.

    3 5.88%
  • A search of personal property of the employee's home.

    2 3.92%
  • other

    8 15.69%
Multiple Choice Poll.
Page 4 of 11 FirstFirst ... 23456 ... LastLast
Results 31 to 40 of 104

Thread: What should an employer be able to have an employee or potential employee submit to?

  1. #31
    Tavern Bartender
    Constitutionalist
    American's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Virginia
    Last Seen
    Today @ 10:24 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    76,319

    Re: What should an employer be able to have an employee or potential employee submit

    An important option was missing. I think a perspective employer should be able to check to see if a potential employee is a liberal or not. It's no different then asking if someone has committed a felony.
    "He who does not think himself worth saving from poverty and ignorance by his own efforts, will hardly be thought worth the efforts of anybody else." -- Frederick Douglass, Self-Made Men (1872)
    "Fly-over" country voted, and The Donald is now POTUS.

  2. #32
    Sage
    cpwill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    USofA
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 08:57 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    57,115

    Re: What should an employer be able to have an employee or potential employee submit

    Quote Originally Posted by jamesrage View Post
    What do you do if all the places you wanted jobs at did this? Say you have a choice to not accept these conditions and go work for walm-mart or go on welfare to sponge off tax payers?
    then i guess i would have to weigh whether i wanted to go through the process more or less than whether i wanted to work there. for my current job in the military they asked (and i answered) all sorts of questions; which they had the right to do because i wanted this job. if i didnt' want them to do a background check on me, i was free to go get civilian work.

    It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that if all these businesses started doing this then you would not have a choice, unless you considered not working and mooching off of tax payers to be a choice.
    and it doesn't take rocket science to figure out that if most businesses were doing this, one business could perhaps establish an advantage in hiring by not doing this, just as it doesn't take a rocket scientist to realize that most businesses seek to ruthlessly reduce unnecessary overhead, which means that any research that wouldn't impact the individuals' job performance would be a waste of resources. It also doesn't take a rocket scientist to realize that such a program is more likely to lead to a greater allocation of labor relations (which increases wealth for the entire economy), any more than it takes a rocket scientist to realize that it's no right of the government to tell me what i must ask or not ask of those whom i choose to give jobs to.

    no one is coerced to answer anything they don't want to; this is hardly a libertarian realm, except inasmuch as restrictions on employers in this regard serve as limitations to property rights.

  3. #33
    Sage
    The Giant Noodle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Northern Illinois
    Last Seen
    11-03-14 @ 05:39 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    7,333

    Re: What should an employer be able to have an employee or potential employee submit

    Quote Originally Posted by cpwill View Post
    then i guess i would have to weigh whether i wanted to go through the process more or less than whether i wanted to work there. for my current job in the military they asked (and i answered) all sorts of questions; which they had the right to do because i wanted this job. if i didnt' want them to do a background check on me, i was free to go get civilian work.



    and it doesn't take rocket science to figure out that if most businesses were doing this, one business could perhaps establish an advantage in hiring by not doing this, just as it doesn't take a rocket scientist to realize that most businesses seek to ruthlessly reduce unnecessary overhead, which means that any research that wouldn't impact the individuals' job performance would be a waste of resources. It also doesn't take a rocket scientist to realize that such a program is more likely to lead to a greater allocation of labor relations (which increases wealth for the entire economy), any more than it takes a rocket scientist to realize that it's no right of the government to tell me what i must ask or not ask of those whom i choose to give jobs to.

    no one is coerced to answer anything they don't want to; this is hardly a libertarian realm, except inasmuch as restrictions on employers in this regard serve as limitations to property rights.
    You obviously have zero grasp on how things are done in a medium to large company. Human Resources really wants to continue to be viable. They attend training confrences... they go to conventions... they go through training and evaluations... they belong to forums on the internet..... and a lot of their position is to reduce 'liability' (whether real or PERCIEVED) on their company. They want to keep their jobs and tell the companies upper management how they can save them money VIA background checks. They make it a 'MUST HAVE' topic and if not the respective company will be in utter chaos if management doesnt listen to their mystical background checking ways.

    Anyhow they are like a little Union inside a company that USUALLY knows that their background checking on individuals are not an accurate representation of a good or bad employee. In fact it makes little to no difference how a background check reflects on REAL WORLD performace! How do I know this? I actually had friends in the company I was working for that was in the HR department. (in fact if youre single I highly suggest dating women from HR. They are kinky! )
    CORPORATE GREED AND UNION GREED
    DEMOCRATS AND REPUBLICANS
    DESTROYING THE BEST OF AMERICA ONE DAY AT A TIME

    This is the worst kind of discrimination. The kind against ME! ~ Bender

  4. #34
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Los Angeles, CA
    Last Seen
    02-16-11 @ 08:57 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    36,915
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: What should an employer be able to have an employee or potential employee submit

    Quote Originally Posted by The Giant Noodle View Post
    You obviously have zero grasp on how things are done in a medium to large company. Human Resources really wants to continue to be viable. They attend training confrences... they go to conventions... they go through training and evaluations... they belong to forums on the internet..... and a lot of their position is to reduce 'liability' (whether real or PERCIEVED) on their company. They want to keep their jobs and tell the companies upper management how they can save them money VIA background checks. They make it a 'MUST HAVE' topic and if not the respective company will be in utter chaos if management doesnt listen to their mystical background checking ways.
    This isn't even close to accurate. Background checks server two purposes: they give an indication of character and judgment and they also release the company from liability if criminal activity occurs on the job.

    Anyhow they are like a little Union inside a company that USUALLY knows that their background checking on individuals are not an accurate representation of a good or bad employee. In fact it makes little to no difference how a background check reflects on REAL WORLD performace! How do I know this? I actually had friends in the company I was working for that was in the HR department. (in fact if youre single I highly suggest dating women from HR. They are kinky! )
    Well hell, since you're little girlfriend from HR says so, that must be the case.

  5. #35
    Matthew 16:3

    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Everywhere and nowhere
    Last Seen
    06-24-17 @ 05:05 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    45,603

    Re: What should an employer be able to have an employee or potential employee submit

    All of those should be legal for the employer to require. Although I would say that some of them, such as the sexual acts one, should be occupation specific.

    Ultimately, if an employer asks for these things, it is up to the potential employee to decide if they are willing to submit to them.
    Tucker Case - Tard magnet.

  6. #36
    pirate lover
    liblady's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    St Thomas, VI
    Last Seen
    03-14-16 @ 03:55 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    16,165
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: What should an employer be able to have an employee or potential employee submit

    Quote Originally Posted by jamesrage View Post
    What do you do if all the places you wanted jobs at did this? Say you have a choice to not accept these conditions and go work for walm-mart or go on welfare to sponge off tax payers?


    It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that if all these businesses started doing this then you would not have a choice, unless you considered not working and mooching off of tax payers to be a choice.
    i think it would depend upon the job.

  7. #37
    Sage
    The Giant Noodle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Northern Illinois
    Last Seen
    11-03-14 @ 05:39 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    7,333

    Re: What should an employer be able to have an employee or potential employee submit

    Quote Originally Posted by Tucker Case View Post
    All of those should be legal for the employer to require. Although I would say that some of them, such as the sexual acts one, should be occupation specific.

    Ultimately, if an employer asks for these things, it is up to the potential employee to decide if they are willing to submit to them.
    Thats is a HUGE mistake to think that way. All a company needs to worry about is what you are hired for.... a JOB. If I can do the job that is IT! They need know nothing else. My PERSONAL life is just that. To give up YOUR right to privacy because a company has you over the barrel is not right. The more a company will get away with, they will. And you are letting us slide down the slippery slope of a company mixing THEIR business into MY life. I dont think so!
    Dont you DARE sell us down the river like that! Any personal information MUST be made illegal to check. (Except for sensitive Gov't jobs and caring for kids)
    CORPORATE GREED AND UNION GREED
    DEMOCRATS AND REPUBLICANS
    DESTROYING THE BEST OF AMERICA ONE DAY AT A TIME

    This is the worst kind of discrimination. The kind against ME! ~ Bender

  8. #38
    Enemy Combatant
    Kandahar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Washington, DC
    Last Seen
    10-15-13 @ 08:47 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    20,688

    Re: What should an employer be able to have an employee or potential employee submit

    Quote Originally Posted by Tucker Case View Post
    All of those should be legal for the employer to require. Although I would say that some of them, such as the sexual acts one, should be occupation specific.

    Ultimately, if an employer asks for these things, it is up to the potential employee to decide if they are willing to submit to them.
    I completely disagree. If enough people are willing to submit to it, then those who DON'T will be at a serious disadvantage for employment. Eventually, it would just become a cultural norm where people EXPECT to be subjected to violations of their privacy as a condition for employment. We need regulations to prevent employers from abusing their employees just because they can. There is no reason to believe that the free market would produce the socially optimal outcome (i.e. employers who don't ask for anything beyond what is job-relevant).
    Are you coming to bed?
    I can't. This is important.
    What?
    Someone is WRONG on the internet! -XKCD

  9. #39
    Matthew 16:3

    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Everywhere and nowhere
    Last Seen
    06-24-17 @ 05:05 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    45,603

    Re: What should an employer be able to have an employee or potential employee submit

    Quote Originally Posted by Kandahar View Post
    I completely disagree. If enough people are willing to submit to it, then those who DON'T will be at a serious disadvantage for employment. Eventually, it would just become a cultural norm where people EXPECT to be subjected to violations of their privacy as a condition for employment. We need regulations to prevent employers from abusing their employees just because they can. There is no reason to believe that the free market would produce the socially optimal outcome (i.e. employers who don't ask for anything beyond what is job-relevant).
    If enough people are willing to subit to it, it is the socially optimal outcome and those who refuse to submit to it are SOOL.
    Tucker Case - Tard magnet.

  10. #40
    Matthew 16:3

    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Everywhere and nowhere
    Last Seen
    06-24-17 @ 05:05 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    45,603

    Re: What should an employer be able to have an employee or potential employee submit

    Quote Originally Posted by The Giant Noodle View Post
    Thats is a HUGE mistake to think that way. All a company needs to worry about is what you are hired for.... a JOB. If I can do the job that is IT! They need know nothing else. My PERSONAL life is just that. To give up YOUR right to privacy because a company has you over the barrel is not right. The more a company will get away with, they will. And you are letting us slide down the slippery slope of a company mixing THEIR business into MY life. I dont think so!
    Dont you DARE sell us down the river like that! Any personal information MUST be made illegal to check. (Except for sensitive Gov't jobs and caring for kids)
    It's easy as pie to keep them out of your personal life. They aren't obligated to hire you. You aren't obligated to work for them. You want them out of your perosnal life, then stay away from their business life.
    Tucker Case - Tard magnet.

Page 4 of 11 FirstFirst ... 23456 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •