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 6 of 11 FirstFirst ... 45678 ... LastLast
Results 51 to 60 of 104

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

  1. #51
    Goddess of Bacon

    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Charlottesville, VA
    Last Seen
    05-28-12 @ 09:35 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    13,988

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Tucker Case View Post
    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.
    Well, I know what job *I* had to do that for in order to get the job.

  2. #52
    Sage
    EnigmaO01's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Indiana
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 09:34 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    7,029

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

    Quote Originally Posted by The Giant Noodle View Post
    A pie maker???
    Are you referring to the midieval bakers that used their distended testicles as indicators?

  3. #53
    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
    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.
    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 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).
    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.

    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.
    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.
    Tucker Case - Tard magnet.

  4. #54
    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 EnigmaO01 View Post
    Porno audition?
    Ding ding. You win a fake Kewpie doll.
    Tucker Case - Tard magnet.

  5. #55
    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 rivrrat View Post
    Well, I know what job *I* had to do that for in order to get the job.
    I was limitting it to legal professions so I excluded that, but then I remembered Nevada, so you win a fake Kewpie doll, too.
    Tucker Case - Tard magnet.

  6. #56
    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
    A pie maker???
    Only if it's hair pie.
    Tucker Case - Tard magnet.

  7. #57
    Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Whitewater, CO
    Last Seen
    04-05-16 @ 06:04 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    8,260
    Blog Entries
    1

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Johnny View Post
    Drug tests
    Credit checks
    Criminal background checks
    Sexual favors in order to be hired or get promotions
    Credit checks are not appropriate for all but a few jobs. For the most part, pre-employment credit checks need to be outlawed.

  8. #58
    Goddess of Bacon

    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Charlottesville, VA
    Last Seen
    05-28-12 @ 09:35 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    13,988

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Tucker Case View Post
    I was limitting it to legal professions so I excluded that, but then I remembered Nevada, so you win a fake Kewpie doll, too.
    WOOT!!!

    *bounces*

  9. #59
    Goddess of Bacon

    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Charlottesville, VA
    Last Seen
    05-28-12 @ 09:35 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    13,988

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Tucker Case View Post
    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.

  10. #60
    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 rivrrat View Post
    If I could thank this like 10000 times, I would.
    You both are very... VERY wrong. You are making the workers of America sad.
    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

Page 6 of 11 FirstFirst ... 45678 ... 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
  •