• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

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

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

  • Total voters
    41
Re: What should an employer be able to have an employee or potential employee submit

Manc Skipper said:
Criminal background checks, but only for certain jobs.
Click to expand...

Thats reasonable. And as far as I would allow. Your background should only be for the local, State and Feds to know about. Special exceptions should be made for jobs with children and government jobs including politicians.
 
Re: What should an employer be able to have an employee or potential employee submit

anything they want; the terms of employment should be up to the employer. the employee is free to quit or not take the job at any time if they are unwilling to meet those criteria.
 
Re: What should an employer be able to have an employee or potential employee submit

The Giant Noodle said:
Not this topic AGAIN. :roll:
Employers should have NO right to check ANYTHING. All they should be concerned about is if the employee does the job as asked. If not then fire them. PERIOD. If they break the law... they go to jail AND they are fired.
Regarding criminal checks.... if they aren't in jail then they should not be discriminated against.
You going to NOT hire Charlie Sheen or Keifer Sutherland or Robert Downey because of their criminal past?
You COULD based on their misdemeanors and felonys. But you would be a jackass.

Although.... I did vote for the sax acts :2razz: *giggle*
Click to expand...
This is unbelievable!
But I do agree with the discrimination bit - to an extent.
Of course the employer should make every check that he sees fit.
Is it not public knowledge that a good percentage of criminals and nut cases are NOT behind bars??
But, the employers must work with the governments in helping others....this is probably a new thing.
Now, if its a nice job and pays $100,000 per annum, yes to the implants , but NO if its close relations with Fat Roseanne.
 
Last edited:
Re: What should an employer be able to have an employee or potential employee submit

jamesrage said:
What should be legal for an employer to have an employee or potential employee submit to?

1. Drug tests
2. Credit checks
3. microchip implants
4. perform sexual acts for job and or promotion
5. Criminal background checks
6. DNA tests
7. wiretapping of employee's personal phones or other communication devices
8. ankle bracelets on 24 hours a day to track where the employee goes.
9. A search of personal property of the employee's home.
10. other


Most people would agree that some of these options have nothing to do with the job. For example you own a bank then you do not want a former bank robber to work there,unless as a consultant. If you run a daycare then you do not want chester the child molester to work there. If you own a business where employees will be handling dangerous equipment you may not want a junkie. Some would argue that its their business they should be able to make an employee or applicant do what ever they want.
Click to expand...

Any 'test' they see fit. You have the option as a potential employee, not to submit to what they request and forfeit the job opportunity. Naturally I think some of these are way over the top - but then again - if I'd applied for a job and part of the offer of hire process included a search of my private property, then I would opt out and flip them the bird.

Their choice is to have potential employees submit to certain tests, it's up to you whether or not you choose to submit to these tests.

This isn't rocket science.
 
Re: What should an employer be able to have an employee or potential employee submit

TheGirlNextDoor said:
Any 'test' they see fit. You have the option as a potential employee, not to submit to what they request and forfeit the job opportunity. Naturally I think some of these are way over the top - but then again - if I'd applied for a job and part of the offer of hire process included a search of my private property, then I would opt out and flip them the bird.
Click to expand...
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?

Their choice is to have potential employees submit to certain tests, it's up to you whether or not you choose to submit to these tests.

This isn't rocket science
Click to expand...
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.
 
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. :lol:
 
Re: What should an employer be able to have an employee or potential employee submit

jamesrage said:
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?
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

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

cpwill said:
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.
Click to expand...

You obviously have zero grasp on how things are done in a medium to large company. :roll: 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! ;) )
 
Re: What should an employer be able to have an employee or potential employee submit

The Giant Noodle said:
You obviously have zero grasp on how things are done in a medium to large company. :roll: 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.
Click to expand...

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! ;) )
Click to expand...

Well hell, since you're little girlfriend from HR says so, that must be the case. :roll:
 
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.
 
Re: What should an employer be able to have an employee or potential employee submit

jamesrage said:
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.
Click to expand...

i think it would depend upon the job.
 
Re: What should an employer be able to have an employee or potential employee submit

Tucker Case said:
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.
Click to expand...

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

Tucker Case said:
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.
Click to expand...

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

Kandahar said:
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).
Click to expand...

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

The Giant Noodle said:
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)
Click to expand...

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

Tucker Case said:
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.
Click to expand...

Wrong. That mindset is derived from the idea that whatever The Market wants is good. The Market is not some benevolent deity. The free market can (and often does) produce suboptimal outcomes for society.

Even if enough people are willing to submit to it, it doesn't mean they're happy about it. The nation is better off when the government regulates what employers are allowed to ask their employees about.
 
Last edited:
Re: What should an employer be able to have an employee or potential employee submit

Tucker Case said:
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.
Click to expand...

Except as you said, "if enough people submit to it, those who don't are SOOL." Meaning that eventually people won't have a choice, as it becomes customary for employers to ask for those things and for employees to submit to those invasions of their privacy.
 
Re: What should an employer be able to have an employee or potential employee submit

Tucker Case said:
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.
Click to expand...

You obviously havent made a god damn pie before! :soap
 
Re: What should an employer be able to have an employee or potential employee submit

Kandahar said:
Wrong. That mindset is derived from the idea that whatever The Market wants is good. The Market is not some benevolent deity. The free market can (and often does) produce suboptimal outcomes for society.
Click to expand...

Go play with your strawman elsewhere. I said nothing about "good" and nothing about the "Market". Society dictates what is optimal. If society (meaning the people) determine that submission to these tests are optimal, then they are optimal.

You seem to be confusing my thoughts on perosnal choice with "good" and "bad".

Even if enough people are willing to submit to it, it doesn't mean they're happy about it.
Click to expand...

If they are unhappy, it's there own fault.


The nation is better off when the government regulates what employers are allowed to ask their employees about.
Click to expand...

that's a nice opinion and all, but without something to back it up, why should I believe you? Simply starting your post with "wrong" and following it with a strawman automatically makes me think you are not equipped with teh abilities to nmake such claims. Prove that thought wrong.
 
Re: What should an employer be able to have an employee or potential employee submit

Kandahar said:
Except as you said, "if enough people submit to it, those who don't are SOOL." Meaning that eventually people won't have a choice, as it becomes customary for employers to ask for those things and for employees to submit to those invasions of their privacy.
Click to expand...

Even if it becomes customary, it won't become universal. There will be choices extant even still.

If people don't have the balls to make tough choices based on their principles, I don't have any sympathy for them.

This isn't about the free market, its about personal responsibility for your own actions. I'm a big proponent of that.
 
Re: What should an employer be able to have an employee or potential employee submit

10 people said sexual favors would be permissible to get promoted? Man that's just plain wrong! :shock:

I think that should only occur if the chick is hot because I would feel sorry for the boss if she's a dog! :lol:
 
Re: What should an employer be able to have an employee or potential employee submit

EnigmaO01 said:
10 people said sexual favors would be permissible to get promoted? Man that's just plain wrong! :shock:

I think that should only occur if the chick is hot because I would feel sorry for the boss if she's a dog! :lol:
Click to expand...

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

Tucker Case said:
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.
Click to expand...

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

Tucker Case said:
Go play with your strawman elsewhere. I said nothing about "good" and nothing about the "Market". Society dictates what is optimal. If society (meaning the people) determine that submission to these tests are optimal, then they are optimal.
Click to expand...

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.

Tucker Case said:
You seem to be confusing my thoughts on perosnal choice with "good" and "bad".
Click to expand...

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).

Tucker Case said:
If they are unhappy, it's there own fault.
Click to expand...

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

Tucker Case said:
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.
Click to expand...

A pie maker??? :shock:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom