ZOMBIE FORUMS

Yesterday our new "HR Investigator" came through my programming department and had us all do fingerprints. I have a full story in my livejournal, and if I'm "lucky" it will get slashdotted from this.

WarMage's LiveJournal

So the debate to open is: in the United States, what rights to this information are afforded to both the employer and the employee? Are these "rights" adequate? Has anyone been or known someone who has had the aftermath of this affect the employment?

I also want to get your opinions of how best to approach my boss about the lack of professional courtesy in the above article.

-------------------
-MrWarMage is a poseur disguised as a phony.

My suggestion would be to basically ask where was the memo saying we were being checked and why? My vote was for "if they havn't gotten around to it by 90 days, they obviously don't need it so BUGGER OFF!"

At my job we got background checked and credit checked (of course, I have access to every single Capital One credit card account that has been active in the past seven years). As for the credit check, at least, every single job that I've applied for had some sort of clause in there that said something along the lines of "we reserve the right to check your credit," and I don't think where you work is an exception. But the background check -- that's BS. Unless they tell you ahead of time why, they shouldn't be able to do it.

Background checks and fingerprinting make sense for government jobs like police, FBI, Military. And Jobs where you handle large amounts of money, but companies have gotten WAY to free about prying into people's private lives, as if they don't want to lease your sevices, they want to OWN YOU! Drug tests are BS unless you are operating dangerous machinery (18-Wheeler etc) I don't do drugs but I'd rather be left alone because it's NONE OF THEIR DAMNED BUSINESS!!!

Why is it that America no longer can even grasp the concept of a right to privacy? Why do people think that it's their, and everyone elses right to go probing into everyone elses personal life? It's about time people learned to leave each other the fuck ALONE!!!

I can see the reasoning behind such a check (just think on all the new spins: "New Winterfresh Thin Ice Strips, made only by perfect citizens in the U.S.A. besides all the productivity possibilities), but truly, what matters is how well they get the work done. Easy as that. 'Coarse, I'm one of those freaks who belives in blatantly stomping on the rights of the rich and powerful for the sake of the the larger portions of society, so I don't really hold an objective view.

I cant see any situation where the employer would need to be able to do these checks except in a case where they could bring in other authorities (the police etc). They should have no more right than any other person to check on their employees.

BLM

Well, like I said before, at my job I have access to every single Capital One Credit Card account. This includes account numbers and expiration dates, all that you need to rip stuff off online.

I can understand why they did a background check. They are looking for confidentiality issues in our backgrounds. If we have a nasty problem with theft of money, we probably shouldn't be working with it.

They also did a credit check, making sure we were relativly responsible with our money. One, they don't want horribly irresponsible people giving other people advice on money. Two, they are checking in another avenue to see if you are having money problems and might have a problem with being tempted to steal money from other people via credit cards.

They actually havn't done a drug test, though.

Well, if all the crap about equal rights is true, then the rights of the rich (almost by definition, the few) should be stomped on to protect the rights of the poor/middle class (the many). If you wanna argue that, then feel free, but I'd rather not belabor the point which seems obvious to me unless someone actually disagrees.

It has become a matter of liability within the private sector. A corporation does not want to held liable for the actions of a person who is hidding their identity (for whatever reason). Imigation statutes, deadbeat-dad laws, Identity theft, and just plain fraud by employees has led to the need for printing a person. It also allows you as a person to prove who you are in the case of an ID theft, or attempts by others to implicate you in a work related wrong-doing. In this wonderfull age of jerk - off jihadists that want to kill us because we are us, I find it partially reassuring that I will be able to know for sure the new seasonal employye in my office is identified through their prints, and is likely not a nut wanting to blow up a goverment office so they can become a 'martyr'. As the world continues to grow more and more populated and complex, it will become more of a necessity, and could make financial transactions more secure and quicker; as in press a thumb to the payment button, bill paid. No more lost check books, and lost/stolen credit or debit cards.
I do not like the idea of being registered, but in the long run, it could aid in crime reduction, costs of businesses reduced, speed of financial feedback increased (know if you are in a recession within a 24 hour period rather than 12 month period now). The idea of reduced crime, lowered costs, and better security all lean towards saving money for all of us, and this looks appealing to my future retirement plan(ning).
I pray that the use of fingerprinting is never abused by our govt. (would be as bad as having to wear a star of david on your clothes in order to be identified and isolated, and well you know the rest of that story...fucking nazi bastards).
I think it part of the inevitable future....Just be vigilant to prevent the abuse, and make sure it is used to protect your rights.

The question arises, then, at what point should a corporation be held responsible for the actions of its employees? Never, because it is ultimately the employee who did the crime, not the corporation? Only when superiors and higher-ups within the corporation help cover up the crimes, as in the Church scandal? When it was widely known knowledge within the corporation, because you can't expect everyone to be a whistleblower? When it's known to a significant amount of the those within the relevant department, possibly including higher-ups? When it's known to a few?

Where does individual responsibility lapse into something larger?
Fucking Catholic church bastards. Oh, we're allowed to hold our members above the law, because we're a religion, not a corporation or a cult. Oh, we're allowed to deal with these things like they were only an internal matter, because we're a religion, not a corporation or a cult. Oh, we're allowed to flout the Lord only knows how many different laws and rules, because we're a religion, not a corporation or a cult.

Yeah, that's about right, that's the way powerful religions work. One reason I don't like organized religions.

Dont let spankers like the Catholic church influence your views on all religions. There are already enough pseudo-intellectuals out there who rag on religion simply cause it conflicts with their own ideas, which no doubt they found on a gothic/anti-everything/conspiricy nut Geocities page.

Unum: Thats a tenant of communism. The ideas (and mindset) of the writing of the constitution and the bill of rights was that government should fuck off and keep out of peoples' lives; that every man is equal; and (most importantly) the individual has inalienable rights. Notice "individual" not "the many." There is no mention of helping "the many" over "the few" in the constitution or the bill of rights, it mentions the rights of the individual.

So please stop mixing up my country's constitution with your whacked out political theories. And, btw, individualism is a good thing, and the idea "stomping on the few to benefit the many" as a LAW in a country is absurd. It discourages that at best, ad-hoc outlaws it at worst.

-MiB

There's a reason for the bullshit: your employer is liable if you turn out to be a criminal. They'd be negligent for *not* running background checks and fingerprinting if you went postal or something.

Moreover, it can be extremely difficult to fire people in large companies. If someone has some kind of handicap or is some minority, they'll turn to one of the many groups that specializes in shaking down large corporations.

This isn't to say the companies are blameless victims, but some of these problems are exacerbated by a somewhat broken legal system and some very nasty politics.

I'm only saying this: given that all people are equal, then does it make any sense for any group of people smaller than another to have more rights, when the only alternative is, if still unfair, less unfair?