# News & Current Events > Individual Rights Violations: Case Studies >  Employers Asking for Facebook Password

## rockerrockstar

Talk about trying to get around our right to privacy.  When will it end.  We should not have to give away our rights of privacy just to get a job.  Bad enough we have to submit to background and drug tests now this. This is invasion of our private lives. 

http://www.cnn.com/video/?hpt=hp_c2#...-passwords.hln

----------


## thoughtomator

another reason not to have a Facebook account

----------


## BuddyRey

What would be their policy if a prospective employer didn't _have_ a Facebook account?

I shudder to think that a Facebook account might someday become a prerequisite for working and functioning in society.

----------


## forliberty52

That is crazy, Facebook has made such a movement in society today, now the question comes to light as to whether or not this is going in a good direction? It can be considered a double edge sword, employers no longer trust the people on the job market but that should not mean that employers have the right to access your personal information. Now we have to do research on ourselves to make sure we can get jobs, because we don't know how other people perspective of us is going to be based on solely what they see and not how we present ourselves professionally.

----------


## newbitech

lol,

i'm sorry, but I am glad this is happening.  Maybe people will start to realize that hiring decisions based on personal lives goes beyond legitimate business need.  

Want to know the root of the problem?  It's the cottage industry that has sprung up around 3rd part Consumer Reporting Agencies.  Since Consumer Reporting Agencies lost a huge source of revenue when financial credit collapsed, they had to go out looking for another way to get that money.

So Consumer Reporting Agencies first expanded in to doing Criminal Background checks.  They sell there service by scarring HR Manager and business owners in to believing that those HR Managers and Business Owners can only protect themselves from lawsuits by performing "due diligence" in the hiring process.  They further convince those HR Managers and Business Owners that by hiring the Consumer Reporting Agency they have a rock solid defense should some crazy ass employee slip through the cracks in the hiring process and break the law in the name of the company.  

Of course, it's not enough to simply run background checks.  In their zeal for greed and the complete break down of respect for privacy as well as the easy access to personal information, these CRA's are expanding their business in to the realm of data mining the web for any and all information to dig up dirt on job candidates.

The CRA's have companies believing that if they hire someone who makes controversial posts on facebook, then that person is risk to cause some lawsuit against the company.  

It is real easy for CRA's to make this claim because of news stories about people who have committed some crime and then had their online presence looked at after the fact, show signs that the crime could have possibly been prevented if someone was paying attention to things like facebook.  So of course the people who did possibly see what someone might have said online are now guilty of ignoring an obvious threat. 

So companies feel that checking facebook is simply due diligence and way to protect themselves from a lawsuit.  This is the same damn problem that people with run ins with "the law" have been facing for the last 5 years with dissemination of their history all over the internet.  

So good, I am glad that people will get rejected from jobs for bull$#@! reasons.  Now maybe they will feel the handicap that I feel and stop making stupid $#@!ing comments like, well you brought this on yourself.   Ya, I guess I did.

----------


## Bruno

> lol,
> 
> i'm sorry, but I am glad this is happening.  Maybe people will start to realize that hiring decisions based on personal lives goes beyond legitimate business need.  
> 
> Want to know the root of the problem?  It's the cottage industry that has sprung up around 3rd part Consumer Reporting Agencies.  Since Consumer Reporting Agencies lost a huge source of revenue when financial credit collapsed, they had to go out looking for another way to get that money.
> 
> So Consumer Reporting Agencies first expanded in to doing Criminal Background checks.  They sell there service by scarring HR Manager and business owners in to believing that those HR Managers and Business Owners can only protect themselves from lawsuits by performing "due diligence" in the hiring process.  They further convince those HR Managers and Business Owners that by hiring the Consumer Reporting Agency they have a rock solid defense should some crazy ass employee slip through the cracks in the hiring process and break the law in the name of the company.  
> 
> Of course, it's not enough to simply run background checks.  In their zeal for greed and the complete break down of respect for privacy as well as the easy access to personal information, these CRA's are expanding their business in to the realm of data mining the web for any and all information to dig up dirt on job candidates.
> ...


Well, unfortunately this is going to affect a lot more people than the ones who make stupid comments to you, and I don't feel good about people not getting hired for stupid reasons having to do with their personal lives.

----------


## oyarde

What is facebook ? Guess I do not need it...

----------


## newbitech

> Well, unfortunately this is going to affect a lot more people than the ones who make stupid comments to you, and I don't feel good about people not getting hired for stupid reasons having to do with their personal lives.


It already does, though that's kind of my point.  What you are commenting on was more of a tongue in cheek comment.  It's hard for me to explain my issue to people and this just makes it easier.  That is what I am really glad about.  Maybe folks will understand better.  

It's like a ban on cigarettes.  Non smokers won't see the real issue until things they like get banned.  Personal liberties are already being taken away from certain people.  Others don't see it or refuse to see it and make stupid excuses for why it's ok to take personal liberties from someone.  Until it happens to them.  

I hate that it takes something like this for the issue to be recognized.  But if that is what it takes, so be it.

----------


## youngbuck

> What would be their policy if a prospective employer didn't _have_ a Facebook account?
> 
> I shudder to think that a Facebook account might someday become a prerequisite for working and functioning in society.


Yea, imagine it's a job requirement that says something like "Facebook account with minimum 1-year active and honest record keeping to augment background check data."

----------


## smithtg

sounds like some busy bee in some HR department came up with this one.  Or some bored corporate lawyer.  HR 'professionals' in general waste everyone's time

----------


## Anti Federalist

+rep

And people wonder *why* I don't Farcebook...

You shouldn't have to sell yourself into indentured servitude to make a living.

This why, "well just get another job" is not a valid option or response.

An employer wants compliance from me while "on the clock" that's fine.

On my time, it's none of their $#@!ing business.




> lol,
> 
> i'm sorry, but I am glad this is happening.  *Maybe people will start to realize that hiring decisions based on personal lives goes beyond legitimate business need.* 
> 
> Want to know the root of the problem?  It's the cottage industry that has sprung up around 3rd part Consumer Reporting Agencies.  Since Consumer Reporting Agencies lost a huge source of revenue when financial credit collapsed, they had to go out looking for another way to get that money.
> 
> So Consumer Reporting Agencies first expanded in to doing Criminal Background checks.  They sell there service by scarring HR Manager and business owners in to believing that those HR Managers and Business Owners can only protect themselves from lawsuits by performing "due diligence" in the hiring process.  They further convince those HR Managers and Business Owners that by hiring the Consumer Reporting Agency they have a rock solid defense should some crazy ass employee slip through the cracks in the hiring process and break the law in the name of the company.  
> 
> Of course, it's not enough to simply run background checks.  In their zeal for greed and the complete break down of respect for privacy as well as the easy access to personal information, these CRA's are expanding their business in to the realm of data mining the web for any and all information to dig up dirt on job candidates.
> ...

----------


## heavenlyboy34

This kind of thing is why I specialize in businesses in which freelancing is easy.

----------


## Boss

If most people agree they won't give up their privacy, then it won't matter if employers ask for social network passwords

----------


## tttppp

> sounds like some busy bee in some HR department came up with this one.  Or some bored corporate lawyer.  HR 'professionals' in general waste everyone's time


HR people are largely worthless. I wouldn't be surprised if they came up with this simply to fill the void in their day.

I hate HR people. When I was coming out of college, I was clearly better than any of my classmates, but I had a hard time getting a job because those $#@! HR people would screen me out before I had a chance to speak to the real decision makers of the business. I knew more than any of my classmates, but I never got to show that because the HR people didn't know any of the technicals and wouldn't let me interview with anyone who did. HR people simply look for the dumbest people they can find who are willing to suck up. Those are the people who get ahead in this world, and HR people are largely responsible.

----------


## Jeremy

That's like an employer asking for the keys to your house...

----------


## libertyjam

> HR people are largely worthless. I wouldn't be surprised if they came up with this simply to fill the void in their day.
> 
> I hate HR people. When I was coming out of college, I was clearly better than any of my classmates, but I had a hard time getting a job because those $#@! HR people would screen me out before I had a chance to speak to the real decision makers of the business. I knew more than any of my classmates, but I never got to show that because the HR people didn't know any of the technicals and wouldn't let me interview with anyone who did. HR people simply look for the dumbest people they can find who are willing to suck up. Those are the people who get ahead in this world, and HR people are largely responsible.


I agree with this wholeheartedly, HR people are the most useless $#@!s on the planet, and the biggest bane to a company to ever exist.

----------


## rockerrockstar

I am convinced that HR is their to stop people from getting jobs not to fill jobs.

----------


## tttppp

> I am convinced that HR is their to stop people from getting jobs not to fill jobs.


HR people don't know how to run a business and therefore don't know how to determine who can succeed in the job and who can't. I'm sure these people have some use. But too often, these HR people have way too much say in who gets a real interview and who doesn't. They are more concerned with who has the best interviewing skills than who has the best chance to be a long term success in their company. 

I've always been great at real interviews with the higher ups in a business, but I always struggle with these bs HR interviews. All they want is for you to bs them. And thats what everyone but me does. Once I had a real interview, and half way through it the guy thanked me for not bullshiting him like everyone else always does. So there's a huge difference between HR interviews and real interviews. 

Odds are, if you are interviewing with an HR person, that means they are just giving you a token interview and are not considering you for the job. If you are getting an interview with someone from the actual operations, then you have a chance.

Also, HR people never ever read a resume or hear a person's answer in an interview, and say to themselves they must hire this guy. Its the exact opposite. They have their checklists, if you don't have everything they look for, you automatically are not considered. If you have great stuff on your resume thats not on their list, they don't take that into consideration. All they care about is their checklist. If you have a great interview with them, but give them one bad answer, you are automatically eliminated. The key to getting a job is going around the HR people and getting an interview directly with the people who run the business.

----------


## RickyJ

I have two words for an employer asking me this, they are "F--k Y-u."

----------


## RickyJ

Heck if an employer asked me for this then I would ask for their online banking password. If they refused to give it to me then I would also refuse to give them my password.

----------


## NorthCarolinaLiberty

"So candidate X, what is the last youtube video that you uploaded?"

----------


## NorthCarolinaLiberty

"So candidate X, if you could meet any three people in history, who would they be?


When replying this question, resist the urge to answer Geronimo, Patrick Henry, and Tank Man.  Instead, just say Abraham Lincoln, Albert Einstein, and Helen Keller.

----------


## oyarde

> "So candidate X, if you could meet any three people in history, who would they be?
> 
> 
> When replying this question, resist the urge to answer Geronimo, Patrick Henry, and Tank Man.  Instead, just say Abraham Lincoln, Albert Einstein, and Helen Keller.


 Too late , I already used the first two . Got the job .

----------


## onlyrp

> Talk about trying to get around our right to privacy.  When will it end.  We should not have to give away our rights of privacy just to get a job.  Bad enough we have to submit to background and drug tests now this. This is invasion of our private lives. 
> 
> http://www.cnn.com/video/?hpt=hp_c2#...-passwords.hln


They're not getting around a right you don't have. Nobody owes you a job, you can shop elsewhere if you don't like their hiring policies. Background check and drug tests are more about liability and avoiding criminals. As somebody has pointed out, yes, some jobs DO require you have a facebook account as a pre-requisite for applying. That's how they measure your ability to network and communicate, typically these are marketing jobs. It's very ironic and hypocritical that people are all about individual rights , but don't seem to respect an employer's right to protect himself, or exercise his choices, however stupid they may be.

----------


## KCIndy

> What would be their policy if a prospective employer didn't _have_ a Facebook account?
> 
> I shudder to think that a Facebook account might someday become a prerequisite for working and functioning in society.



Great question.  

I don't have a Facebook account - and I NEVER will.  If this turns out to be a coming prerequisite for employment, I guess I'll be standing in the unemployment lines soon.

----------


## BlackTerrel

> another reason not to have a Facebook account


If employers start asking for password for email accounts would that be a reason not to have email?

I have a very hard time believing many employers ask for this and I think CNN is manufacturing an issue.  I wouldn't work for a company that asked for this.

----------


## KCIndy

Hmmm.

On second thought, maybe this is a golden business opportunity.

Perhaps I should get into the black market and start selling fake Facebook accounts!

----------


## tttppp

> They're not getting around a right you don't have. Nobody owes you a job, you can shop elsewhere if you don't like their hiring policies. Background check and drug tests are more about liability and avoiding criminals. As somebody has pointed out, yes, some jobs DO require you have a facebook account as a pre-requisite for applying. That's how they measure your ability to network and communicate, typically these are marketing jobs. It's very ironic and hypocritical that people are all about individual rights , but don't seem to respect an employer's right to protect himself, or exercise his choices, however stupid they may be.


Typically companies that do this are the big corporations that only exist because of some bs regulations from the government. More often than not, smaller, better run companies do not go through all the bs procedures in order to hire someone. Requirements like being on facebook, in most circumstances, are just more barriers to entry. We should be creating a system that reduces barriers to entry, not increasing them.

----------


## newbitech

> They're not getting around a right you don't have. Nobody owes you a job, you can shop elsewhere if you don't like their hiring policies. Background check and drug tests are more about liability and avoiding criminals. As somebody has pointed out, yes, some jobs DO require you have a facebook account as a pre-requisite for applying. That's how they measure your ability to network and communicate, typically these are marketing jobs. It's very ironic and hypocritical that people are all about individual rights , but don't seem to respect an employer's right to protect himself, or exercise his choices, however stupid they may be.


IMO, it's not about the business right to hire or not hire who they want.  It's more about the mindset that says we need to know everything about your private life to make a hiring decision.  Do these same businesses require their paying customers to undergo background checks before they walk in their stores?  Do service businesses require their customers to undergo background checks before they take on a job?  

No, they don't.  Why?  If I am in a store and another customer assaults me, is it the store owners fault?  Similarly, if I walk in to a store and one of those employees who had a squeaky clean background assaults me, is it the store owners fault?  

So why are business owners forced to invade the privacy of the employee by law, yet are not forced to invade the privacy of the customer by law?  Of course, the business owners are complicit in the law because they do whatever they have to do to operate, regardless if the laws they are complying with are valid.  And they do this without even thinking about the repercussions of compliance other than, that is the law.  

At some point, someone somewhere will need to make a stand, otherwise, businesses will continue down this path until they run out of employees and eventually run out of customers.  This is why the problem needs to be recognized at the root.  But, most people will say, so what?  It doesn't impact me, so why should I care?  Just like every other piece of liberty that is wiped out.

----------


## tttppp

One thing I'd like to point out is that typically when companies are really looking to hire people, they don't make them go through all these bs requirements. The companies that I have interviewed with that were not looking to hire me, had all these bs requirements. The companies that were desperate and hired me, also had bs requirements, but waived them because they really needed the help. The last job I got didn't even check my references or do any kind of background check.

----------


## MozoVote

I despise navigating the gatekeepers so much, that I've stuck with the same job for 8 years now. And no, I don't FaceBook, although I do have a few fake accounts on there to join some groups that I wanted to check in with periodically.

----------


## onlyrp

> Typically companies that do this are the big corporations that only exist because of some bs regulations from the government. More often than not, smaller, better run companies do not go through all the bs procedures in order to hire someone. Requirements like being on facebook, in most circumstances, are just more barriers to entry. We should be creating a system that reduces barriers to entry, not increasing them.


what do you mean "we should create"? There's no laws requiring it one way or the other. "Barriers" to entry are their private choice, their loss or not.

----------


## onlyrp

> IMO, it's not about the business right to hire or not hire who they want.  It's more about the mindset that says we need to know everything about your private life to make a hiring decision.


I am well aware you dislike the mindset. So you do dislike their right to do it?




> Do these same businesses require their paying customers to undergo background checks before they walk in their stores?  Do service businesses require their customers to undergo background checks before they take on a job?


Customers pay you, you pay employees. See the difference?




> No, they don't.  Why?  If I am in a store and another customer assaults me, is it the store owners fault?  Similarly, if I walk in to a store and one of those employees who had a squeaky clean background assaults me, is it the store owners fault?  
> 
> So why are business owners forced to invade the privacy of the employee by law, yet are not forced to invade the privacy of the customer by law?


Short answer : because customers are given too many rights.




> Of course, the business owners are complicit in the law because they do whatever they have to do to operate, regardless if the laws they are complying with are valid.  And they do this without even thinking about the repercussions of compliance other than, that is the law.  
> 
> At some point, someone somewhere will need to make a stand, otherwise, businesses will continue down this path until they run out of employees and eventually run out of customers.  This is why the problem needs to be recognized at the root.  But, most people will say, so what?  It doesn't impact me, so why should I care?  Just like every other piece of liberty that is wiped out.


I still don't see it as a liberty. I am not entitled to being employed.

----------


## Carson

Is this an even trade sort of a question?

----------


## PreDeadMan

I don't see anything wrong with an employer trying to cover their ass and research people before they hire them even looking on their facebook page providing that page is in public view and stuff. Asking for the facebook password is going to far that's your own personal password and stuff pretty weird that they would want that information. I'm not against employers doing it after all nobody is FORCING you to work at said place you can quit at anytime i'm sure somebody will fill your spot pretty fast in this bad economy.

----------


## BlackTerrel

> Typically companies that do this are the big corporations that only exist because of some bs regulations from the government. More often than not, smaller, better run companies do not go through all the bs procedures in order to hire someone. Requirements like being on facebook, in most circumstances, are just more barriers to entry. We should be creating a system that reduces barriers to entry, not increasing them.


What are the companies that do this?  What big corporations?

I have never heard of anyone requiring this and I think CNN is manufacturing an issue that doesn't exist.

----------


## tttppp

> What are the companies that do this?  What big corporations?
> 
> I have never heard of anyone requiring this and I think CNN is manufacturing an issue that doesn't exist.


I've never interviewed with a company that required a facebook account. But I have interviewed with companies with bs requirements. I was just lumping the alleged facebook requirement with all their other bs.

----------


## tttppp

> what do you mean "we should create"? There's no laws requiring it one way or the other. "Barriers" to entry are their private choice, their loss or not.


Without bs rules and regulations by the government, companies would be forced to compete and therefor would not create a bunch of bs hiring guidelines that don't add any value to the hiring process. Government regulations cause bogus barriers to entry. This is basic economics. We've discussed this before.

----------


## onlyrp

> Without bs rules and regulations by the government, companies would be forced to compete and therefor would not create a bunch of bs hiring guidelines that don't add any value to the hiring process. Government regulations cause bogus barriers to entry. This is basic economics. We've discussed this before.


ah, let me guess, the unemployment rate is cause by bs barriers of government regulations.

----------


## tttppp

> ah, let me guess, the unemployment rate is cause by bs barriers of government regulations.


Thats a huge part of it.

----------


## CaptainAmerica

My 2nd employer put a sheet infront of me and told me to sign it because it was "company policy" required of employees. The sheet said that I was "vowing to never talk about my employer on facebook,twitter or any other social network and if I do so can be terminated". Hah..HAH HAH. Is my private life any of their business?I go to work ,I produce product for the customers and I go home and tend to what I consider my "real life". My job is not my life.

----------


## BlackTerrel

> What are the companies that do this?  What big corporations?
> 
> I have never heard of anyone requiring this and I think CNN is manufacturing an issue that doesn't exist.


My point was more general.  No one is actually requiring this and no one will.  It would be like an employer asking for access to your email.

It's a manufactured issue by CNN that happens to dovetail with an issue that some here have.

It's not a real issue

----------


## NorthCarolinaLiberty

If you're an interview candidate who freely offers your passwords, then that would be reason for me not to hire you.

----------


## Pauls' Revere

> Hmmm.
> 
> On second thought, maybe this is a golden business opportunity.
> 
> Perhaps I should get into the black market and start selling fake Facebook accounts!


fantastic idea! just have a dummy account with nothing posted on it at all...  LOL

----------


## VoluntaryAmerican

> What would be their policy if a prospective employer didn't _have_ a Facebook account?
> 
> I shudder to think that a Facebook account might someday become a prerequisite for working and functioning in society.

----------


## osan

> Talk about trying to get around our right to privacy.  When will it end.  We should not have to give away our rights of privacy just to get a job.  Bad enough we have to submit to background and drug tests now this. This is invasion of our private lives. 
> 
> http://www.cnn.com/video/?hpt=hp_c2#...-passwords.hln


Why not they just demand the keys to your house so they can satisfy themselves that _this_ week you're still acceptable as a drone?  Seriously, why dance around the issue?  Why not just get right to the point?

The rights of the individual are dissolving rapidly before our eyes.  Someone should take this to court, but we do not even have the luxury of trust for those venues.

As of this moment I have no basis for rejecting my view that this dangerously unpleasant game is going to boil down to the choice to shoot or surrender.  We are at war, and we all know how that ultimately goes.

----------


## LibertasPraesidium

Violating my privacy and asking me for a password to any account that I use is not going to get them anywhere.  If it is a condition of employment I will fight it. They cannot discriminate on my personal life, especially gender, race, age, religion.  All of which are what my profile is about. :-)  Plus I can deactivate my account at a moments notice and be completely unsearchable.

This is pure boredom and about as bad as saying all red meat will kill you.   (Assuming that is you eat more than 8 oz 6 days a week) RIDICULOUS, this is why we have brains and the ability to think critically of the events in our lives.

----------


## Anti Federalist

Where are the "private property" advocates who claim that an employer can, essentially, do whatever they want to you?

----------


## Anti Federalist

> My point was more general.  No one is actually requiring this and no one will.  It would be like an employer asking for access to your email.
> 
> It's a manufactured issue by CNN that happens to dovetail with an issue that some here have.
> 
> It's not a real issue


I had a buddy of mine hire on with a new outfit just last month, and they required that he, what the hell is it that you do on Farcebook so that your private page can be viewed?

"Befriend" or "like"...whatever, the point is that they demanded access to his Farcebook page, not passwords to modify, but to view the "private" content.

----------


## NorthCarolinaLiberty

It should definitely be the call for a private employer.  The article I saw said some government agency in Maryland and colleges were doing this.  That is altogether different.  Of course, government should not be involved in these employment and education activities anyway, but that's a different thread.

----------


## tttppp

> Violating my privacy and asking me for a password to any account that I use is not going to get them anywhere.  If it is a condition of employment I will fight it. They cannot discriminate on my personal life, especially gender, race, age, religion.  All of which are what my profile is about. :-)  Plus I can deactivate my account at a moments notice and be completely unsearchable.
> 
> This is pure boredom and about as bad as saying all red meat will kill you.   (Assuming that is you eat more than 8 oz 6 days a week) RIDICULOUS, this is why we have brains and the ability to think critically of the events in our lives.


Ron Paul would argue that employers do have the right to discriminate. 

Also, red meat is bad for you.

----------


## BlackTerrel

> I had a buddy of mine hire on with a new outfit just last month, and they required that he, what the hell is it that you do on Farcebook so that your private page can be viewed?
> 
> "Befriend" or "like"...whatever, the point is that they demanded access to his Farcebook page, not passwords to modify, but to view the "private" content.


What company?  What if he made two facebooks?

----------


## Anti Federalist

> What company?


Not going to say, it's in a small enough and specialized enough industry to be too much information to give out without permission.




> What if he made two facebooks?


Violation of Farcebook TOS isn't it?

----------


## Lishy

If an employer asked me for my password and he wasn't joking, I would immediately speak to his superior. If it's the company's policy, it'd tell them to go screw themselves, because that's like asking for the keys to your house.

----------


## BlackTerrel

> Not going to say, it's in a small enough and specialized enough industry to be too much information to give out without permission.


Fair enough.  But my point stands that I can't find a single company anyone has heard of that actually requires a facebook password to be given.  So yeah maybe there is some isolated incident in a tiny company but I've never heard of this happening and is probably as likely as someone asking for your email address password.  Manufactured issue that will never impact 99.9% of the population.




> Violation of Farcebook TOS isn't it?


So is making a Facebook page for your dog but around 1/4 of the dog owners I know have made one.  If someone really wanted to work at this company your friend went to work for they could spend 5 hours and create another page.  Or they could decline and interview at the 99.9% of companies that don't require this.

----------


## onlyrp

and guess who's fighting back?

http://arstechnica.com/business/news...ds.ars?src=fbk

----------


## fade

I think you can tell who is an EMPLOYEE

and who is an EMPLOYER in this thread just by their responses. I have a feeling the entrepreneurs have a little different view than the employee.

----------


## AFPVet

I did a little bit of work in human resources and I can tell you that companies who demand your social networking passwords are opening themselves up to serious liability due to the private nature of these sites.

----------


## tttppp

> I think you can tell who is an EMPLOYEE
> 
> and who is an EMPLOYER in this thread just by their responses. I have a feeling the entrepreneurs have a little different view than the employee.


What legitimate business purpose do employers have when asking for someones facebook account? How is that going to make your business better? What employees do on their own time, is their business. The only thing that matters is what employees get done at work.

----------


## dannno

> They're not getting around a right you don't have. Nobody owes you a job, you can shop elsewhere if you don't like their hiring policies. Background check and drug tests are more about liability and avoiding criminals. As somebody has pointed out, yes, some jobs DO require you have a facebook account as a pre-requisite for applying. That's how they measure your ability to network and communicate, typically these are marketing jobs. It's very ironic and hypocritical that people are all about individual rights , but don't seem to respect an employer's right to protect himself, or exercise his choices, however stupid they may be.


Your reading comprehension of other posters is completely atrocious. NOT ONE SINGLE POSTER IN THE ENTIRE THREAD EVER mentioned that companies should not have the right to hire how they want. Your entire post has ZERO justification for even existing.

What people are saying is that it is retarded for companies to use those services because they end up not hiring very good, effective employees who they would otherwise hire in favor of worse employees who simply meet their requirements. They are getting bigger companies to use their services due to frivolous law suits that may occur in part because of government regulations, just like what happens with drug testing. 





> ah, let me guess, the unemployment rate is cause by bs barriers of government regulations.


And high taxes......yes..... Ron Paul says that all the time. If your name is "onlyrp" why would you be so ardently opposed to this notion?

----------


## DerailingDaTrain

> Ron Paul would argue that employers do have the right to discriminate. 
> 
> Also, red meat is bad for you.



No he wouldn't. At least not in this case. If your FB account is private and only viewable by those you choose to let view it then by them asking for your FB password they are violating your 4th amendment rights.

----------


## Brian4Liberty

> The rights of the individual are dissolving rapidly before our eyes.


Supply and demand. When there is a shortage of people, each individual's value increases, and with value comes rights. When there is an excess of people, each individual's value decreases, but it looks really nice on corporate ledgers and Federal Reserve inflation numbers.

----------


## tttppp

> No he wouldn't. At least not in this case. If your FB account is private and only viewable by those you choose to let view it then by them asking for your FB password they are violating your 4th amendment rights.


I wasn't specifically taking about giving access to your private accounts. I was talking about companies rights to discriminate based on age, sex, race, religion, etc. He has stated before that he believes companies have the right to discriminate even if it is bad practice.

----------


## Tod

> another reason not to have a Facebook account


Another reason to be self-employed!

----------


## onlyrp

> Another reason to be self-employed!


not everybody can pull it off, what do you do? multi level marketing?

----------


## onlyrp

> No he wouldn't. At least not in this case. If your FB account is private and only viewable by those you choose to let view it then by them asking for your FB password they are violating your 4th amendment rights.


WTF LOL

You have no right to be employed, employers are not government. They have every right to ask you any questions, but you are free to not answer, not give them information, and not be hired.

----------


## onlyrp

> Your reading comprehension of other posters is completely atrocious. NOT ONE SINGLE POSTER IN THE ENTIRE THREAD EVER mentioned that companies should not have the right to hire how they want. Your entire post has ZERO justification for even existing.


Ok, sorry.





> What people are saying is that it is retarded for companies to use those services because they end up not hiring very good, effective employees who they would otherwise hire in favor of worse employees who simply meet their requirements.


retarded yes, and employees usually are greater victims than employers




> They are getting bigger companies to use their services due to frivolous law suits that may occur in part because of government regulations, just like what happens with drug testing.


you lost me there, what is about frivolous lawsuits and drug testing?





> And high taxes......yes..... Ron Paul says that all the time. If your name is "onlyrp" why would you be so ardently opposed to this notion?


because I believe unemployment is largely due to choice.

----------


## Tod

> not everybody can pull it off, what do you do? multi level marketing?


url in sig

----------


## onlyrp

> url in sig


you rent your land for dog owners?

----------


## Tod

> you rent your land for dog owners?


I operate a members-only off-leash dog park and also offer dog daycare & boarding.

----------


## DerailingDaTrain

> I wasn't specifically taking about giving access to your private accounts. I was talking about companies rights to discriminate based on age, sex, race, religion, etc. He has stated before that he believes companies have the right to discriminate even if it is bad practice.


No employer would/should be able to not hire you based on age, sex, religion, etc. 

It's called discrimination. "OH....I see you're a Muslim...get the hell out of my office!"




> You have no right to be employed, employers are not government. They have every right to ask you any questions, but you are free to not answer, not give them information, and not be hired


I'm sorry but invading my privacy should never be a requirement for a job and any employer who is doing that is extremely wrong in his actions. I never said you have a right to be employed. If I'm the best applicant available I shouldn't not be hired because of my age, race, sex, religion, etc. or because I won't give up my passwords to private accounts and if RP believes in that then that's the one thing I disagree with him on.

What if I already am employed and my employer demands that everyone fill out an extremely personal survey and give him the passwords to our email and FB pages. Is that perfectly fine? I should just give it to him or quit? No employer has the right to invade my privacy which is why they don't ask personal questions during job interviews like "Are you homosexual?" and "What religion are you?"

If employers aren't government why are they acting so much like them? The WH is the only organization I know of who asks such personal questions.

It's extremely bad practice to discriminate while hiring unless that person isn't physically and mentally fit to do the job and I'm finding it hard to think of a reason that an employer could come up with that would justify him discriminating against applicants because of their race, age, religion, etc. 

If you aren't the best applicant...see you later and have a nice day. There is no point to discriminate.

----------


## The Free Hornet

I've read about corrections and public schools doing this.  Are there any true employers AKA private companies doing this? I believe these titles shoud read "the government" is asking for facebook passwords.

One senator has already  called for outlawing the practice.  Gubblemint loves to create the impression that they are solving private problems.

----------


## Anti Federalist

Lost in all of this is the fact that government will be spying on *everything* by 2013

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...Mining-Program

----------


## onlyrp

> No employer would/should be able to not hire you based on age, sex, religion, etc. 
> 
> It's called discrimination. "OH....I see you're a Muslim...get the hell out of my office!"


It's called choice, freedom and private property. Only communists believe in forcing equality on businesses. 




> I'm sorry but invading my privacy should never be a requirement for a job and any employer who is doing that is extremely wrong in his actions.


that's your opinion, but nobody owes you a job. 




> I never said you have a right to be employed. If I'm the best applicant available I shouldn't not be hired because of my age, race, sex, religion, etc.


Whether you are the best applicant is subjective. Unless you have a right to be employed, there is no "should" as to what they choose to do.




> or because I won't give up my passwords to private accounts and if RP believes in that then that's the one thing I disagree with him on.


that's fine.




> What if I already am employed and my employer demands that everyone fill out an extremely personal survey and give him the passwords to our email and FB pages.


Luckily for you, and sadly for freedom lovers, there are labor laws that protect against that. Otherwise I would say they have every right to ask, you have every right to refuse to answer, and they have every right to fire you if they didn't get what they want (unless otherwise agreed on).




> Is that perfectly fine? I should just give it to him or quit?


Yes, you should follow your boss's orders, or quit. Unless he asks you to do something illegal or violation of your contract.




> No employer has the right to invade my privacy which is why they don't ask personal questions during job interviews like "Are you homosexual?" and "What religion are you?"


They don't have a right to invade your privacy, they have a right to ask questions that are private and you are free to refuse. They ONLY don't ask such questions because COMMUNIST EQUALITY LAWS FORCE PEOPLE TO NOT DISCRIMINATE. 




> If employers aren't government why are they acting so much like them? The WH is the only organization I know of who asks such personal questions.


because there are laws that restrict what they can ask. just like there are laws that prohibit refusal to serve people for "not good reasons".





> It's extremely bad practice to discriminate while hiring unless that person isn't physically and mentally fit to do the job and I'm finding it hard to think of a reason that an employer could come up with that would justify him discriminating against applicants because of their race, age, religion, etc.


They don't need to justify their opinion to you, that's why its called "opinion" and "freedom". You sound like you hate freedom.




> If you aren't the best applicant...see you later and have a nice day. There is no point to discriminate.


why can't your private life be part of a person's judgment criteria?

----------


## Anti Federalist

> It's called choice, freedom and private property. Only communists believe in forcing equality on businesses.


And thus were formed labor unions.

----------


## tttppp

> No employer would/should be able to not hire you based on age, sex, religion, etc. 
> 
> It's called discrimination. "OH....I see you're a Muslim...get the hell out of my office!"


Then maybe you are at the wrong forum because Ron Paul does support your right to discriminate even if it is for stupid reasons.

Not all discrimination cases are as simple as "you're a muslim, get out of my office." In most of them there are a lot of grey area. I really don't think its a good idea to wastes our courts time trying to decide what was the real reason for an employer not hiring someone.

I once had a boss who was so afraid of being sued, he would absolutely not fire anyone, even if they were incompetent and even if in some cases tried to sabotage the company. The reason for this is because our government does not give us the ability to discriminate as we feel is best. In order to fire people, some managers believe they need to have documented proof that a certain employee deserved to be fired legally, and that no other employee fell in that category. Because if another employee fell in that category and was not fired too, then you are open for a discrimination lawsuit.

----------


## DerailingDaTrain

You know, I don't see how I can be a RP supporter, and a communist freedom hater. It seems to me that those who advocate for discriminatory practices would be the freedom haters.




> Then maybe you are at the wrong forum because Ron Paul does support your right to discriminate even if it is for stupid reasons.
> 
> Not all discrimination cases are as simple as "you're a muslim, get out of my office." In most of them there are a lot of grey area. I really don't think its a good idea to wastes our courts time trying to decide what was the real reason for an employer not hiring someone.
> 
> I once had a boss who was so afraid of being sued, he would absolutely not fire anyone, even if they were incompetent and even if in some cases tried to sabotage the company. The reason for this is because our government does not give us the ability to discriminate as we feel is best. In order to fire people, some managers believe they need to have documented proof that a certain employee deserved to be fired legally, and that no other employee fell in that category. Because if another employee fell in that category and was not fired too, then you are open for a discrimination lawsuit.


Your boss could have fired that person because of them trying to sabotage the country. He definitely wouldn't be sued. 

It's as simple as who is best qualified for the job. Not what they do in their private life. If the person is incompetent then they shouldn't be hired.

Seriously, I'm not trying to be confrontational here, but I don't see how an employer being a bigot or a sexist and not hiring someone based on that is "Freedom". Can someone just explain it to me in a short straight to the point statement? If I go into a job interview and the boss is African-American and he doesn't hire me because I'm Caucasian (pc words) how is that right?

----------


## tttppp

> You know, I don't see how I can be a RP supporter, and a communist freedom hater. It seems to me that those who advocate for discriminatory practices would be the freedom haters.
> 
> 
> 
> Your boss could have fired that person because of them trying to sabotage the country. He's an idiot for thinking he would be sued.


I tried everything I could to get him to fire the supervisors who had been there for years who were completely incompetent, and the one supervisor who was trying to sabotage the company. Even after I had documented proof that they had screwed badly up multiple times, he still didn't want to fire them because he would point to a good employee and say that this good employee had had a similar thing happen to him. He was afraid that the potential fired employees would point to the employees we kept and say that they did the same thing, so there must of been some kind of discrimination. 

I for one agree with you. I would have simply fired the people who deserved it, and they can take their chances in court if they like. But my boss did bring up a good point. In THEORY these fired employees would have a potential case of discrimination. 

I've worked at other companies after this, I from what I can see, most companies do not fire people because of incompetence. Usually they try to pin something like breaking their rules against them. Its very rare that a company will just fire you because you are incompetent.

----------


## onlyrp

> You know, I don't see how I can be a RP supporter, and a communist freedom hater. It seems to me that those who advocate for discriminatory practices would be the freedom haters.


So there we go. Your definition of freedom is forcing a person to hire you even if they don't like you. My definition of freedom is, the man with the money makes the choices, even if it hurts another person's feelings. 




> Your boss could have fired that person because of them trying to sabotage the country. He definitely wouldn't be sued. 
> 
> It's as simple as who is best qualified for the job.


Best qualified is nothing simple. Why should a person hire an eye sore over an eye candy if all other items are close to equal?




> Not what they do in their private life. If the person is incompetent then they shouldn't be hired.


Why can't incompetence be inferred, guessed and why waste time testing?




> Seriously, I'm not trying to be confrontational here, but I don't see how an employer being a bigot or a sexist and not hiring someone based on that is "Freedom". Can someone just explain it to me in a short straight to the point statement?


Bigotry, ignorance, stupidity are all freedoms, if you don't see that, I can't help you. I should ask you, how is a bigot being forced to hire people with his money, against his will, "freedom"?

----------


## onlyrp

> I tried everything I could to get him to fire the supervisors who had been there for years who were completely incompetent, and the one supervisor who was trying to sabotage the company. Even after I had documented proof that they had screwed badly up multiple times, he still didn't want to fire them because he would point to a good employee and say that this good employee had had a similar thing happen to him. He was afraid that the potential fired employees would point to the employees we kept and say that they did the same thing, so there must of been some kind of discrimination. 
> 
> I for one agree with you. I would have simply fired the people who deserved it, and they can take their chances in court if they like. But my boss did bring up a good point. In THEORY these fired employees would have a potential case of discrimination. 
> 
> I've worked at other companies after this, I from what I can see, most companies do not fire people because of incompetence. Usually they try to pin something like breaking their rules against them. Its very rare that a company will just fire you because you are incompetent.


Sadly in America, even the THEORY AND POSSIBILITY of being sued can ruin your business. You might win at the end, but its a lot of waste of your time to be worrying about it, and many people take advantage of that.

----------


## onlyrp

> And thus were formed labor unions.


I'm fine with labor unions as long as they operate within the free market. I'm not too ok with laws that are passed to uniformly regulate wages, work hours, safety conditions...etc.

----------


## DerailingDaTrain

> So there we go. Your definition of freedom is forcing a person to hire you even if they don't like you. My definition of freedom is, the man with the money makes the choices, even if it hurts another person's feelings. 
> 
> 
> 
> Best qualified is nothing simple. Why should a person hire an eye sore over an eye candy if all other items are close to equal?
> 
> 
> 
> Why can't incompetence be inferred, guessed and why waste time testing?
> ...


He isn't being forced. If he doesn't want a black man working for him he can simply tell him that he wasn't the best applicant and send him on his way. 

As for the incompetence question...I'm pretty sure you can find that out in the interview and not choose them.

----------


## tttppp

> You know, I don't see how I can be a RP supporter, and a communist freedom hater. It seems to me that those who advocate for discriminatory practices would be the freedom haters.
> 
> 
> 
> Your boss could have fired that person because of them trying to sabotage the country. He definitely wouldn't be sued. 
> 
> It's as simple as who is best qualified for the job. Not what they do in their private life. If the person is incompetent then they shouldn't be hired.
> 
> Seriously, I'm not trying to be confrontational here, but I don't see how an employer being a bigot or a sexist and not hiring someone based on that is "Freedom". Can someone just explain it to me in a short straight to the point statement? If I go into a job interview and the boss is African-American and he doesn't hire me because I'm Caucasian (pc words) how is that right?


In my experience, I've worked with a lot of high school and college kids, and most were incompetent. If I wanted to hired older people instead of them, shouldn't I be allowed to have that right?

I've also worked with many female employees who get special treatment when compared to men. The men would be expected to get things done, while with women anything they do would be considered a positive. If I favored hiring men who are usually held to higher standards than women, shouldn't I be allowed to have that right?

----------


## DerailingDaTrain

> In my experience, I've worked with a lot of high school and college kids, and most were incompetent. If I wanted to hired older people instead of them, shouldn't I be allowed to have that right?
> 
> I've also worked with many female employees who get special treatment when compared to men. The men would be expected to get things done, while with women anything they do would be considered a positive. If I favored hiring men who are usually held to higher standards than women, shouldn't I be allowed to have that right?


Well, a woman just like a man, who isn't doing her job should be fired. 

What about those high school/college kids who work hard? Sorry kid, every high school/college kid, is incompetent.

Yes, you should be able to hire whoever you want, but basing it on race or anything like that is stupid. Hiring only this group of people or that group of people will get you nowhere. I still stand by what I said before: It's who is best qualified.

----------


## onlyrp

> He isn't being forced. If he doesn't want a black man working for him he can simply tell him that he wasn't the best applicant and send him on his way.


Ok, so then wouldn't it be nice if he can be honest and say "Blacks need not apply" or instead of misleading the person into believing that he's incompetent for other reasons, just tell him his racist views and save everybody the hassle? Currently, it's illegal, just like it used to be illegal to divorce without cheating or some other big deal reason, so spouses had to make up lies to justify divorce, until we had "no fault divorce". 

We do not have "no fault hiring" or "no fault renting", but it would be nice. Today, employers are "forced" to lie and "forced" to not ask questions that may make people uncomfortable.

----------


## tttppp

> Sadly in America, even the THEORY AND POSSIBILITY of being sued can ruin your business. You might win at the end, but its a lot of waste of your time to be worrying about it, and many people take advantage of that.


I'm not saying I agree with my boss. I used to spend a lot of time arguing with him, trying to get him to just fire these people. But I am the exception. Most employers today are like my former boss. They are afraid to fire people based on their performance.

----------


## onlyrp

> Well, a woman just like a man, who isn't doing her job should be fired. 
> 
> What about those high school/college kids who work hard? Sorry kid, every high school/college kid, is incompetent.


we don't hire people because THEY need a job. We hire people because WE need help. Get the story straight first.

----------


## onlyrp

> I'm not saying I agree with my boss. I used to spend a lot of time arguing with him, trying to get him to just fire these people. But I am the exception. Most employers today are like my former boss. They are afraid to fire people based on their performance.


Yes, I understand that. Unfortunately many laws force you to not be honest and otherwise wise about your business and choices.

----------


## DerailingDaTrain

> we don't hire people because THEY need a job. We hire people because WE need help. Get the story straight first.


You hire people because THEY need a job and are agreeing to help YOU.

----------


## tttppp

> Well, a woman just like a man, who isn't doing her job should be fired. 
> 
> What about those high school/college kids who work hard? Sorry kid, every high school/college kid, is incompetent.


I'm talking about hiring people. If I wanted to hire men over women based on my experience, shouldn't I be allowed to discriminate? If I wanted to hire older people, shouldn't I be allowed to do that?

I agree that anyone not doing their job should be fired.

----------


## onlyrp

> You hire people because THEY need a job and are agreeing to help YOU.


Nope. We hire people for US, not THEM. People apply for jobs not because they want to help us or take away our money, they apply because THEY need money. We do things for OURSELVES, not OTHERS. When we do things for others, its usually because WE NEED IT first.

Now, I was referring specifically to the iniation of hiring process. The ultimate decision of bringing a person on board, would be because an agreement is reached.

----------


## DerailingDaTrain

Nevermind. I see where you're coming from.

I still think that employers shouldn't discriminate based on something as petty as your sex, race, religious views, or age but I'm not advocating they be forced to do so.

----------


## onlyrp

> Nevermind. I see where you're coming from.


I appreciate that. You don't have to agree, but I think it's good that you understand what we are saying. And yes, when there was no government interferring with the hiring process, life was more free. It might be less wealthy, less fair, less happy, and less desireable for minorities, but it was FREER, nobody can deny that. Freedom is not about making you rich, happy, or equal, freedom is for itself.

----------


## Enforcer

> Nope. We hire people for US, not THEM. People apply for jobs not because they want to help us or take away our money, they apply because THEY need money. We do things for OURSELVES, not OTHERS. When we do things for others, its usually because WE NEED IT first.
> 
> Now, I was referring specifically to the iniation of hiring process. The ultimate decision of bringing a person on board, would be because an agreement is reached.


onlyrp,

Is it your position that one should be required to forfeit their Right to Privacy in order to get a job?

----------


## Noble Savage

No facebook no employer no problems

----------


## AFPVet

> No facebook no employer no problems


This. I deactivated my FB... don't need it. I am not going to reactivate it so some company can snoop around and cause me to seek a civil remedy for violation of countless employment laws.

----------


## coastie

> No facebook no employer no problems


Bingo. Never had one-never will.

I should clarify-I've had employers and problems, but no Facebook.

----------


## onlyrp

> onlyrp,
> 
> Is it your position that one should be required to forfeit their Right to Privacy in order to get a job?


no, it is my position that you are free to make any choices to get what you want as long as it's legal. This goes for both the employer and employee. You are free to ask if the employer cheats on his wife, and he is free to ask you if you're gay. You can guess who's in a better position, you are not required to do anything, not even answer the questions, nor is the employer required to do anything, including make you comfortable and happy.

----------


## Anti Federalist

I concur.

Say No to *Farce*book




> No facebook no employer no problems





> This. I deactivated my FB... don't need it. I am not going to reactivate it so some company can snoop around and cause me to seek a civil remedy for violation of countless employment laws.





> Bingo. Never had one-never will.
> 
> I should clarify-I've had employers and problems, but no Facebook.

----------


## Victor Grey

Is entering into an account that is not yours, identity theft.

If it is, then that company asking for passwords has committed a crime in the act of logging onto a person's private account.

----------


## azxd

Stupid people exist everywhere.

----------


## onlyrp

> Is entering into an account that is not yours, identity theft.
> 
> If it is, then that company asking for passwords has committed a crime in the act of logging onto a person's private account.


No, theft, intrusion, trespass require that you do so without permission. They are asking for permission, so it's not theft.

----------


## speciallyblend

if a business i work for ever asks me for a facebook password. I will have two words for them "F OFF"    Insanity

----------


## The Free Hornet

> He isn't being forced. If he doesn't want a black man working for him he can simply tell him that he wasn't the best applicant and send him on his way.


This is a perfect example of how the law harms people.  Most employers will do exactly as you suggest and give no reason or a legal reason for not hiring somebody.  It may be distasteful, but if people were discriminating against you, is it better to know or not know?  Imagine two Irishmen:

Irishman #1:  People won't hire me because I'm Irish.
[Decides to tone down his "Irishness" or look for jobs where being Irish is an asset or at least not a liability.]

Irishman #2:  Why won't anybody won't hire me?  They all say I'm "underqualified", "overqualified", or "wrong fit".
[Confused, he visits the pub to get drunk and engage in fisticuffs.]

Honesty is the best policy but the law does not agree.

----------


## onlyrp

> This is a perfect example of how the law harms people.  Most employers will do exactly as you suggest and give no reason or a legal reason for not hiring somebody.  It may be distasteful, but if people were discriminating against you, is it better to know or not know?  Imagine two Irishmen:
> 
> Irishman #1:  People won't hire me because I'm Irish.
> [Decides to tone down his "Irishness" or look for jobs where being Irish is an asset or at least not a liability.]
> 
> Irishman #2:  Why won't anybody won't hire me?  They all say I'm "underqualified", "overqualified", or "wrong fit".
> [Confused, he visits the pub to get drunk and engage in fisticuffs.]
> 
> Honesty is the best policy but the law does not agree.


Exactly, the law should encourage honesty. Sadly, this backfires as well, Don't Ask Don't Tell was repealed, and instead of openly discriminating against gays, now we're forced to openly accept gays.

----------


## Enforcer

> No, theft, intrusion, trespass require that you do so without permission. They are asking for permission, so it's not theft.


They are using their position to coerce you into compliance.  It's just short of legalized theft.  Using this logic is that they are asking for permission, then a boss could demand sex from you.  You could comply or not be hired or promoted.  

This is a very inconsistent position for you take onlyrp.  Just saying...

----------


## onlyrp

> They are using their position to coerce you into compliance.  It's just short of legalized theft.  Using this logic is that they are asking for permission, then a boss could demand sex from you.  You could comply or not be hired or promoted.  
> 
> This is a very inconsistent position for you take onlyrp.  Just saying...


They have no position, all they have is money you don't. And all you can lose is a job you never were entitled to. It's not theft, because they are asking for consent. Yes, your boss CAN demand sex for you, are you a liberal who believes in workers rights and equal protection? Have you zero respect for private property? I am not entitled to keep my job, unless there was a contract promising I am. 

If there was ANY contract that protects me against additional demands, than asking me to perform anything additional is out of the promise. But otherwise, most or all employments are "at will" meaning the boss can fire you at any time for any stupid reason, sadly we have employment protection laws that "protect" workers against this, which really does little more than waste people's time and money. 

What's inconsistent about my position?

----------


## TexanRudeBoy

> They are using their position to coerce you into compliance.  It's just short of legalized theft.  Using this logic is that they are asking for permission, then a boss could demand sex from you.  You could comply or not be hired or promoted.  
> 
> This is a very inconsistent position for you take onlyrp.  Just saying...


I have a candy bar. You say you would like a bite of it. I say, "Ok, but you have to tell me a secret about you". Did I just coerce you into telling me that secret? No, you willingly gave it up because you wanted a bite of the candy bar. What's the difference? 

You don't HAVE TO have a bite of my candy bar, same as you don't HAVE TO work at that place.

----------


## onlyrp

> I have a candy bar. You say you would like a bite of it. I say, "Ok, but you have to tell me a secret about you". Did I just coerce you into telling me that secret? No, you willingly gave it up because you wanted a bite of the candy bar. What's the difference? 
> 
> You don't HAVE TO have a bite of my candy bar, same as you don't HAVE TO work at that place.


I can play the fingerpointing game too, is this guy an ACLU lawyer who hates private property and calls anybody who disagrees with him a Nazi?

----------


## Enforcer

> I have a candy bar. You say you would like a bite of it. I say, "Ok, but you have to tell me a secret about you". Did I just coerce you into telling me that secret? No, you willingly gave it up because you wanted a bite of the candy bar. What's the difference? 
> 
> You don't HAVE TO have a bite of my candy bar, same as you don't HAVE TO work at that place.


I'm not wholly in disagreement with your position.  onlyrp and I disagree on another aspect of this.  Sometimes the law forces one party or another to give some potential employees an advantage over another group of potential employees.  But wait... the employer created the job.  It's theirs to give to whomever they want.  onlyrp, misquoting the laws, has suggested otherwise.

My stance relies on what the *United States Supreme Court* has opined:

_“The general misconception is that any statute passed by legislators bearing the appearance of law constitutes the law of the land. The Constitution of the United States is the supreme law of the land, and any statue, to be valid, must be in agreement. It is impossible for both the Constitution and a law violating it to be valid; one must prevail. This is succinctly stated as follows:

The general rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the form and name of law, is in reality no law, but is wholly void, and ineffective for any purpose; since unconstitutionality dates from the time of its enactment, and not merely from the date of the decision so branding it.

An unconstitutional law, in legal contemplation, is as inoperative as if it had never been passed. Such a statute leaves the question that it purports to settle just as it would be had the statute not been enacted.”

“Since an unconstitutional law is void, the general principals follow that it imposes no duties, confers no rights, creates no office, bestows no power or authority on anyone, affords no protection, and justifies no acts performed under it..

A void act cannot be legally consistent with a valid one.

An unconstitutional law cannot operate to supersede any existing valid law.

Indeed, insofar as a statute runs counter to the fundamental law of the land, it is superseded thereby.

No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce it_.” Sixteenth American Jurisprudence, Second Edition, Section 177. (late 2nd Ed. Section 256)

----------


## Danke

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/technolo...172305406.html

----------


## ZenBowman

> No he wouldn't. At least not in this case. If your FB account is private and only viewable by those you choose to let view it then by them *asking for your FB password they are violating your 4th amendment rights.*


Incorrect.

The 4th amendment prevents you only from searches by the government, not voluntary searches requested by your employer.

Just like how employers can conduct drug tests if they so choose.

----------


## pcosmar

> Incorrect.
> 
> The 4th amendment prevents you only from searches by the government, not voluntary searches requested by your employer.
> 
> Just like how employers can conduct drug tests if they so choose.


I will ask this again.
Why would you work for someone that had that much disrespect for you?

What $$$ price do you put on your dignity?

----------

