5 states will have 'social media privacy law' or 'facebook password law'

[Anti Federalist]

If a union is threatening to strike unless they get what they want, I am assuming the union is being forced on the company.

Oh, so owners can collectively come together and claim the right to be able to have access to every single aspect of my life, even outside of active employment hours, forever, but I can't collectively come together with fellow employee's and demand a contract that prohibits such action.

'Fraid not.

It cuts both ways: I don't have a right to a job, and an employer has no right to my life.

 

[Anti Federalist]

An employer could give employees some collective bargaining rights to make them happy, but just put some limits on it. The owners run the company, not the unions. As long as that relationship is intact, they could have a healthy relationship.

Why just avoid all this mess and acknowledge the fact that an employer has no right to this private information.

 

[Anti Federalist]

If thats too much for you than dont give them your password. Personally I would just ASK to be friended to see if they have the right personality. I do think asking for passwords is excessive which is why I said a few crappy companies are ruining it for everyone. That said, that info can be used for good if its used to assess your personality. If its just another tool to prevent employment, thats not a good thing.

It's much more than just FarceBook here.

With ObamaCare coming online, what if an employer, what if all employers start mandating prescription drugs or invasive emdical procedures as a condition of employment?

A "gun free" home with in house surveillance to monitor for compliance?

 

[malkusm]

It's much more than just FarceBook here.

With ObamaCare coming online, what if an employer, what if all employers start mandating prescription drugs or invasive emdical procedures as a condition of employment?

A "gun free" home with in house surveillance to monitor for compliance?

Assuming that the rights of employees are greater than those of employers is a fallacy which the left has pushed for decades to promote class warfare. Obamacare happened in part because the rights of doctors, as business owners and thus as men, were deemed means to the industry's end and to the "greater good" - the "rights" of individuals to health care trumped the legitimate rights of the doctors.

Furthermore, what part of your statement would not apply in a completely voluntary society where businesses did this? Why should we promote the validity of government's power in order to prevent this? It would seem that it's a societal problem, and not a governmental problem.

 

[tttppp]

Why just avoid all this mess and acknowledge the fact that an employer has no right to this private information.

They certainly do have that right if you agree to it. The government shouldn't be telling us what contracts we can or can't enter into.

 

[tttppp]

It's much more than just FarceBook here.

With ObamaCare coming online, what if an employer, what if all employers start mandating prescription drugs or invasive emdical procedures as a condition of employment?

A "gun free" home with in house surveillance to monitor for compliance?

I think you are ignoring that won't happen with free markets. The solution is free markets, not more regulations adding to the problem.

 

[tttppp]

Oh, so owners can collectively come together and claim the right to be able to have access to every single aspect of my life, even outside of active employment hours, forever, but I can't collectively come together with fellow employee's and demand a contract that prohibits such action.

'Fraid not.

It cuts both ways: I don't have a right to a job, and an employer has no right to my life.

Employers can't do that with free markets. Plus I've pointed out in other threads that unions are not good for all employees, and actually prevent employees from moving up in a corporation, keeping employees at a lower level.

 

[tttppp]

Owners own the company, but customers and workers are vital to the company's existence. So I still don't see the answer to my question, what good is an employee or union if they are unable to threaten to quit? Isn't that the most basic freedom of choice (unless otherwise agreed, in which case it's a violation of a contract)

One employee threatening to quit is fine. Conning all your employees to strike to get your way is not fine, unless its agreed upon. If your contract says no unions or no striking, than tough shit, you can't strike...when you walk out you effectively quit.

 

[Henry Rogue]

what good is a union (or any employee) if they cant threaten to strike or quit?

The public sector unions in my State don't need to threaten strike, they vote, promote, lobby and spend into place the very people they bargain with. It's like giving yourself a raise.

 

[Tpoints]

One employee threatening to quit is fine. Conning all your employees to strike to get your way is not fine, unless its agreed upon. If your contract says no unions or no striking, than tough shit, you can't strike...when you walk out you effectively quit.

Agreed, so basically what you're saying is- if agreed in advance, everything goes, if not, nothing does...right?

 

[Anti Federalist]

I think you are ignoring that won't happen with free markets. The solution is free markets, not more regulations adding to the problem.

It most certainly can happen, if one considers 19th century US markets to be free.

 

[Anti Federalist]

They certainly do have that right if you agree to it. The government shouldn't be telling us what contracts we can or can't enter into.

So, there are no "natural" rights then.

We all have to work and engage in commerce, so, surveillance and lack of privacy and forced medical treatments, here we come.

Good luck selling polite slavery.

 

[Tpoints]

It most certainly can happen, if one considers 19th century US markets to be free.

educate us, when did the market stop being free?

 

[Tpoints]

So, there are no "natural" rights then.

We all have to work and engage in commerce, so, surveillance and lack of privacy and forced medical treatments, here we come.

Good luck selling polite slavery.

I would say there are not.

 

[Anti Federalist]

educate us, when did the market stop being free?

In the US, never.

There have been tariffs and duties since day one.

 

[Anti Federalist]

I would say there are not.

At least you're honest.

That settles it then, polite penal slavery and indentured servitude on one hand, government totalitarianism on the other.

Those are the only two logical conclusions that assumption will lead to.

 

[Tpoints]

In the US, never.

There have been tariffs and duties since day one.

Ok. So this was the wrong country to live in since you were born? Where or when was it the right one? Or....maybe I misunderstood you, is free market a good thing or bad? Was it wrong or right for US to have tariffs and duties since day one?

 

[Tpoints]

At least you're honest.

That settles it then, polite penal slavery and indentured servitude on one hand, government totalitarianism on the other.

Those are the only two logical conclusions that assumption will lead to.

and saying there are natural rights will prevent that?

 

[Anti Federalist]

and saying there are natural rights will prevent that?

No, no more than laws against murder will stop murder.

That does not negate the fact that there is a significant proportion of murders that go uncommitted due to the fact that the murderer would face punishment.

So, affirmation of natural rights of individuals will help prevent the trampling of said rights by government or commerce.

 

[Anti Federalist]

Ok. So this was the wrong country to live in since you were born? Where or when was it the right one? Or....maybe I misunderstood you, is free market a good thing or bad? Was it wrong or right for US to have tariffs and duties since day one?

What does where I was born have to do with it?

You asked when the free market ended in the US.

I have been told numerous times, as an advocate of tariffs, that the imposition of same results in an "unfree" market.

Thus, since tariffs have been around since day one, there has never been a "free market" in the US.