Last time I checked the celebrity is the one hiring the PR firm. Still wouldn't be reasonable since everyone else in the world wouldn't get to see her naked.JohnG@lt wrote:
What if the job is at a PR firm and the wife will be arm candy and seen in photos? Reasonable then?Marlo Stanfield wrote:
Galt that naked picture of wife thing made no sense at all. A persons criminal history may impact their job the curviness of their wife wouldn't.JohnG@lt wrote:
No, I just have a firmer grasp on the argument than you do. You're talking about employer privilege to dig into a persons history and invade their privacy. You don't have a problem with this and are making every attempt to justify the invasion. I just took it to a reasonable extreme from which you recoiled.
Don't even entertain such non-sense..Wait for him to get back into the realms of reality regarding the discussion. That bullshit he posted is not even worth arguingMarlo Stanfield wrote:
Last time I checked the celebrity is the one hiring the PR firm. Still wouldn't be reasonable since everyone else in the world wouldn't get to see her naked.JohnG@lt wrote:
What if the job is at a PR firm and the wife will be arm candy and seen in photos? Reasonable then?Marlo Stanfield wrote:
Galt that naked picture of wife thing made no sense at all. A persons criminal history may impact their job the curviness of their wife wouldn't.
Ok, would you be ok with a company digging into your medical records, including meetings with psychiatrists etc? What about your high school and middle school transcripts? Voting records? What if they investigated your parents to see what kind of people they are/were before making their decision to hire you? HR departments are going deeper and deeper into peoples personal lives every day because most of them are bad interviewers.Marlo Stanfield wrote:
Last time I checked the celebrity is the one hiring the PR firm. Still wouldn't be reasonable since everyone else in the world wouldn't get to see her naked.JohnG@lt wrote:
What if the job is at a PR firm and the wife will be arm candy and seen in photos? Reasonable then?Marlo Stanfield wrote:
Galt that naked picture of wife thing made no sense at all. A persons criminal history may impact their job the curviness of their wife wouldn't.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
Criminal background check is not unreasonable as a contingency to employment, due to criminal behavior going to the heart of trustworthiness and a slew of other characteristics.JohnG@lt wrote:
Ok, would you be ok with a company digging into your medical records, including meetings with psychiatrists etc? What about your high school and middle school transcripts? Voting records? What if they investigated your parents to see what kind of people they are/were before making their decision to hire you? HR departments are going deeper and deeper into peoples personal lives every day because most of them are bad interviewers.Marlo Stanfield wrote:
Last time I checked the celebrity is the one hiring the PR firm. Still wouldn't be reasonable since everyone else in the world wouldn't get to see her naked.JohnG@lt wrote:
What if the job is at a PR firm and the wife will be arm candy and seen in photos? Reasonable then?
My college transcripts provide enough detail about my academic record, and if you wanted my HS and middle school records that wouldn't be a problem since I sent those out to colleges to get accepted anyway. Also if I was enrolled in university, like I am, than I passed the medical test which would mean I don't have anything transmittable through casual contact.JohnG@lt wrote:
Ok, would you be ok with a company digging into your medical records, including meetings with psychiatrists etc? What about your high school and middle school transcripts? Voting records? What if they investigated your parents to see what kind of people they are/were before making their decision to hire you? HR departments are going deeper and deeper into peoples personal lives every day because most of them are bad interviewers.Marlo Stanfield wrote:
Last time I checked the celebrity is the one hiring the PR firm. Still wouldn't be reasonable since everyone else in the world wouldn't get to see her naked.JohnG@lt wrote:
What if the job is at a PR firm and the wife will be arm candy and seen in photos? Reasonable then?
Voting records? I had no idea they recorded who I vote for.
I don't think they would ask to interview my parents as much as they would interview my former employer who would be a lot less bias than my parents.
But I guess I could, if this was anywhere close to being a reality, just look for a different job and not go through this process.
A criminal background test is totally reasonable since, if I made it to an interview than all my other qualifications must be in order otherwise I wouldn't have gotten thus far, a criminal background check just helps to make sure you aren't about to hire Jeremy Dahmer.
Except Jeffrey Dahmer had a clean record before he was caught...Marlo Stanfield wrote:
My college transcripts provide enough detail about my academic record, and if you wanted my HS and middle school records that wouldn't be a problem since I sent those out to colleges to get accepted anyway. Also if I was enrolled in university, like I am, than I passed the medical test which would mean I don't have anything transmittable through casual contact.JohnG@lt wrote:
Ok, would you be ok with a company digging into your medical records, including meetings with psychiatrists etc? What about your high school and middle school transcripts? Voting records? What if they investigated your parents to see what kind of people they are/were before making their decision to hire you? HR departments are going deeper and deeper into peoples personal lives every day because most of them are bad interviewers.Marlo Stanfield wrote:
Last time I checked the celebrity is the one hiring the PR firm. Still wouldn't be reasonable since everyone else in the world wouldn't get to see her naked.
Voting records? I had no idea they recorded who I vote for.
I don't think they would ask to interview my parents as much as they would interview my former employer who would be a lot less bias than my parents.
But I guess I could, if this was anywhere close to being a reality, just look for a different job and not go through this process.
A criminal background test is totally reasonable since, if I made it to an interview than all my other qualifications must be in order otherwise I wouldn't have gotten thus far, a criminal background check just helps to make sure you aren't about to hire Jeremy Dahmer.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
And Pedro López was released from prison in Peru, while Luis Garavito is going to get released soon. Both of which blow old Jeffs kill count out of the water.JohnG@lt wrote:
Except Jeffrey Dahmer had a clean record before he was caught...Marlo Stanfield wrote:
My college transcripts provide enough detail about my academic record, and if you wanted my HS and middle school records that wouldn't be a problem since I sent those out to colleges to get accepted anyway. Also if I was enrolled in university, like I am, than I passed the medical test which would mean I don't have anything transmittable through casual contact.JohnG@lt wrote:
Ok, would you be ok with a company digging into your medical records, including meetings with psychiatrists etc? What about your high school and middle school transcripts? Voting records? What if they investigated your parents to see what kind of people they are/were before making their decision to hire you? HR departments are going deeper and deeper into peoples personal lives every day because most of them are bad interviewers.
Voting records? I had no idea they recorded who I vote for.
I don't think they would ask to interview my parents as much as they would interview my former employer who would be a lot less bias than my parents.
But I guess I could, if this was anywhere close to being a reality, just look for a different job and not go through this process.
A criminal background test is totally reasonable since, if I made it to an interview than all my other qualifications must be in order otherwise I wouldn't have gotten thus far, a criminal background check just helps to make sure you aren't about to hire Jeremy Dahmer.
Under your view of the law both of those serial killers, who both had kill counts of 300+, wouldn't be eligible for a background check.
Ahhhh no he didn'tJohnG@lt wrote:
Except Jeffrey Dahmer had a clean record before he was caught...Marlo Stanfield wrote:
My college transcripts provide enough detail about my academic record, and if you wanted my HS and middle school records that wouldn't be a problem since I sent those out to colleges to get accepted anyway. Also if I was enrolled in university, like I am, than I passed the medical test which would mean I don't have anything transmittable through casual contact.JohnG@lt wrote:
Ok, would you be ok with a company digging into your medical records, including meetings with psychiatrists etc? What about your high school and middle school transcripts? Voting records? What if they investigated your parents to see what kind of people they are/were before making their decision to hire you? HR departments are going deeper and deeper into peoples personal lives every day because most of them are bad interviewers.
Voting records? I had no idea they recorded who I vote for.
I don't think they would ask to interview my parents as much as they would interview my former employer who would be a lot less bias than my parents.
But I guess I could, if this was anywhere close to being a reality, just look for a different job and not go through this process.
A criminal background test is totally reasonable since, if I made it to an interview than all my other qualifications must be in order otherwise I wouldn't have gotten thus far, a criminal background check just helps to make sure you aren't about to hire Jeremy Dahmer.
might wanna read up on him...of course I am sure yuo would have hired him since you would have no right to know anthing about him..
stupid ass
Not necessarily. Part of rehabilitation is being deterred from repeat offending due to punishment.lowing wrote:
The "deterring effect" was suppost to take place BEFORE they committed the crime, and went to prison. not afterTurquoise wrote:
Right, but if we assume this imprisonment has had any deterring effect, then why are you adamant about keeping them on a list?tuckergustav wrote:
If you want to argue in extremes, then I can't help you...
The idea of prison and punishments of crimes is largely put in place to deter people from committing those crimes in the first place. And to punish those that choose to commit the crimes anyways.
If you put that much faith in the state, yes.Marlo Stanfield wrote:
An even more logical option would be to execute them...Turquoise wrote:
Again, if you really feel this way, then life imprisonment for sex criminals is the only logical option...
Last edited by Turquoise (2010-04-21 22:58:17)
You're just being hyperbolic again. Again, I'm not saying there should be no screening process, but filling out a job application should not be equivalent to revoking all of your privacy.lowing wrote:
Level of trust?...It is a multi million dollar store and HIS/HER lifes investment...where do you put that level of trust?Turquoise wrote:
It's the level of trust that matters, but I can already see that it's never shades of grey with you...lowing wrote:
Hmmmm, his investment, his store, his lifes work, and has know right t oknow anything aobut the people that work for him.....yeah right.
Also, can't think of too many businesses where trustworthy, reliabilty,dependabilty and honesty is not relevant
who are you or I, to tell a person who has risked and invested into his store, that he has no right to know anything about who he employes?
I seriously doubt that if you bought a store, you would have no applicationd and conduct no interviews.
In fact, most countries view it that way in the developed world. Canada, for example, is far less invasive in what it allows employers to do. They don't even allow drug testing except for certain jobs.
For a guy who's so focused on the Constitution, you seem to put very little worth in the right to privacy.
...and yet we have the highest incarceration rate in the world.... literally.Marlo Stanfield wrote:
Ding Ding Ding.tuckergustav wrote:
I don't assume that...the threat of imprisonment is suppose to be the deterrent...if they do the crime and are imprisoned...they were not deterred and are then punished for that crime...
Harsh punishment keeps people in check. This is a fact that is constantly confirmed through history. Lesser punishments for crimes will lead to an increase in crime.
Last edited by Turquoise (2010-04-21 23:00:11)
...within reason.tuckergustav wrote:
When you fill out your app...it will ask for the date of conviction I believe...so, an employer can make that choice.
An employer can be held legally responsible for the actions of their employees....
That depends on the state you live in. Some states are "right to work", which basically means that you can be fired at will. Other states are more protective of labor. The U.S. overall protects labor quite a bit less than many other highly developed countries. Perhaps, we should consider these alternative perspectives regarding labor....tuckergustav wrote:
having a job is not a right...it is a contract between two individuals(employer and employee) that can be terminated at will.
Otherwise, it begins to make the notion of this government being supportive of the people a very questionable one....
Exactly.JohnG@lt wrote:
Fine, then make all crimes punishable by either death or life imprisonment. The way the system is set up now they will just end up back in jail anyway. Either that or they suck off the government tit for the rest of their life because they can't find anyone that will hire them. Either way, it gives Republicans a reason to expand government spending.Marlo Stanfield wrote:
I heard sociopaths are fairly nice people when you first meet them.JohnG@lt wrote:
I never said the criminal has a right to a job. I said he should be hired on the merits he shows to the employer. I guarantee you wouldn't recognize 99% of the people that have served time and if it's not noticeable in a job interview, why should it be brought up?
Last edited by Turquoise (2010-04-21 23:10:14)
Entirely different issue. Under our system, if you are convicted of that many killings, you get life imprisonment without parole or the death penalty.Marlo Stanfield wrote:
And Pedro López was released from prison in Peru, while Luis Garavito is going to get released soon. Both of which blow old Jeffs kill count out of the water.JohnG@lt wrote:
Except Jeffrey Dahmer had a clean record before he was caught...Marlo Stanfield wrote:
My college transcripts provide enough detail about my academic record, and if you wanted my HS and middle school records that wouldn't be a problem since I sent those out to colleges to get accepted anyway. Also if I was enrolled in university, like I am, than I passed the medical test which would mean I don't have anything transmittable through casual contact.
Voting records? I had no idea they recorded who I vote for.
I don't think they would ask to interview my parents as much as they would interview my former employer who would be a lot less bias than my parents.
But I guess I could, if this was anywhere close to being a reality, just look for a different job and not go through this process.
A criminal background test is totally reasonable since, if I made it to an interview than all my other qualifications must be in order otherwise I wouldn't have gotten thus far, a criminal background check just helps to make sure you aren't about to hire Jeremy Dahmer.
Under your view of the law both of those serial killers, who both had kill counts of 300+, wouldn't be eligible for a background check.
If you're going to make an argument in favor of the current system, you have to use an example of someone who commits a crime that isn't usually one that results in life imprisonment.
No.JohnG@lt wrote:
Never been in a bar fight?
No.Or a fight at a party?
More people don't.A lot of people do every day and each of those stupid alcohol fueled fights can end up with both parties in jail.
I wouldn't want a hothead who can't control his fists or drink sensibly working in the same building as me frankly.
If I were running a business I wouldn't employ them either.
Last edited by Dilbert_X (2010-04-21 23:27:59)
Fuck Israel
If you join certain govt organisations thats precisely what will happen, why shouldn't private companies have the same privilege?JohnG@lt wrote:
Ok, would you be ok with a company digging into your medical records, including meetings with psychiatrists etc? What about your high school and middle school transcripts? Voting records? What if they investigated your parents to see what kind of people they are/were before making their decision to hire you? HR departments are going deeper and deeper into peoples personal lives every day because most of them are bad interviewers.
Fuck Israel
So, you would rather they end up on welfare?Dilbert_X wrote:
No.JohnG@lt wrote:
Never been in a bar fight?No.Or a fight at a party?More people don't.A lot of people do every day and each of those stupid alcohol fueled fights can end up with both parties in jail.
I wouldn't want a hothead who can't control his fists or drink sensibly working in the same building as me frankly.
If I were running a business I wouldn't employ them either.
The difference is that government is generally held more liable for abuse of information than companies are.Dilbert_X wrote:
If you join certain govt organisations thats precisely what will happen, why shouldn't private companies have the same privilege?JohnG@lt wrote:
Ok, would you be ok with a company digging into your medical records, including meetings with psychiatrists etc? What about your high school and middle school transcripts? Voting records? What if they investigated your parents to see what kind of people they are/were before making their decision to hire you? HR departments are going deeper and deeper into peoples personal lives every day because most of them are bad interviewers.
By the way, companies already do have access to the information he mentioned, and what they typically do is sell it to interested parties. I don't know about Australia, but here, the right to privacy is blatantly ignored by the data mining industry.
That's hardly his problem...So, you would rather they end up on welfare?
The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
~ Richard Feynman
~ Richard Feynman
Well Jesus Christ Turquoise, if you are not gunna screen for criminal behavior, what exactly are you gunna screen for, their favorite color? Does Canada allow for employers to know if they are hiring an ex-axe murderer, or is that too invasive?Turquoise wrote:
You're just being hyperbolic again. Again, I'm not saying there should be no screening process, but filling out a job application should not be equivalent to revoking all of your privacy.lowing wrote:
Level of trust?...It is a multi million dollar store and HIS/HER lifes investment...where do you put that level of trust?Turquoise wrote:
It's the level of trust that matters, but I can already see that it's never shades of grey with you...
who are you or I, to tell a person who has risked and invested into his store, that he has no right to know anything about who he employes?
I seriously doubt that if you bought a store, you would have no applicationd and conduct no interviews.
In fact, most countries view it that way in the developed world. Canada, for example, is far less invasive in what it allows employers to do. They don't even allow drug testing except for certain jobs.
For a guy who's so focused on the Constitution, you seem to put very little worth in the right to privacy....and yet we have the highest incarceration rate in the world.... literally.Marlo Stanfield wrote:
Ding Ding Ding.tuckergustav wrote:
I don't assume that...the threat of imprisonment is suppose to be the deterrent...if they do the crime and are imprisoned...they were not deterred and are then punished for that crime...
Harsh punishment keeps people in check. This is a fact that is constantly confirmed through history. Lesser punishments for crimes will lead to an increase in crime.
Last edited by lowing (2010-04-22 04:33:23)
Sorry, going to jail and coming out with a college degree, is hardly a fuckin deterrent.Turquoise wrote:
Not necessarily. Part of rehabilitation is being deterred from repeat offending due to punishment.lowing wrote:
The "deterring effect" was suppost to take place BEFORE they committed the crime, and went to prison. not afterTurquoise wrote:
Right, but if we assume this imprisonment has had any deterring effect, then why are you adamant about keeping them on a list?If you put that much faith in the state, yes.Marlo Stanfield wrote:
An even more logical option would be to execute them...Turquoise wrote:
Again, if you really feel this way, then life imprisonment for sex criminals is the only logical option...
Farms always need fruitpickers, Army needs infantry.Turquoise wrote:
So, you would rather they end up on welfare?
Thats not the issue here.The difference is that government is generally held more liable for abuse of information than companies are.
Nor is that. So sue them, or write to your govt.By the way, companies already do have access to the information he mentioned, and what they typically do is sell it to interested parties. I don't know about Australia, but here, the right to privacy is blatantly ignored by the data mining industry.
Its whether a company can require you to disclose certain information and then exclude you on the basis of it.
In the UK after your conviction is 'spent' - usually some years after release - you're legally entitled to say 'No' to the question 'Do you have a criminal record'.
Does not apply to sensitive jobs, jobs with children etc.
Seems reasonable, you've served your sentence, parole, not been reconvicted, waited. Slate is clean.
Some offences and jobs you are barred for life. Whats the problem?
Fuck Israel
That's essentially what I've been making an argument for in this thread. The US does things differently, there's no expiration date.Dilbert_X wrote:
Farms always need fruitpickers, Army needs infantry.Turquoise wrote:
So, you would rather they end up on welfare?Thats not the issue here.The difference is that government is generally held more liable for abuse of information than companies are.Nor is that. So sue them, or write to your govt.By the way, companies already do have access to the information he mentioned, and what they typically do is sell it to interested parties. I don't know about Australia, but here, the right to privacy is blatantly ignored by the data mining industry.
Its whether a company can require you to disclose certain information and then exclude you on the basis of it.
In the UK after your conviction is 'spent' - usually some years after release - you're legally entitled to say 'No' to the question 'Do you have a criminal record'.
Does not apply to sensitive jobs, jobs with children etc.
Seems reasonable, you've served your sentence, parole, not been reconvicted, waited. Slate is clean.
Some offences and jobs you are barred for life. Whats the problem?
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
Again, no one says they can not be hired. What is being said is an employer with a livilyhood and life long investment on the line, has the right to know who is asking him for a job.JohnG@lt wrote:
That's essentially what I've been making an argument for in this thread. The US does things differently, there's no expiration date.Dilbert_X wrote:
Farms always need fruitpickers, Army needs infantry.Turquoise wrote:
So, you would rather they end up on welfare?Thats not the issue here.The difference is that government is generally held more liable for abuse of information than companies are.Nor is that. So sue them, or write to your govt.By the way, companies already do have access to the information he mentioned, and what they typically do is sell it to interested parties. I don't know about Australia, but here, the right to privacy is blatantly ignored by the data mining industry.
Its whether a company can require you to disclose certain information and then exclude you on the basis of it.
In the UK after your conviction is 'spent' - usually some years after release - you're legally entitled to say 'No' to the question 'Do you have a criminal record'.
Does not apply to sensitive jobs, jobs with children etc.
Seems reasonable, you've served your sentence, parole, not been reconvicted, waited. Slate is clean.
Some offences and jobs you are barred for life. Whats the problem?
Which has nothing to do with naked pictures of someones wife, you idiot.
And again, what me and Turquoise have been saying is that no, the employer should not have a right to dig into someones personal life unless it is applicable to the job. Naked pictures of your wife may not apply to your job, but as an employer, it is currently my right to ask you for them as part of a contract. You have no rights other than the right to refuse. Too bad if it's a high paying job.lowing wrote:
Again, no one says they can not be hired. What is being said is an employer with a livilyhood and life long investment on the line, has the right to know who is asking him for a job.
Which has nothing to do with naked pictures of someones wife, you idiot.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
He does not have the right to dig into your personal business. A criminal record is pubic record and not private information.JohnG@lt wrote:
And again, what me and Turquoise have been saying is that no, the employer should not have a right to dig into someones personal life unless it is applicable to the job. Naked pictures of your wife may not apply to your job, but as an employer, it is currently my right to ask you for them as part of a contract. You have no rights other than the right to refuse. Too bad if it's a high paying job.lowing wrote:
Again, no one says they can not be hired. What is being said is an employer with a livilyhood and life long investment on the line, has the right to know who is asking him for a job.
Which has nothing to do with naked pictures of someones wife, you idiot.
Your fuckin' naked wife is not of public record. It is a stupid ass analogy that has no bearing on the discussion
Are your medical records public record? Many companies mine through them now.lowing wrote:
He does not have the right to dig into your personal business. A criminal record is pubic record and not private information.JohnG@lt wrote:
And again, what me and Turquoise have been saying is that no, the employer should not have a right to dig into someones personal life unless it is applicable to the job. Naked pictures of your wife may not apply to your job, but as an employer, it is currently my right to ask you for them as part of a contract. You have no rights other than the right to refuse. Too bad if it's a high paying job.lowing wrote:
Again, no one says they can not be hired. What is being said is an employer with a livilyhood and life long investment on the line, has the right to know who is asking him for a job.
Which has nothing to do with naked pictures of someones wife, you idiot.
Your fuckin' naked wife is not of public record. It is a stupid ass analogy that has no bearing on the discussion
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
Medical records are now public record? When the hell did that happen?