Diskeeper Accused of Scientology Indoctrination 779
touretzky writes "Two ex-employees have sued Diskeeper Corporation in Los Angeles Superior Court after being fired, alleging that the company makes Scientology training a mandatory condition of employment (complaint, PDF). Diskeeper founder and CEO Craig Jensen is a high-level, publicly avowed Scientologist who has given millions to his Church. Diskeeper's surprising response to the lawsuit (PDF) appears to be that religious instruction in a place of employment is protected by the First Amendment." The blogger at RealityBasedCommunity.net believes that the legal mechanism that Diskeeper is using to advance this argument ("motion to strike") is inappropriate and will be disallowed, but that the company will eventually be permitted to present its novel legal theory.
Wow (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Wow (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Wow (Score:5, Informative)
Otherwise I can recommend this one. [kessels.com]
Note that JkDefrag uses the Windows defrag API, so it should be as safe to use as the original defrag. Also, Windows occasionally runs a boot optimizing defrag while your screen saver is on, which tends to mess up JkDefrag's logic. You might want to disable it, if you intend to run JkDefrag.
Re:Wow (Score:5, Informative)
The article you quote contradicts your statement:
"While it is true that ext3 is more resistant to file fragmentation than FAT, and NTFS filesystems, nonetheless ext3 filesystems can and do get fragmented over time.[14] Consequently the successor to the ext3 filesystem, ext4, includes a filesystem defragmentation utility and support for extents (contiguous file regions)."
14: "We found heavily fragmented free areas on an intensively used IMAP server which stores all its emails in individual files - although more than 900 GB of the total disk space of 1.4 TB were still available." http://www.heise-online.co.uk/open/Tuning-the-Linux-file-system-Ext3--/features/110398/3 [heise-online.co.uk]
Re:Wow (Score:5, Informative)
All you need to demonstrate fragmentation is multiple parallel streaming writes, which you can demonstrate on any UNIX-like system easily enough with two dd(1) commands.
There is a clear tradeoff between fragmentation during writing due to writing out interleaved series of blocks (which incurs a read penalty) and avoiding fragmentation on a sufficiently empty filesystem by doing lots of track-to-track head motion to write contiguous blocks for each file. The latter is an approximation anyway in modern individual drives anyway, and becomes difficult to analyse in multi-drive arrays.
Almost no modern filesystem will opt for a potentially huge write-time seek penalty in order to improve read times. The general consensus is that whatever is doing the streaming writing may be highly time-sensitive (you don't want to drop frames if capturing live video, for example), and is likely to be somewhat time-sensitive (when will this damn copy finish?).
The downside is that the trade-offs in contiguous-block-quantums is not so clear; it probably ought to be timed in milliseconds, but generally is some power of two number of logical 512-octet blocks (it can be tuned in some cases -- tunefs(8) for example, or at file system creation time; some APIs allow for tuning with a per-filedescriptor ioctl(2) call).
Finally, busy filesystems that create and delete lots of files will end up with the free space scattered into lots of individual regions, which will also incur a large write time penalty as the free space fragmentation decreases, which is likely as the disk fills.
Consequently, Apple introduced (boot-volume-only) automatic small-file "sliding". When the system opens a file that is less than about 20MBytes and it has more than 8 fragments, the entire file will be consolidated by the operating system into a single fragment-free file in a way which heuristically decreases the free space fragmentation. (One heuristic involves sliding "hot" files, the most frequently accessed files, to a region near the start of the volume, and sliding cooled-off files out of that region into a best fit, rather than first fit, part of free space; the assumption is that cooled-off files are likely to stay relatively cool so a relatively slow best-fit search can be done with little worry).
Other very un-UNIX-like operating systems have similar approaches to automatic background file and free space defragmentation. Most of the free space defragmentation in practice in such OSes is much more aggressive than what has been done in Mac OS X to date, partly because it is less clear to the Apple developers (and the Darwin open source community) that free space fragmentation has a likely penalty when there is more than 5% of a volume free. Free space defragmentation takes real energy (lots of i/o and lots of compute power, and the maintenance of state to deal with crashes/power failures that occur during the process), and where large files must be "slid" this can interfere with a system that is actually trying to be put to use by a time-sensitive user.
Most other open-source UNIX-like OSes do *no* automatic defragmentation of files or free space at all. Mac OS X doesn't either, on non-boot volumes.
Re:Wow (Score:4, Informative)
That is nonsense. EVT3 is no more immune to fragmentation than any other filesystem. Wow, it has clustered allocations! HFS has had those since 1986. And guess what? It doesn't fix the problem.
Until seek times fall to zero (i.e. SSDs), there will still be a reason to defragment in rare cases. Note that for the most part there hasn't been any reason to defragment any filesystem in years.
Re:Wow (Score:4, Informative)
Even with negligible seek times, defragging can improve the effectiveness of prefetching.
Re:Wow (Score:5, Informative)
FAT is particularly prone to fragmentation. Finding any free block in FAT is O(n), since you need to scan the free blocks bitmap. Finding an optimally-sized free space is even more complex, since you have to scan the entire free space bitmap and then compare the sizes. Most other filesystems use some kind of tree for extents of free space, making this much easier to implement, so they are more resistant to fragmentation.
FAT was originally designed for small disks, with 2^12 or fewer 512-byte blocks (i.e. 2MB or smaller filesystems), for MS Basic. Fragmentation was not an issue on these disks, since most Basic programs were either small enough to fit in a small number of blocks, or took up most of the disk and were written contiguously, so it was never a design goal. It's not so much that Ext3 is good, as that FAT is horrendous as anything other than a filesystem for floppy disks (where it is not bad, since it has relatively small space overheads). All filesystems suffer from fragmentation, particularly when they are nearly full, but the data layout of FAT makes it very difficult to implement algorithms that try to avoid fragmentation.
It's also worth noting that FAT predates disk caching, which is one of the big tools used to avoid fragmentation these days. With a decent amount of cache, you can know (vaguely) how big a file is going to be before you write the first byte to disk, which helps when allocating space for it.
On rotational media, there are a few tricks that defragmentation programs do other than defragmentation too, such as moving frequently-accessed files to the faster parts of the disk, and moving files that are accessed together to be contiguous to avoid seek times between them.
Re:Wow (Score:4, Insightful)
It would be worthwhile to ensure that everyone you know who might otherwise buy their software know that it funds a confidence scam.
How ironic it would be (Score:5, Interesting)
How ironic it would be if the guy who attributes his success to Scientology, kills his company's sales through forcing it to be taught to his employees. ;p
Re:How ironic it would be (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Wow (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Wow (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Another Reason to Avoid Windows (Score:4, Interesting)
While working at a place may have you end up with forced Scientology indoctrination, I really don't think a file system is going to make you kill your wife.
Of course if avoiding the taint of Hans Reiser is how you choose a file system, perhaps you've never left the basement ;)
Who Cares About Reiser? (Score:5, Insightful)
I personally don't care if the developer killed his wife or not - if the filesystem works, it works.
Re:Another Reason to Avoid Windows (Score:5, Insightful)
While working at a place may have you end up with forced Scientology indoctrination, I really don't think a file system is going to make you kill your wife.
However, I'd say that a program with a root-level access to the disk made by a Scientologist is a risky thing to have on your computer. While the CoS has officially abandoned their Fair Game doctrine, I would not go so far as to assume it is completely abandoned in practice. Maybe I'm paranoid, but techincally, the moment you oppose them, your data may be theirs. It's not like we can inspect the source.
Re:Another Reason to Avoid Windows (Score:4, Insightful)
It seems to be that falsely claiming you are officially abandoning your Fair Game doctrine would be perfectly fine under the Fair Game doctrine.
Re:Another Reason to Avoid Windows (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Another Reason to Avoid Windows (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Reason? (Score:4, Insightful)
If we can inspect the source, it doesn't really matter who they are. The moment the source is closed, we can trust it about as much as we can trust the author.
Would you trust a program with a root-level access to your data written by a Scientologist, and whose source you cannot inpect?
Re:Reason? (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Reason? (Score:4, Interesting)
Is it any different than another religion that you cannot inspect the source?? Not that I'm showing preferential treatment to Scientology mind you.
Of course you are not showing preferential treatment; in fact, you are attempting to be even-handed to the point of political correctness.
The point is, I am aware of no other religion that makes (or at least made) the utter destruction of its opponents by any and all means necessary a part of its official policy. Mind you, Islamic terrorists (as a prototypical example) do not qualify: their actions are based on a selective reading of their holy book. In Scientology, there is no selective reading; the Fair Game doctrine was/is their official doctrine.
Besides, if those prototypical Islamic terrorists got hold of my data, there is not much they would do with it. They do not engage in smear campaigns and turning the authorities on me. OTOH, the CoS might, for instance, report me as a paedophile if they find something matching hentai*.jpg (I've seen way too often that hentai == paedo in people's minds, even if all the characters have tits bigger than their heads). It doesn't matter if I am later proven innocent; my name would be ruined.
Luckily for me, I eschew Windows in general, except for gaming purposes. And lately, even the games I play are legit.
Re:Another Reason to Avoid Windows (Score:4, Insightful)
Ahem... If I were to walk into, say, a predominately black church, stand at the pulpit and say "Water is wet, niggers!" my 'correctness' would not even slightly dampen the raw power of trollishness that I have just unleashed.
When are you insecure nerds (I'm a secure nerd, myself) going to learn that being smart and being a douchbag don't go hand in hand, nor does being right excuse unnecessarily rude behavior. People like to joke that nerds can't get girls, but it's just not true. Nerds can get girls, but nerds who've never bothered to spend even an ounce of thought about social graces don't get along with much of ANYBODY (especially girls), except similar people who are willing to overlook your social ineptitudes out of sheer loneliness.
BTW, this applies to that "I'm going to be so helpful and easy to push over she'll HAVE to love me" train of thought too, which is a thought that most people would easily see the flaw in, if they bothered to spend the effort thinking about it.
In short, anyone who can successfully manage memory in C should EASILY be able to discern at least basic social rules and strategies. Slinging terms like 'freetard' because someone is misinformed about a recent development in some obscure topic is 10x the fail of getting the fact wrong in the first place.
I don't know how it is around your family and friends, but in THIS place, you're not the brightest bulb in the box, there are many bright bulbs here. Random insults at strangers on the internet don't make you look cool, or too smart for the rest of us, or 'leet' or whatever you're going for, it makes you look immature. The GP was troll, flamebait and informative all in one, but I would argue that it's more of the first one than it is the last.
Re:Wow (Score:5, Insightful)
Well I don't want that criminal cult having anything even remotely to do with my system.
Re:Wow (Score:5, Funny)
Well, that's using strong language to describe Microsoft, isn't it? I guess if the shoe fits...
Re:Wow (Score:5, Funny)
criminal? historically
cult? I think the word you're looking for is "Apple"
Microsoft bought a limited version of Diskeeper. (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Wow (Score:4, Funny)
Does Microsoft hold Windows users at gunpoint? Who, exactly, is forced to use Windows?
People with jobs. You've probably met a couple and never even realised it.
Re:Wow (Score:5, Interesting)
I would also look for alternatives, since there are almost always an alternative. If none can be found, then I would have to determine how important this product is. I have not found a need for defragging except for in the case of making a partimage of the disk.
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Wow (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't actively seek out actors that are part of Scientology, but if I know that they are then I usually try to avoid it. I can't stand any of Tom Cruise's recent work. Ditto for John Travola but I do admit I've seen a few more of his. Battlefield Earth was watched just to see how horrible it was (it is) as well as Face/Off and Punisher just to see him killed in the movie. While it's not a movie, I use to watch JAG on TV when it was on but once I discovered Catherine Bell was into Scientology, she didn't look nearly as soft on the eyes.
Re:Wow (Score:4, Interesting)
He's saying the church of Scientology does it, and the owner of the company funds them.
If you look into it you'll see a history of child abuse in the Church of Scientology, they claim that it hasn't happened in over 20 years (Not that it never happened) but there've been quiet a few (now ex-)members of the church testifying that it's happened more recently than that.
As for kitten killing I'm not as sure, just googled and found http://www.solitarytrees.net/pickets/sp992a.htm [solitarytrees.net], but no idea how many of those stories are true, and I don't really care enough to go and look into them, I've heard of the first story before a few times though and it seems likely that at least that one is true.
What the hell? (Score:5, Insightful)
religious discrimination (Score:5, Interesting)
It is going to boil down to technicalities about whether Scientology practice (or "tech") is actually a religious experience, or just a workplace management strategy. Scientology has gotten very good at dancing across that line when it suits them.
When it's time to hand out tax exemptions, they're an association of faith. When they're incorporating Dianetics into secular practices, it's just a communications, planning, and skill development regiment.
Re:religious discrimination (Score:5, Informative)
http://www.xenu-directory.net/documents/200810-godelman-leshay-v-diskeeper.html [xenu-directory.net]
Link to access official Los Angeles Superior Court Documents [lasuperiorcourt.org]:
http://www.lasuperiorcourt.org/civilCaseSummary/index.asp?CaseType=Civil [lasuperiorcourt.org]
Ex Scientologist Message Board Discussion [exscn.net]:
http://forum.exscn.net/showthread.php?t=9154 [exscn.net]
Operation Clambake Discussion [xenu.net]:
http://ocmb.xenu.net/ocmb/viewtopic.php?t=29787 [xenu.net]
Re:What the hell? (Score:5, Interesting)
Cult of $cientology's standard response to ANYTHING is "freedom of religion, nyah nyah nyah."
Caught evading taxes and breaking into the IRS [wikipedia.org]? No problem - "Freedom of Religion."
Caught Trying to drive someone to suicide and framing them for crimes they didn't commit? [wikipedia.org] No problem - "Freedom of Religion."
Making false medical claims? Drag a cross in the door, claim "Freedom of Religion."
Killed Someone? [wikipedia.org] after removing them from a hospital? No problem - it was "Freedom of Religion."
Take advantage of a poor man having a stroke and playing "Weekend at Bernie's" with him to badmouth your critics? [wikipedia.org] No problem - "Freedom of Religion."
Framing people? Lying about them under oath? [wikipedia.org] "Fair Game" is a "Freedom of Religion" practice.
Ordering someone killed? [wikipedia.org] Sorry, that's a practice of "Freedom of Religion."
Re:What the hell? (Score:4, Funny)
Woah, I've got to be much more careful when terminating CAT-5...
Re:What the hell? (Score:5, Interesting)
I ran into a similar predicament at my former employer. Unbeknownst to me at the time of my interview and hiring there was a significant religious component that developed within the management group.
Our Vice President of operations based many of his decisions on who went to "his" church. Of course, none of this was provable but it became increasingly apparent when he would lead us in prayer at the beginning of our managers meetings twice a week. There were two of us who were not "team players" in this regard, a highly respected director and myself (I managed three different departments and had the highest reviews of any of the managers in the operations group).
When it came time for lay-off's, guess who was let go, the director and myself. Eventually the director was re-hired as a consultant. I decided to burn that bridge and when packing my personal effects I threw a notepad at the vice president and told him in a long tirade to get fuxed. Also, I refused to provide any future assistance when they called me later to figure out how to proceed on some of the projects I was working on.
Since this was in a "right to work" state I had little recourse and would not go back, even if they had doubled my salary and given me a public apology. I went on to a different company and made it my personal crusade to steer every customer away from my earlier employer. Sometimes those types of layoffs come back in spades and bite you in the behind.
Religious fanaticism, discriminatory hiring practices and the glass ceiling are still a major problem in many American companies to this day. I guess that you could fight these practices in court but in the long run, do you really want to work for people like this?
Let the best talent go to where we are appreciated and our quirks (religious beliefs, the shoes you wear, your not so politically correct conversation or personal convictions) matter the least. They say that it is a different job marketplace today with companies able to pick and choose who they want. It is a fool who does not hire the most capable and talented individuals because of some personal bias caused by their own ignorance.
Re:What the hell? (Score:5, Insightful)
Knowing neither person, your willingness to make an assumption one way or the other says more about you than it does about anyone else.
Re:What the hell? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:What the hell? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:What the hell? (Score:4, Funny)
So you don't put it on your Resume?
Re:What the hell? (Score:4, Funny)
No his current main email is "animalshavesexwith@me.com"
Re:What the hell? (Score:4, Insightful)
It's pretty easy. Most of the 'bottom tier' of Scientology is really just self-help books. A vast majority of what they teach to beginners is just about calming the mind and mastering your emotions. The crazy stuff doesn't come until later.
Re:What the hell? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:What the hell? (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:What the hell? (Score:5, Informative)
If someone has never done any serious meditiative or spiritual practice before, then the mental states it is possible to induce in oneself will probably come as quite a shock and quite possibly be a very profound moment. But when people aren't aware that such mental states can be achieved through a variety of religious, spiritual or even purely psychological frameworks, then it's all too easy for some unscrupulous organisation to get that person to believe the experiences are tied to that organisation, that they possess some hidden truth.
In short, as well as all the very negative techniques Scientology uses, it mixes in a few that ought to be useful and beneficial to the practitioner and tells them Scientology is the only route to these.
Re:What the hell? (Score:4, Interesting)
I think the obvious solution to this, should they actually have a legal basis, is to require that only NON-scientologists can be employed at a company.
After all, if the 1st amendment protects religious requirements for employment, isn't the inverse true as well?
Perhaps this isn't a road they should go down...
Re:What the hell? (Score:5, Insightful)
This doesn't follow at all. The first amendment guarantees individuals the right to practice their religion of choice. It does not grant the right to force religion on others nor does it allow for a corporation to force a religion on the workers.
This'll end up going down in flames with either a settlement or precedence being set in favor of the employees.
As far as employment requirements go, the first amendment doesn't apply at all, the relevant rules are from case law and human rights legislation. Religious beliefs do qualify a person as a protected class regardless of the particular religion and as such they cannot be used as a method for choosing candidates for non-religious jobs. Basically unless you're hiring for clergy or similar you're not going to be able to get away with it.
Re:What the hell? (Score:4, Informative)
The employer can place whatever requirements for employment they like.
Sorry, but if the employment requirements break the law, the fact that those requirements are laid out in a contract doesn't matter at all.
In California, which is where Diskeeper is based, state law says the following:
(a) For an employer, because of the race, religious creed, color,
national origin, ancestry, physical disability, mental disability,
medical condition, marital status, sex, age, or sexual orientation of
any person, to refuse to hire or employ the person or to refuse to
select the person for a training program leading to employment, or to
bar or to discharge the person from employment or from a training
program leading to employment, or to discriminate against the person
in compensation or in terms, conditions, or privileges of employment.
Forcing you to go to CoS classes as part of your terms of employment certainly seems at first glance to run afoul of California's FEHA at the very least, if not Federal law as well.
Re:What the hell? (Score:5, Insightful)
A tenet of scientology is that it's okay to lie, cheat, and steal. The doctrine of "Fair Game" [xenu.net] (note that if you're a paid-up scientologist you may have a web filter helpfully installed that blocks or modifies that page).
It is almost cheesy-movie-villain evil. If someone claims to be a scientologist in particular, they are saying they're fine with that and therefore trusting them would be totally insane.
That is in marked contrast to real religions, which tend to at least have at their core some variant of "be excellent unto eachother" (even if a power-hungry priesthood fucks it up in practice), the so-called "Golden Rule". While I'm an atheist, I do believe if more people followed the basic humanistic teachings attributed to, say, Jesus or the Buddha, the world would be a better place. If everyone followed the crazed teachings of L. Ron Hubbard, the world would be a nightmarish hellhole.
Re:What the hell? (Score:5, Insightful)
You don't have to be crazy to join a cult, just vulnerable. And that's all of us at some point.
Re:What the hell? (Score:4, Insightful)
Or, rather, we call cutting off the entirety of the pleasure-generating organ in females the same thing we call trimming small amounts of skin in males.
"Circumcision is bad" is a potentially legitimate position to hold, but if you think it's remotely comparable to what gets called "Female circumcision," you're way off base.
Re:What the hell? (Score:4, Interesting)
My mechanic works for the Bretherans'
He also smokes and owns a mobile phone and listens to the radio, all of which is denied by the Bretherans and is part of his working conditions as agreed on when he got the job.
He's happy not to smoke, use his mobile or listen to the radio when he's working, however as most of his job is a breakdown service for their trucks on the road etc, he freely smokes, calls and listens to the radio/ipod etc when travelling. They know what he does and he knows that they know, but due to tolerance, both he and his company are reasonably happy.
There are issues with the Bretherans, especially in Australia where they make large political donations to the right wing conservatives, but otherwise they are harmless*.
But with the COS? At what point do you say to yourself that the organization you work for (and thus support) is too evil to continue with?
Every dollar you earn for that organization is going towards their evil ends?
There are many other organizations that fall into that category where your ethics rub up hard against the corporate mantra. Vegans working for McDonalds?
So it's more of a philosophical, ethical and moral decision you need to make. It works both ways.
---
*harmless - I've met ex-Plymouth Bretherans who would deny that they're harmless.
Well... (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Well... (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Well... (Score:4, Interesting)
Now, I have to hand it to the Germans; they really do deal with the CoS as they should: with complete distrust and disapproval.
BTW, I am fairly active in trying to gat religious education out of Croatian public schools, which probably won't happen due to some unconstitutional contracts with the Vatican. Thus I sympathize greatly with everyone forced to endure religious drivel in their school and/or workplace.
Re:Well... (Score:5, Funny)
several people threatened them with the 'L' word
Umm.. they threatened to become lesbians? [thelwordonline.com]
Re:Well... (Score:4, Funny)
Llamas?
Re:Well... (Score:5, Funny)
There's one product I won't be buying anymore. Oh, and before you start, I worked for a company that tried to pull that indoctrination stuff on employees, until several people threatened them with the 'L' word and a few more quit nearly putting the company OOB. They stopped it fast.
Linux?
Wrong (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Wrong (Score:4, Insightful)
Yeah... but the first amendment also does not prevent a private employer from discriminating on the basis of religion either, because it is impossible for a private employer to violate the first amendment (see state action doctrine). Instead, the violations (if there are any) are of federal statutory law.. and if a statute is deemed to violate the constitution the constitution will win. It looks like Diskeeper is trying to argue that current statutes that these employees are using to sue them are unconstitutional restraints on their first amendment rights to practice their religion. This is an interesting issue since there definitely are cases where it is completely acceptable to have private discriminate based on religion.... like for example it is perfectly acceptable to prevent non-Catholics from becoming Catholic priests. However, since Diskeeper maintains an outward appearance of being a normal, for-profit company, it will likely not get the extra leeway that an organization based around a particular religion would receive. Scientology is a whack-job cult, but its tax-exempt status is still a matter of law (unless they manage to screw up and lose it again).
Discrminiation. Period. (Score:5, Insightful)
Diskeeper is not a country club. It's not some sort of fraternal organization of old men in funny hats.
It is a COMPANY. It EMPLOYS People.
Religious preferences, or training has nothing at all to do with the ability to program software. So it's not like some big hairy dude getting mad since the strip club won't let him on the pole.
The laws are extraordinarily clear about this. You cannot base your decisions on whether to employ somebody, or to continue employing them based on religion. The 1st Amendment does not apply here. Last time I checked PEOPLE, NOT CORPORATIONS enjoyed constitutional protections such as the 1st Amendment.
It's a novel argument, but it won't last 60 seconds in court.
Re:Discrminiation. Period. (Score:5, Informative)
Last time I checked PEOPLE, NOT CORPORATIONS enjoyed constitutional protections such as the 1st Amendment.
Hate to burst your bubble, but there have been several court decisions stating the corporations do indeed have freedom of speech protections granted by the first amendment. This is because corporations are considered to be legal "persons". Don't think this will help Diskeeper.
Re:Discrminiation. Period. (Score:5, Funny)
> Last time I checked PEOPLE, NOT CORPORATIONS enjoyed constitutional protections such as the 1st Amendment.
Hold on... Are you telling me that corporations can't get married.
I guess the wedding is off.
How am I going to break the news to my family?
Worse, how is my true love going to break the news to her board of directors?
Re:Discrminiation. Period. (Score:4, Funny)
> Hold on... Are you telling me that corporations can't get married.
Well, certainly not gay corporations.
No, they're in violation of the law (Score:5, Informative)
Here's the EEOC's official position-
http://www.eeoc.gov/policy/docs/religion.html#_Toc203359505 [eeoc.gov]
That's less than 2 minutes googling. But somehow I still think hundreds of thousands of dollars will be spent figuring that out...
Missing the Point (Score:5, Interesting)
Now whether the employer actually has a constitutional right to force his employees to take Scientology classes is up for debate, but you can't win that debate by citing any number of lower laws.
Scientology is the best troll religion ever... (Score:5, Funny)
If only the cult members could be let in on the joke!
If this bothers you.... (Score:5, Informative)
.... Wikipedia has a list of software that defragments disks. [wikipedia.org] Take out Diskeeper and you have a bunch of options. Nothing changes behaviour like the loss of sales.
diskeeper the company of nutters (Score:4, Interesting)
I think this is true.... (Score:4, Informative)
Redundancy in TFS (Score:5, Insightful)
Diskeeper founder and CEO Craig Jensen is a high levelI, publicly avowed Scientologist who has given millions to his Church ...but we're repeating ourselves...
Been There, Forced To Do That (Score:5, Interesting)
About two years after high school, I started working for a local office supply business as a low-level manager. The owners, all of the upper staff, and most everyone else were Scientologists. They never SAID anything about the training manuals being Scientology, but that is exactly what they were, and, of course, we were forced to study them and pass the tests. They never actively tried to recruit me or make me go to one of their churches/meetings/whatever (though it was mentioned politely a couple times) and didn't discuss it too much, but the manuals were enough to make it clear: Scientology was the way to move up in the company. I played the game for a while and did well there while managing to not become brain-washed, but, eventually, I had to bail. I'm a patient, easy going guy, but I could only take so much of their pseudo-scientific, pseudo-psychological, pseudo-religious cult junk before blowing a fuse.
What I want to know is, if Scientology was the key to success, why then did the business fail? That company no longer exists. :)
Re:Been There, Forced To Do That (Score:4, Insightful)
The uncertainty principle says that you can't know the exact location and velocity of a particle. It doesn't say that a space warlord nuked some aliens on Earth thousands of years ago, set up a force field to keep their souls trapped here, that those trapped souls are the source of all problems in the world, and that the only way to get rid of them is to pay the Church of Scientology thousands of dollars to take courses.
My experience at Diskeeper job interview (Score:5, Interesting)
My own experience with Diskeeper.
This was one of the most frustrating experiences of my life. I showed up for an interview at the L.A offices in 2002 or 2003. At the time I knew almost nothing of the COS. I did know that my current boss was from a family of hard-core COS followers. This was one of my last interviews of my "junior years". I'm un-ease, eager to please, eager to get a new job, dare I say, very impressionable.
So here I am waiting in the lobby. Looking around I see a row of huge books (10-12 inches tall), from L. Ron Hubbard, known to me only as a sci-fi writer, and I love sci-fi. Each book had titles related to good management, personal growth and similar stuff. More books a bit further, too far to see the titles. A picture of LRH was hanging on a wall in the back. Something was strange.
I meet the RH person, after a few nice words; the conversation turns on to Dianetics, how incredibly great it is, how it would help me like it helped others, and how we all owe it to the great LRH, and how incredible he was. I nod my head and am somewhat curious.
After some small talk, I am asked to do a quick personality test. I heard before that many businesses do this, but it was the first time for me. The questions where a bit strange, not quite like the personality test from high-school. Once done I gave it back and the HR "corrects it" on the spot in front of me. I then receive strange comment about some strength, and others I will need to improve.
I then get a quick tour of the place, where I am told that every new employee gets a free (and mandatory) "3 day seminar" on the week-end before they start working. After that the employees must stay at the office several evenings for a few hours for at least a month (less often after that) to receive evaluations and more "training". They really want to keep people educated to the latest technology was my thought.
More small talk walking around. Back to the lobby, "We will call you soon for another meeting. Once home, curious about that test I hit Google with some of the questions I remembered from the test.
I was in shock! I studied COS the entire week-end and felt violated in my intellectual integrity. Looking back at it, this was clearly some attempt to enrol me into COS. The test is a sham, not recognize by any real professional in any science. Many claim it's purposely design for failure, you need help and guess who will help you.
Reading on I realized that almost every phrase I heard was to lure me into COS. The "free 3 day seminar" coukd only be the horrible COS spirit breaking seminar used to bring new sheep in. The following evenings of reviews were for COS audits.
I started to be angry. I read that like many cults they use these seminars to manipulate people in despair looking for help. I quickly understood that depressed by a boring job I was in the right state of mind to be a victim. Now I was just mad.
Worst part was, the more I read on scientology and "audits" treatment, the more I realized my current boss (from a family of COS) was using these tactics at work. Making you feel like crap, incompetent, never doing any good work, so when he asked anything we would all comply ASAP. At least it was a wake up call, I changed job, realized how good I really am, and hated the COS ever since ... and it's personal.
Re:My experience at Diskeeper job interview (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:My experience at Diskeeper job interview (Score:4, Informative)
I had a similar experience recently. I had no idea about the COS connection, until working on the pre-employment "questionnaires." One of them (that I saved) had TWO HUNDRED questions, including:
Do you browse through railway timetables, directories or dictionaries just for pleasure?
Do you intend two or less children in your family even though your health and income will permit more?
I researched and found that the questionnaires were COS personality tests, used by COS to recruit new members, so I stopped doing the questionnaires. They still called me in for an interview, which I decided to attend. The HR person was exceedingly late, so I had to sit in their lobby staring at their shelf of Hubbard management books for a long time. When the HR person was finally ready, her first question was, "how would you define a product?" I gave my answer, she replied with Hubbard's. She mentioned that many employees are COS members, but that it was not a requirement for employment. She went on to share the virtues of the Hubbard management philosophy, employed at Diskeeper, and then dropped a bombshell--- if hired, I would be required to attend 4 hours of management classes per day in addition to my regular shift, five days per week, for the first 3 months of employment! The classes were very valuable, so I would not be paid for attending. Now that I think of it, it could have been 6 hours of class and a 6 hour shift... I definitely remember the total was 12 hours per day, though.
At that point I wanted to leave, but I agreed when asked if I wanted to meet the hiring manager. She asked me to wait... and I did, for quite a while. The HR person eventually returned and said the hiring manager was still not ready, and asked if I could wait more. I politely excused myself and never looked back.
Someone is suing Scientology? (Score:4, Funny)
Something backward about this. :P
Good Luck (Score:4, Insightful)
Evangelical Christians have been doing this for years. You've either 'found Jesus' or you're out. And complaining about a hostile workplace can work both ways. The Christians can claim a hostile environment is being created by those of other faiths in their workplace.
first amendment law (Score:5, Informative)
Diskeeper is probably arguing from Corporation of Presiding Bishop v. Amos. A gym open to the public but affiliated with the Church of Latter Day Saints fired a janitor who wasn't a Mormon. The janitor sued, arguing the exemption for religious organizations from Title VII of the Civil Rights Act (prohibiting religious discrimination in employment) violated the establishment clause of the 1st amendment. IIRC, the Church argued that this exemption was a permissible accommodation of the Church's free exercise rights under the 1st amendment. The Supreme Court agreed with the Church.
The problem is, Diskeeper isn't a religious organization, so they don't qualify for the statutory exemption in Title VII. While religious instruction in the workplace may or may not be lawful, making continued employment dependent on religious instruction in a particular faith almost certainly is unlawful.
Hopefully Diskeeper goes down at the summary judgment stage, if not on a motion to dismiss.
You can tell if it's a religion by ... (Score:5, Insightful)
A religion does two things: Prays to God, and passes the collection basket.
Scientology is not a religion.
Alcoholics Anonymous is a religion.
It doesn't work like that. (Score:5, Informative)
They can fire you, at will, for any LEGAL reason.
Discrimination based upon religious preference is NOT a legal reason.
Re:It doesn't work like that. (Score:5, Interesting)
Correct. There are several exceptions to the at-will doctrine in California. You can't be fired if you've been promised, even verbally, that you will not be. Further, you can't be fired for refusing to break a law, based on religion or various other types of discrimination, and a small handful of other reasons.
Re:It doesn't work like that. (Score:5, Funny)
Hmmm. What if that promise was made under torture?
I'm just wondering if tickling my boss really hard could help my job security.
Re:It doesn't work like that. (Score:4, Insightful)
Nope. Religion is fundamentally belief in a deity or a particular set of values or both. Believing in a deity does not indicate anything wrong with critical thinking skills any more than believing in string theory. Both involve belief in things that are currently untestable. Similarly, in many ways, the rules of mathematics are arbitrary. The operations have some basis in reason, but so too do nearly all religious rules, when examined in the context of conditions at the time and place those rules were established.
This is, of course, ignoring the question of people who continue to dogmatically believe in something even in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary. That's a completely different matter altogether. However, such dogmatism is not an inherent characteristic of all religions, nor inherently true of all religious people. Thus, painting religion in general with such a broad brush just makes you look every bit as closed-minded and arrogant as you are portraying religious people to be.
Re:It doesn't work like that. (Score:5, Interesting)
Perhaps this is a semantic quibble, but the rule is really the flip side. They can fire for *any* reason so long as there is not a law (or common law court decision) that specifically makes the reason unlawful. Discrimination on the basis of race, sex, religion, national origin, marital status, and pregnancy are just a few of the proscribed reasons. Various state statutes add a lot more. At one point, Oregon had a statute that prohibited employers from taking adverse action against employees based on their non-workplace use of tobacco products (I don't know if this is still on the books). The point being, unless it is a specifically prohibited reason, the employer can use it as a basis for termination. In practice, things get much more complex and employers often use non-prohibited reasons as a pretext for firing someone for a prohibited reason.
Employers with a religious purpose (churches immediately come to mind) have limited leeway with respect to employing people who share the same religious belief (at least with respect to positions that are overtly religious in nature). For regular companies that offer non-religious services and products, the rules are much more restrictive and you would have to look at actual conduct rather than the naked fact of religious affiliation. A wiccan might not be able to hold a job as an ED nurse if she were required by her religion to display numerous dangling body piercings that could become entangled in tubing, patient body parts, etc. (not to single out witches but this is a matter I actually had to deal with). In this particular case, I canmpt imagine any defense that has been approved by any appellate court. Novel defense indeed.
Re:It doesn't work like that. (Score:5, Insightful)
As one of my professors loved to say:
You can fire someone for no reason, but you can't fire them for the wrong reason.
Re:It doesn't work like that. (Score:5, Insightful)
Forcing someone to actively practice a religion is probably illegal
There's no 'probably' about it. It is illegal.
but requiring someone to be knowledgeable in the religions practices even if it requires training, probably isn't anymore illegal than requiring someone to receive training about how to operate a piece of machinery.
Cause that makes sense. A company that develops software would have need of its employees being knowledgeable in any religion.
Comment removed (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:It doesn't work like that. (Score:5, Interesting)
One refers to if you think god is knowable (gnostic vs agnostic), one refers to personal belief (Is there a god). I'm for example am an Agnostic Atheist... normally I don't bother to mention agnostic because it's unnessisary. I also don't mention a thousand other clarifiying words to pinpoint it.
Agnostic means you don't think it's possible for humanity to know if there is a god or not, it has nothing to do with if you believe there is one or not.
Example; I'm agnostic to there being pink elephants in the core of the earth. I don't believe they are there, but I don't think we really have any way to find out.
Re:It doesn't work like that. (Score:4, Insightful)
Religions more than carry their weight in society. They don't pay taxes, but they do provide services to the community that more than make up for that, which would cost the state far more to provide on its own than the tax revenue it would gain.
I challenge you to back up that statement with any verifiable data. Because churches don't have to file form 990, there's NO way to verify that they do indeed put substantial money back into the community. Some do, some don't. (And some own the office building across the street, and have just installed really gorgeous travertine mosaics in the elevator lobbies of all the floors they occupy.)
Based on good estimates of how much churches actually spend on works, it turns out that people who give only to secular charities end up putting MORE money back into the community. This is because most charities run at 10-20% admin overhead, and churches run much higher, so much less of the money donated to the church actually goes to program.
Re:California is a at will state (Score:5, Informative)
At will does not mean "anything they do is legal, you can just leave." It merely means that there is no implied contract about severance or notice.
Too bad... (Score:3, Interesting)
That as the law stands today, it is a flagrant violation of the civil rights act... 'At will' doesn't cover it legally.
Basically, Diskeeper would have to get this case before the Supreme Court to change the law. They have admitted point blank they are in violation of the law.
I'm surprised they ever agreed to work in such a crackpot place to begin with though. I would prefer to find a competitor and watch their sorry asses fail.
Re:California is a at will state (Score:5, Insightful)
Good to know, that means I won't have to hire Blacks, cripples or homosexuals either.
Oh wait, that's not how it really works now is it?
Re:Religion: the ultimate free pass (Score:4, Insightful)
Some people don't feel they need to behave unless there is an omniscient parental figure monitoring their every thought. Essentially a large group of people never progressed beyond childhood. They are just children with a job and a mortgage.
Re:Ugh (Score:4, Funny)
Oh, God, the irony, Google Ads gave me a 'What is Scientology?' video from scientology.org.
Re:When referring to Scientology.... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:When referring to Scientology.... (Score:4, Informative)
You don't know what you're talking about.
Here's a clue: There can be agnostic atheists and gnostic atheits. Just as there can be agnostic theists and gnostic theists. The two concepts:
* believing/disbelieving the existence of God and
* believing that the existance of God can/cannot be known or proven
are orthogonal, even if they are philosophically related.
As an aside, "agnostics" who feel the need to bash atheists are just as tiring as atheists who bash religious people or religious people who bash everybody else. Which isn't all surprising, because the need to put other people down is a character trait and not dependent on any belief system.