Maryland Bans Employers From Asking For Facebook Passwords 211
Freddybear writes with news that yesterday Maryland passed a bill through both houses of the state legislature that would forbid employers from requiring job applicants or employees to provide access to social media accounts. The bill now awaits only the signature of governor Martin O'Malley. "The bill is the first of its kind in the country, and has shined a spotlight on the practice of employers demanding personal social media passwords from potential hires, [said Melissa Goemann of the ACLU]." Similar legislation is being developed in California, Illinois and Michigan, according to the Washington Post.
Not a problem (Score:5, Interesting)
Just accept that friendly request from that HR lady as a condition of employment.
Just last night I saw an ad on craigslist where the employer wanted me to click on a emloyment site that used Facebook as a login and requirement. I figured it was a scam. But it did offer a new password that you could choose different from Facebook but you had to friend the site first ... and the employer can check to see if you have a pic drinking or do a grammar and spelling check on your casual entries etc.
Re:Not a problem (Score:5, Funny)
Such trolling opportunities. Fake facebook account, with goatse et al shared to "friends only".
Think further. (Score:5, Insightful)
Focus your Facebook account on your off-hours hobby of DJ'ing for gay Jewish inter-racial couples retreats.
Then let them explain themselves if they don't hire you. They'd have to demonstrate how your off-hours activity did NOT influence their hiring process.
After they kind of implied that your off-hours hobbies WOULD influence their hiring decision.
It's a lose-lose for them. I don't see why any company with any intelligent HR person would even broach the subject of "social media" with applicants.
Re:Think further. (Score:4, Insightful)
That is the problem right there.
HR has switched from finding the best talent for a position to mean discluding any and I mean any reason not to hire someone and then claim they couldn't find qualified applicants.
They are scared that if they make a bad hiring decision that it will reflect poorly on them and are obsessed with liabilities. In the great recession they got a tremendous boast of having many and sometimes hundreds of applicants to filter through for each position. Social media makes the job even easier.
Witness the case of requiring experience first? 30 years ago you left college applied for a job and it was understood that your grades and dedication proved trainable. Today, you can even be trained but it has to be percisely what the position requires in the exact same way or they are not interested.
Doing something for X long doesn't make you good at the job. Someone with the right smarts and work ethic does. HR needs to change their ways
Re:Think further. (Score:5, Interesting)
HR has switched from finding the best talent for a position to mean discluding any and I mean any reason not to hire someone and then claim they couldn't find qualified applicants.
Dead on. I work full time and am finishing grad school and looking for a new job and that's the impression my friends and I have had of the majority of people we interact with from potential employers. They blatantly go out of their way to find reasons NOT to interview / hire people instead of finding the best candidate for the job.
Witness the case of requiring experience first? 30 years ago you left college applied for a job and it was understood that your grades and dedication proved trainable. Today, you can even be trained but it has to be percisely what the position requires in the exact same way or they are not interested.
Again, 100% accurate. The overwhelming majority of "entry level" positions won't even look at your resume if you don't have 3-5 years of experience doing the EXACT things listed on the job posting - nevermind that some of them may include specialized software that only someone who's previously held the position would have ever used, you MUST know how to use it for an entry level job.
Doing something for X long doesn't make you good at the job. Someone with the right smarts and work ethic does. HR needs to change their ways
That's why I told a friend the other day that eventually I want to be a hiring manager - because so many of them do it wrong, I want to show people how to do things right.
Sigh, okay, once again, my guide to getting hired. (Score:3, Insightful)
First off, the hiring process is a two way street. You are just as much interviewing the employer as they are you. If you feel at any time during the hiring process that the employer does not suit you, then STOP! Walk away, this is not the employer you are looking for.
For an employer, hiring a new person is a high cost and high risk hassle that is to often delayed. So rather then do the process when the workload is still manageable, they only start looking when everyone is working an 80 hour week and tracki
Re: (Score:2)
It begs the question of whether you can not hire or even fire a person for non-protected reasons.
For example, could fire someone for being ugly? Could you fire someone for being attractive? They had their wisdom teeth removed? Pronounce specific "pacific"? Drink Budwiser instead of Coors? Drive a Ford instead of a Chevy?
For every illegal reason to fire someone, there's probably 10 legal (mostly petty) reasons. I don't know of any state or locality that requires employers to show that they fired someon
Re:Think further. (Score:5, Interesting)
There are third party services that'll google you and search for public social network information. These services are the ones who see your actual information and they black out anything that is illegal to be used - i.e., if you have a normal photo of yourself, your face and hands (but not, say your T-shirt) will be blacked out to prevent revealing race, age, and gender. Any other information that reveals it will also be blacked out.
Here's an example one someone ran [gizmodo.com].
So the company can claim ignorance by presenting this stuff.
Of course, things that invalid this check would be asking for you password directly (since they could access it). Which s why these companies don't do that - they just seek out blogs, profiles and other stuff publicly accessible.
Re: (Score:2)
Focus your Facebook account on your off-hours hobby of DJ'ing for gay Jewish inter-racial couples retreats.
They would then refer you to section (5)(8).(2)(c) of their hiring policy. "Do not hire any candidate who wastes spare time with activities such as DJ'ing"
Re: (Score:2)
Then let them explain themselves if they don't hire you. They'd have to demonstrate how your off-hours activity did NOT influence their hiring process.
actually they don't have to explain anything. haven't you ever got one of those boilerplate... "we regret to inform you that your application for xxxx was unsucessful...".
the tricks used by HR to dwindle the pile down are many and varied (push the pile off the desk and bin any that land upside down). just because we know them doesn't mean they have to be justified. as a job applicant you have fuck all say in anything. if you believe you have been discriminated against in the selection process, you can t
Re:Not a problem (Score:5, Insightful)
"and the employer can check to see if you have a pic drinking"
and they can look at it all they want, they are not my mother and I am well beyond legal age to drink, they dont like it then they can kiss every square inch of my ass cause I would not fit in to their "sand vagina" culture anyway.
Re:Not a problem (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Not a problem (Score:4, Insightful)
Many states are at will employment. They don't want to have to worry about the small chance that you might have a problem with alcohol and sometimes maybe come in late for work on Monday morning due to a hangover. They might also have religious reasons for regulating your drinking. If they exclude you because you drink, they can probably find ten more people similar to you that might claim not to drink, or might simply just not drink.
Everyone thinks that it will be epic when/if marijuana is legalized, but you bet your ass insurance companies will still employers to test for it or they won't insure them. Nothing is preventing them from simply not hiring people that like to smoke it.
Re:Not a problem (Score:4, Interesting)
I grew up in, and still live in a "right to work" state, which really means the employers have absolutely no reason to even give you a reason as they boot you out the door. Monday morning hangovers have never been an issue, and I have worked for a few places that do not require a drug test at all with reasonable insurance, though you show up after lunch, glassy eyed and giggly, up your gone.
somehow its never been a problem, maybe becuase I know better, and am not a retard who thinks just because I got a job one day, I deserve it for life
Re: (Score:2)
I've never had to have a drug test as a condition of signing a work contract... ever. Oh yah, I don't work in the USA anymore. :-P
Re: (Score:2)
What means this 'work contract'? They're mostly unenforceable in the USA, and therefore useless to employer and employee alike.
Re:Not a problem (Score:4, Insightful)
Company-mandated drug and alcohol tests are illegal my country, except for a few professions, like cop, trucker or pilot, for obvious reasons. When you talk about those things I always wonder why so many Americans feel so smug because their country has more "liberty" than mine. It seems your so boasted "liberty" is the liberty for the rich and powerful to make other people's lives miserable at their whims.
You seem to live in a Corporate dystopia and feel like it's normal. Companies have absolutely no right to stick their nose in what you do outside business hours. It's not their business if you're gay, drink or smoke joints, have mistresses, belong to any club, organisation or religion, etc. Here in Europe we consider our private life to be sacred.
And we really don't give a fuck if politicians do these things, unless they're hypocritical right-wing sanctimonious pricks, of course. We're more concerned that they might be corrupt, which is what really matters for their jobs, not if they love pussy or beer.
If you do your work right, why the fuck should your employer mind what you do at home?
Re:Not a problem (Score:4)
Because the liability (and other) insurance companies MAKE them care. "Drug test your employees or your liability insurance premiums double". "You had an employee have the nerve to get cancer last year, your health insurance premiums just went up 50%" (This could be used as an excuse to fire anyone who smokes. You laugh, but it's happened.)
Just another case of a country run for the corporations, by the corporations. It isn't the 1 president or 535 congresscritters or the 9 justices that make the decisions that matter in this country, it's whoever has the most money.
Re: (Score:2)
Or is perjury not illegal in Europe?
Re: (Score:2)
You know, that might actually be relevant if the job you're being considered for includes writing things that customers get to see. If you can't be bothered to check the spelling and grammar on your Facebook page, there's a good chance that you'll forget to do it at work. And, of course, if your grammers bad at Facebook, it might just be because you don't know any better, and that would be very important when considering who to hire for such
Re: (Score:2)
but you had to friend the site first
Possible Facebook ToS violation? You don't "friend" sites, you "like" sites.
And when you friend someone, you can add them to a "group". For example, you can have your privacy settings configured so that most of your info, wall, photos, etc, are only visible to certain groups
Re: (Score:3)
So make a dummy Facebook account.
I believe that violates Facebook TOS (which may or may not be a felony, depending on if and how POTUS rules on that) in the same way as asking someone to provide their password to Facebook violates TOS.
Isn't it illegal to ask such things at an interview, since Facebook account likely to have some nuggets on your age/religion/etc?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The only reason you didn't notice the right go apeshit crazy over POTUS' remarks on the subject is that they were apeshit crazy to begin with. There was plenty of criticism from the usual suspects.
Re:Not a problem (Score:5, Informative)
No, just create a "People That Suck" group, set your default privacy policy to exclude that group, and add your employer to that group. To your employer, it'll just look like you never use Facebook.
Re: (Score:2)
But someone hired you, didn't they?
Ha ha ha ha ha ha!!!!
Sorry, I could not resist.
Do employers really ask for your fb password? (Score:3)
Re:Do employers really ask for your fb password? (Score:4, Interesting)
I've never heard of an employer asking this before. Do they try to save money buy using it as an alternative background check or something? Asking for someone's password seems ridiculous.
In the words of Bill Hicks, "Where's all this shit happening?!"
I keep reading about this but have never seen it happen myself or talked to anyone whose had it happen to them.
Re:Do employers really ask for your fb password? (Score:5, Informative)
Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department requires it for one that I know of personally.
Seattle as well. (Score:4, Interesting)
The Seattle police department had (as of last year) a similar requirement as part of their background check on applicants.
In that specific case I can see it being more reasonable. After all, they're already going to interview your friends and family and dig through your financial history.
Re:Seattle as well. (Score:4, Interesting)
They can't look through your mail or search your photos in your house as part of a background check--so why should they be able to do the exact same thing online?
Re:Do employers really ask for your fb password? (Score:4, Informative)
My daughter applied for a job and they asked to see her Facebook page.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I used to think those adverts where they ask for 4 years of experience in something that only came out 2 years ago were a trick to catch liars. They aren't.
Recruiters aren't all idiots, but if you assume they are you'll be right more often than you'll be wrong.
Re: (Score:3)
That clean site of a 30 yo with security clearances, a nice family, an open source project as a hobby and a musical background
Might have a long lost hidden/forgotten/friend/past developer with
Re:Do employers really ask for your fb password? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
I think most of those are also forbidden in the US.
We've got another one though... drug testing is generally not allowed in Canada (exceptions for things like heavy machinery operators [incl. professional drivers], probably cops and judges, etc.)
I'm not sure how far they can stretch the hazardous duty clause though. Does someone writing code for something mission critical count? Who defines mission critical?
Anyway, better still avoid idiots tagging you in photos with bong-hits in the background.
Re:Do employers really ask for your fb password? (Score:5, Informative)
The Maryland government police were asking for facebook passwords. Then it was discovered some private employers do the same, so the Legislature stepped forward and did its job (banned the practice). Now we just need to get the other 49 Member States of the union to do the same. :-)
Re: (Score:3)
Oh and the 27 states of the European union (just to be thorough).
Re: (Score:2)
I hope it isn't too specific. (Score:3)
I hope they were smart enough to write this law fairly broadly. Employers should not be allowed to ask for passwords to any account, social media or otherwise. If they wrote it specifically for social media accounts, then they'll just have to write it all over again the next time some other type of account becomes the target of unscrupulous employers.
Re:I hope it isn't too specific. (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
> It seems like its broad enough. Here's the actual bill itself.
I've heard that some employers get around the password stuff by requiring THE EMPLOYEE to login during the interview, and then they shoulder-surf as the employee goes through his private photos and postings. Is that loophole covered?
We really had to make a law for this? (Score:4, Insightful)
You would think this is such an obvious invasion of privacy that it would be covered by existing laws.
Still, if the great US of A is lecturing the world about "Internet Freedoms" while simultaneously perusing wikileaks for "terrorism", trying to pass laws like the SOPA, PIPA and shoving the ACTA down the throats of the rest of the world, I guess we shouldn't take anything for granted.
Ahh, where else but America... "The land of the free".
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
It's not really an invasion of privacy if you hand over the information yourself.
Re: (Score:2)
It's not really an invasion of privacy if you hand over the information yourself.
True, but I think it is a discrimination issue, since access to Facebook would like provide answer to a host of questions they are explicitly forbidden to ask (e.g., age)
Re: (Score:3)
But the onus is on them at that point. (Score:3)
They are not FORBIDDEN to ask but they will usually AVOID those questions because once they have that information they have to demonstrate that they did NOT refuse employment based upon it (should they not hire you and should you sue them).
The legal system being what it is ... it is just safer for them to not ask and therefore there is no way they could be using that information in their hiring decision.
Remember, HR is not there for YOU.
HR is there to protect the company from lawsuits that you can bring.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
It's not really an invasion of privacy if you hand over the information yourself.
No, it simply makes it an abuse of power. You NEED this job eh? Right, well as we have a few people to pick from, how about we pay you half the going rate, but hire you today? That's another abuse of power. No different really. People in a tight place will do just about anything to get out and sadly there are many people quite happy to use that to their own advantage.
Re: (Score:3)
The other 20% must pay really well, then.
Re: (Score:2)
$13 an hour for an MCSE certified, computer science background, Cisco router certification a plus, SQL Server administration, etc. No benefits
That's exactly what those jobs should pay.
Re:We really had to make a law for this? (Score:4, Insightful)
It's not really an invasion of privacy if you hand over the information yourself.
Is it still not a privacy invasion if you haven't been able to pay the rent/mortgage for a few months, your water and electricity are about to be shut off and somebody says "give me your password if you want this job..."
Re: (Score:2)
oh it's still a privacy invasion and a breach of contract with another entity(fb).
just like it's invasion of privacy and forbidden of them to ask access to your house in order to decide if they want to employ you or not. they're an employer and they're bound by some rules, it would be different if it was someone refusing to be friends with you if you didn't invite them over to your house..
Re: (Score:3)
Exactly.
Amendment 4 - Search and Seizure
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Why would any employer would think it's legal, ethical, or justifiable to ask to perform a search of your private accounts (papers and effects), any more than searching your home, vehicle, bank account, or diary without a warrant? It's absurd. Shouldn't need any additional law.
Furthermore, disclosing your password is a violation of the FB ToS, so they're asking you to breach your contract with FB (or other provider).
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Because private entities aren't required to abide by the Constitution since the Constitution sets the framework for government.
Re: (Score:2)
Because private entities aren't required to abide by the Constitution since the Constitution sets the framework for government.
You should look up unlawful detention? Retailers used to not let you leave the store if they catch you shoplifting until the police arrive. SOmeone used the Constitution claiming unlawful imprisonment and won!
If you steal anything the retailer can't stop you! All they can do is talk to you to distract you while the police arive.
If businesses are under the power of the constitution than this would be also.
Re: (Score:3)
Civil rights guarantees apply to everyone, not just the US Govt. It's illegal for any person to deprive you of your civil rights, and has been repeatedly found to apply to individuals as well as businesses and government.
Re: (Score:3)
Only true for a very narrow definition of "civil rights" - basically, what's covered by the 14th Amendment. Most certainly, neither 1st nor 2nd nor 4th control how private entities may restrict their employees.
Re: (Score:3)
Constitutional law only applies to the U.S. Government (and by extension of SCOTUS case law... State governments). It has no application to private entities. That is why neither Congress not the Legislature may limit your free speech, but this website, your employer, or a private store/business most certainly can.
There are probably laws that forbid employers from asking for PINs to your credit card or bank account. Perhaps you could prosecute them for asking for your "PIN" on facebook, but I have no idea
Re: (Score:2)
There are probably laws that forbid employers from asking for PINs to your credit card or bank account. Perhaps you could prosecute them for asking for your "PIN" on facebook, but I have no idea. It might not get far.
is it an american thing that something must be specifically said in legislature in order for people to understand it to be illegal? is it like patenting already used things but attach "smartphone" at the back? are all specific driving impairing substances banned for driving seperately instead of there being provision for not driving while not fit to drive?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You have just described the most common activity in US.
Yes, this is what their "freedom" is about, and I see absolutely nothing positive in it.
Re:We really had to make a law for this? (Score:4, Insightful)
Because they aren't the government and hence the 4th amendment is irrelevant.
Also note that the 4th amendment doesn't say that the government can't ask to look at your stuff - just that they can't force you to let them (without probable cause/etc). So even if it was relevant it wouldn't stop a potential employer from asking.
Re: (Score:2)
Civil rights apply to everyone. Just try violating someone's civil rights and you'll find out just how much.
This wasn't a "request" by any standard. This was give us the info or else. RTFA.
Re: (Score:2)
I can't violate someone's 4th amendment rights, since I'm not an agent of the government.
I can't seize their stuff. Or go through their personal belongings without permission. Or seize them. Those things are illegal but not due to the 4th amendment.
It was "or else we won't give you the job". Which I agree should be illegal, but the 4th amendment doesn't make it so (well in the exact case in the article it might because it was a government job so it was in fact the government doing the searching, but that's
Re: (Score:2)
Or else what? We won't hire you? Do you have a right to that job? What about the employer's freedom? An no, not all employers are evil.
Re: (Score:2)
You're wrong about that. Employment law (such as it is in this country[USA]) specifically forbids you from asking certain questions in a job interview setting. These include things like your age, your marital status, your sexual orientation, your ethnic background and so forth.
These laws wouldn't be necessary unless there was a problem to begin with that required regulation. The opacity of the job interview/hiring process made it waaaay too easy for someone to discriminate on the basis of age/sex/orienta
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I would suggest that if you knew anything about the USA you wouldn't really find this surprising at all.
Re: (Score:2)
You know what's an invasion of privacy? Passing a law that tells one person that they can't ask another person a question. That's an invasion of privacy in my book. We need these laws because some people are too dumb to say "no", and smart people are afraid that if they do say "no", they won't be able to compete with the dumb people willing to say "yes". It's idiocy all around.
Re: (Score:2)
Businesses and governments don't have privacy.
Gotta love this gem from the law as written (Score:2)
"AN EMPLOYER MAY REQUIRE AN EMPLOYEE TO DISCLOSE ANY
26 USER NAME, PASSWORD, OR OTHER MEANS FOR ACCESSING NONPERSONAL
27 ACCOUNTS OR SERVICES THAT PROVIDE ACCESS TO THE EMPLOYER’S INTERNAL
28 COMPUTER OR INFORMATION SYSTEMS."
the 'terry childs' portion...
can you enter in financially binding transactions with your account? like a stock broker? well-- good luck proving it wasn't you if your password for work accounts MUST be known...
Fyi to the above-- (Score:2)
if you don't get it? equate it to requiring a ink stamp with your legally binding signature.....
Re: (Score:2)
Keyword was NONPERSONAL ACCOUNTS. So not unless your facebook account is a work account owned by the company (e.x. if you have the account which controls the company's facebook page). Your personal account is safe.
In the employers' defense... (Score:3)
...there's no piss-test for Farmville addiction.
Simple (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
And anyone who has their real name as their Facebook account is naive at best.
What about people who think using pseudonyms on Facebook -- or on Slashdot, for that matter -- actually protects their privacy?
Maybe I'm wrong on this... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Nice in theory, but when hard times come, people end up prostituting their souls, if nothing else.
It gets more problematic when there are less employers that don't do this, as well.
These are dark days indeed... (Score:5, Insightful)
...when even Facebook is saying "hey guys, this seems like you're crossing a line with people's privacy".
The "chilling effect" is what Facebook fears (Score:5, Insightful)
> ...when even Facebook is saying "hey guys, this
> seems like you're crossing a line with people's privacy".
Mark Z doesn't give 2 hoots about your privacy. He only cares about Facebook's bottom line. Facebook's product is personal information about you, e.g. your "Likes", sexual orientation, political leaning, and other demographic data. If employer-access to your FB account becomes widespread, then...
1) people will either leave FB in droves, or refuse to join in the first place; bad for FB
2) many people that stay will "sanitize" all their FB info, to avoid getting fired/refused when employers look in. This will pollute FB's database. This is just as bad, if not worse than people quitting.
Follow the money. This isn't about your privacy, it's about FB's bottom line.
US law background required (Score:2)
Can someone with some US law background explain Why there is a bill needed? to prevent HR or employers to ask for passwords? ... for what reason should a potential future employer have access to your private "property"?
I mean: in the rest of the world it is either illegal to ask, or illegal to give the password away. Illegal in italics as it is not strictly speaking against the law (in the) later case but against the TOS definitely. In the former case it is illegal
Re: (Score:2)
No law background required. Any layman can tell you that unless specifically prohibited by law, an employer can discriminate against you for anything they see fit. You have no right to privacy if you want to get hired. If standing on principle is worth not getting the job (and losing your unemployment coverage) for you, then go on with your bad self. Me, I have bills to pay. If my employer came to me today and said "Give me your facebook password or get fired on the spot", I'd have no choice but to giv
Re:What if (Score:4, Funny)
You'd be my first pick. Can't stand fadbook, it's like AOL for retards. AOL is like the web for retards. The web is like the Internet for retards. As for the Internet...Al Gore is a retard. It all makes sense now.
Re: (Score:3)
I've said it before and apparently I'll say it again. This is how the interview would go:
HR Person: "Please provide your login credentials for Facebook."
Interviewee: "I don't use Facebook."
HR Person: "Right. 'Refused to provide Facebook login credentials.'"
Result: Circular file.
Re:What if (Score:5, Insightful)
I've said it before and apparently I'll say it again. This is how the interview would go:
HR Person: "Please provide your login credentials for Facebook." Interviewee: "I don't use Facebook." HR Person: "Right. 'Refused to provide Facebook login credentials.'"
Result: Circular file.
Not for me. Here's how it would go:
HR Person: "Please provide your login credentials for Facebook."
Me: Have a nice day (as I stand to leave)
HR Person: Where are you going?
Me: To interview with better companies.
Re: (Score:2)
Of course you would, 733t ninja snowflake. We believe you.
Re:What if (Score:4, Insightful)
That's a narrow minded view. The company could be awesome and I'm not about to potentially ruin a career aspect with them because some lowly HR douche had an abortion of an idea. Hell if I walked out every time an interviewer asked me a question I disagree with I probably would never get past an interview stage. The problem is every so often someone comes in and makes a temporary dick move that may likely get reverted later and does not necessarily reflect the views of the entire company.
The company I have now made such a dick move hiring (or rather not hiring) university grads this year. They stuffed up the list of applicants and we accidentally interviewed the rejects. When they were all rejected word spread that we were screwing people around. Doesn't mean that we have any intention of fouling it up again next time.
Instead why not make your intentions known bluntly without screwing up potential opportunity? Just say "No, what I do in my private life between friends stays in my private life." It shows your position, strong character, and still leaves you the option to flip off the HR person with a big f-you if they insist on seeing it anyway.
Re: (Score:3)
Hell if I walked out every time an interviewer asked me a question I disagree with I probably would never get past an interview stage.
There's a world of difference between "a question I disagree with" and "hand over your password".
Re: (Score:2)
You: losing your unemployment benefits.
Re: (Score:2)
That's the nature of "at will" employment. You can quit because you don't like your the color of your stapler and they can fire you because you don't have a Facebook page. If you don't like it, you are free to negotiate an employment contract. But most people really do prefer at will employment arrangements -- that's why they're so popular.
Re: (Score:2)
Find me one person who likes the fact that he/she can be terminated at any time for no stated reason. Employment contracts generally don't exist in the USA because in at-will states they're unenforceable.
Re:Does the submitter know how laws are made? (Score:5, Informative)
Which is it?
Neither and both. This is the final stage in the law-making process. It has passed through both houses of the state, which means that all the folks have agreed to it as it is. While the Govenor *could* veto it, even not signing it means it passes into law. While it is possible that this falls over through a veto, it is one of those one in a million chance things. So, effectively, you can say once both hosues agree, it has passed, but is still awaiting the formality of the boss' signature.
Re: (Score:2)
Agreed. I doubt the governor is THAT desperate to sabotage his political career.
Re: (Score:2)
Kony who? The media moves on faster than anything. Awareness in "the past couple of weeks" means nothing for two weeks time. You DO need legislation to prevent this, because otherwise it'd be right back again.
This story itself has been circular - comes up at least once a year for the past few years. Everyone gets all upset it about it then it dies down and companies keep doing it.
Re: (Score:2)
Because they need a job. Also, if there's a fight over unemployment benefits, and it comes out that you refused to cooperate with a potential employer in the hiring process, you could lose your benefits.
Re: (Score:2)
Do you realize just how many things you'd do if the fridge is empty and your kid says "Daddy, I'm hungry"?
Re: (Score:2)
Your "government meddling" wouldn't be necessary if the market were free and not fatally tilted in the direction of the employer. Until a job applicant and a potential employer can meet on equal terms, the "government meddling" will be necessary. As it is right now, the employer controls your ability to make a living, and it's not too far a leap to say that they hold your life in their hands.
When laws to protect employees are no longer necessary, I will be the first one agreeing with you about your vision
Re: (Score:2)
So...you object to a state law that basically prevents employers from violating federal law. (They're gaining unauthorized access to a computer system)
Perhaps your tri-corner hat is a tad too tight?