Comments
21 - 29 of 29 Comments Last updated Feb 23, 2013
First Prev
of 2
Next Last
Inquiring Mind

Quakertown, PA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#22
Feb 22, 2013
 
dbar wrote:
<quoted text>
try
employers want access to private facebook for example.
http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/facebook-pas...
and some states have passed legislation.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/12/31/us-...
"In California and Illinois, laws that take effect at 12:01 a.m. local time will make it illegal for bosses to request social networking passwords or non-public online account information from their employees or job applicants."
And that's how it should be.
I agree! Non-public information should be protected. Somebody who does not restrict access to their social media accounts puts the information in the public domain - just like once your garbage is at the curb, it's available to anyone who wants it. Companies have the right to use any information legally available to them to make decisions about hiring and firing. If they don't follow the law, they are exposing themselves to invasion of privacy and defamation of character lawsuits. That's how it should be.
Think

Quakertown, PA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#23
Feb 23, 2013
 

Judged:

1

Inquiring Mind wrote:
<quoted text>
I agree! Non-public information should be protected. Somebody who does not restrict access to their social media accounts puts the information in the public domain - just like once your garbage is at the curb, it's available to anyone who wants it. Companies have the right to use any information legally available to them to make decisions about hiring and firing. If they don't follow the law, they are exposing themselves to invasion of privacy and defamation of character lawsuits. That's how it should be.
From 2007 to 2012, some private Facebook messages were made viewable. Users have to go into Timeline and hide the messages. The bottom line is, don't put anything on the internet you don't want the whole world to see.
Info

Quakertown, PA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#24
Feb 23, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Joe wrote:
<quoted text>
Why do you endorse discrimination?
Why do you think my Constitutional rights end inside a company?
Why are you on a power trip?
If you're exercising your "freedom of speech" on Facebook or twitter when you should be working, then any employer has the right to fire you. You are supposed to be working; not screwing off and wasting your employers time.
Joe

Quakertown, PA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#25
Feb 23, 2013
 

Judged:

1

Inquiring Mind wrote:
<quoted text>
What part of "it's not discrimination" don't you understand?
It's sound BUSINESS practice. Are you willing to pony up and reimburse a company to lends money to a deadbeat? They have to take care of their interests, just like you do.
Your constitutional rights do not end inside a company. You HAVE NO CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT to misuse private property (your workplace computer)or engage in activities that harm your employer or fellow employees. Like I said, you have freedom of speech. But the Constitution does not protect you from the consequences of what you say in most cases. Your right to free speech doesn't trump others' rights to run their lives and private businesses as they please.
I'm not on any "power trip." You just don't have a grasp on what the law and Constitution provides. You want a nanny state where the federal government makes sure everything is "fair" - according to YOUR rules of what constitutes fairness. Now THAT sounds like a Power Trip to me!
There is no evidence connecting a person's credit score to their on-the-job performance. Companies are creating a discriminatory barrier against people --- through no fault of their own --- have suffered through the recession, been victimized by predatory lending, and/or experienced a medical bankruptcy. It's an invasion of privacy that is impeding upon a person's opportunity to work. Several states have already banned companies using credit score checks in hiring decisions and federal legislation is pending.

Posting content on social media platforms is protected under the First Amendment. What you advocate is freezing a person's First Amendment rights in holding them hostage to the subjectivity of an employer.
Joe

Quakertown, PA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#26
Feb 23, 2013
 

Judged:

1

Info wrote:
<quoted text>
If you're exercising your "freedom of speech" on Facebook or twitter when you should be working, then any employer has the right to fire you. You are supposed to be working; not screwing off and wasting your employers time.
Using social media platforms have become part of the job in many workplaces.
Info

Quakertown, PA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#27
Feb 23, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Joe wrote:
<quoted text>
Using social media platforms have become part of the job in many workplaces.
As long as it's job related. Duh!

If it's not, then you deserve to get your pink slip. That's called slacking.
Info

Quakertown, PA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#28
Feb 23, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Joe wrote:
<quoted text>
There is no evidence connecting a person's credit score to their on-the-job performance. Companies are creating a discriminatory barrier against people --- through no fault of their own --- have suffered through the recession, been victimized by predatory lending, and/or experienced a medical bankruptcy. It's an invasion of privacy that is impeding upon a person's opportunity to work. Several states have already banned companies using credit score checks in hiring decisions and federal legislation is pending.
Posting content on social media platforms is protected under the First Amendment. What you advocate is freezing a person's First Amendment rights in holding them hostage to the subjectivity of an employer.
Predatory lending? Do you mean taking out one of those ridiculous interest-only loans so you could get a bigger house knowing all along that you couldn't afford it in the first place?

Yes, it's the bank's fault for pushing loans like that but the borrower has culpability in knowing that they can't afford in the first place. That's one of the reasons so many people went belly up during the housing crisis--they were in over their heads. Your mortgage to income ratio shouldn't be higher than 1/3 of your income, but clearly that wasn't the case with many people who were given (and took possession of) mortgages that were risky to begin with.

You can't place all the blame on the banks and leave out personal responsibility.
Inquiring Mind

Quakertown, PA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#29
Feb 23, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Joe wrote:
<quoted text>There is no evidence connecting a person's credit score to their on-the-job performance. Companies are creating a discriminatory barrier against people --- through no fault of their own --- have suffered through the recession, been victimized by predatory lending, and/or experienced a medical bankruptcy. It's an invasion of privacy that is impeding upon a person's opportunity to work. Several states have already banned companies using credit score checks in hiring decisions and federal legislation is pending.

Posting content on social media platforms is protected under the First Amendment. What you advocate is freezing a person's First Amendment rights in holding them hostage to the subjectivity of an employer.
You don't need "evidence" to make a hiring decision in the private sector. If you're the business owner, you are free to hire or not hire whomever you like as long as the decision not to hire is based on legal factors. The day the govt tells me who I have to hire is the day I close shop and turn in my citizenship.

Like I said, you lose your right to privacy when you make information public. That's what the courts have said, time and time again. You don't cite any sources about pending legislation regarding hiring decisions based on credit scores - I don't see it happening since it is a clear violation of the owner's right to operate his business without undue govt interference.

Again your understanding of the First Amendment is faulty. The Constitution protects certain (not all) speech from being restricted. It does not protect you from consequences when it conflicts with the rights of a private individual.
Inquiring Mind

Quakertown, PA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#30
Feb 23, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Info wrote:
<quoted text>As long as it's job related. Duh!

If it's not, then you deserve to get your pink slip. That's called slacking.
Yes, and if the govt is going to force an employee on you, then it should guarantee his or her performance in the job and reimburse the employer accordingly. Think "Joe" would go for that? No, fairness is only a one-way proposition for him. He thinks Communism is the solution, after all it's worked so well everywhere it's been tried.

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

First Prev
of 2
Next Last
Type in your comments below
Name
(appears on your post)
Comments
Characters left: 4000

Please note by clicking on "Post Comment" you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Other Recent Coopersburg Discussions

Search the Coopersburg Forum:
Title Updated Last By Comments
smoking nurses 33 min magpie 53
Trailer hitch installation (Jan '11) 36 min jason 5
A Plus Family Dental 21 hr Opinion 13
PA Who do you support for Governor in Pennsylvania... (Oct '10) Mon T Wolf 51,196
heller road Mon Uncle Freddy 16
PA Who do you support for U.S. Senate in Pennsylva... (Oct '10) Mon Eddie Swindell 3,824
How many women go braless ? NO MEN and Ladies b... (Mar '10) Mon Lisa 91
•••
•••

Coopersburg News Video

•••
•••

Coopersburg Jobs

•••
Enter and win $5000
•••
•••

Coopersburg People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

•••

Coopersburg News, Events & Info

Click for news, events and info in Coopersburg
•••

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]
•••