Corporate Surveillance Of People's Private Lives

[SmarterThanYou]

There's nothing wrong with asking people to (the next word goes without saying, but I want to make sure ppl don't miss the implication)VOLUNTARILY submit their free will to rules of a particular business or organization.

You'd feel alot different about it if you had ever been the victim of a stupid discrimination policy.

 

[dmp]

You'd feel alot different about it if you had ever been the victim of a stupid discrimination policy.

I doubt it. Even so - when did the populations 'feelings' about rules ever change them? I feel 'wrong' about Speeding Ticket Policies...I feel harrassed and wrongly cited. (shrug). Doesn't change the fact the Gov't has the 'right' to make me a criminal based upon whatever rules they adapt.

 

[SmarterThanYou]

It isn't giving them something, it is simply a right that they have.

They have the right to make their rules whatever they wish. However they cannot make people work for them either, if their rules are too harsh they will find they can get no employees and will need to change the rules or that their employees will strike after forming unions.

Saying they have no right is attempting to run every company through the government, that isn't capitalism but socialism. If their employees think they have gone too far they have the right to join together and to strike, until they have reached the point that employees wish to do this they can pretty much make any rule that they want and enforce them if they can.

I'm astounded and dismayed by the attitude towards the power of business anymore. How I long for the old days of business' requiring a charter from the state.

 

[SmarterThanYou]

I doubt it.

I don't. In fact, i'm pretty confident you'd feel differently once you're a victim of it.

Even so - when did the populations 'feelings' about rules ever change them? I feel 'wrong' about Speeding Ticket Policies...I feel harrassed and wrongly cited. (shrug). Doesn't change the fact the Gov't has the 'right' to make me a criminal based upon whatever rules they adapt.

by legitimizing 'he who has the gold, makes the rules' you ensure the continuance of unscrupulous people maintaining power over others. A form of slavery, and I think thats wrong. I thought you did too.

 

[dmp]

I don't. In fact, i'm pretty confident you'd feel differently once you're a victim of it.

There are no victims, D...People are free to leave a business any time they choose - other than Military Service...As long as ANY employee agrees to the rules (by not quitting when new rules are made) they are waiving their right to bitch about something.

by legitimizing 'he who has the gold, makes the rules' you ensure the continuance of unscrupulous people maintaining power over others. A form of slavery, and I think thats wrong. I thought you did too.

Where did I legitimize that concept? We all have rules. Sometimes we don't 'like' the rules...doesn't mean the rules are 'wrong' or that an organization shouldn't have the right to govern itself as the ownership/leadership sees fit.

 

[no1tovote4]

You'd feel alot different about it if you had ever been the victim of a stupid discrimination policy.

You may want the government to change the rules to reflect what you think is fair, but that comes dangerously close to socialism. We cannot allow the government to run our companies to such a degree. While I believe in the right of an individual to smoke, etc. I also believe in the right of the people who run a company to set rules regarding how they expect employees to act. Just as I believe in the employees right to unionize and fight overbearing company rules.

The government is not the place to effect the changes that you seem to want to effect, it is the employees and the company that they work for that have the right to negotiate between themselves, that is the place where the rules should be effected. Not through government rules and laws.

 

[no1tovote4]

I'm astounded and dismayed by the attitude towards the power of business anymore. How I long for the old days of business' requiring a charter from the state.

Once again you missed the point. The point I make is that there is already a system in place where employees who feel wronged can make systemic changes without government interference being the only route. They have the right to unionize if they feel put upon by the rules that companies make.

Your attempt at making government responsible for rules set by corporations smacks of socialism and would take us in the wrong direction.

 

[no1tovote4]

by legitimizing 'he who has the gold, makes the rules' you ensure the continuance of unscrupulous people maintaining power over others. A form of slavery, and I think thats wrong. I thought you did too.

What makes you think that politicians are any more "scrupulous" than those people who own the corporations and companies making these rules?

 

[Gem]

Smarter,

So basically you endorse the denial of one citizen's legal rights in this nation, rights provided and protected under the Constitution...in order to make life more comfortable for another citizen. Sorry...I don't agree. Your freedom to smoke or not smoke does not supercede my right to not hire you if I feel that your habits have proven bad for my business.

Where you seem to be getting confused is your merging on non-"rights" like smoking...with actual rights, as set forth by our non-descrimination laws. While you and I are in complete agreement that employers are horribly misguided in making decisions like the ones we are discussing, and while we are in complete agreement that there is a line that legally can't be crossed...you feel that we should ignore the rights of the employer in order to ensure that the line isn't crossed...and I feel that restricting LEGAL rights in order to hope to keep illegal discrimination from happening is not the appropriate way to approach this matter.

What we should be looking for is if there is a proper way (and more importantly, a true need) to regulate these decisions in order to best respect the rights of ALL involved: both the employee and the private business owner.

 

[no1tovote4]

What we should be looking for is if there is a proper way (and more importantly, a true need) to regulate these decisions in order to best respect the rights of ALL involved: both the employee and the private business owner.

Don't take this personally Gem, in almost every way I agree with you.

That's why employees have a right to unionize and negotiate rules that will be applied to them. There already is such a system in place.

To simply ignore this and set Government as the negotiator for the employee is simply wrong. They have an avenue that they can use already in place, there is no need to fix something that isn't broken.

 

[SmarterThanYou]

You may want the government to change the rules to reflect what you think is fair, but that comes dangerously close to socialism. We cannot allow the government to run our companies to such a degree. While I believe in the right of an individual to smoke, etc. I also believe in the right of the people who run a company to set rules regarding how they expect employees to act. Just as I believe in the employees right to unionize and fight overbearing company rules.

The government is not the place to effect the changes that you seem to want to effect, it is the employees and the company that they work for that have the right to negotiate between themselves, that is the place where the rules should be effected. Not through government rules and laws.

this has been discussed by me many times before but here it is one more time. I'm a 6 year veteran of the USMC. I was an air traffic controller, a highly professional job. I've been turned down for many jobs including bank teller and warehouse worker for office depot for one reason only. My hair. I have long hair. It's not dirty, unkempt, or stringy. I dress well and take care of my appearance. Yet I was denied the opportunity because I didn't LOOK professional. Now, you tell me, how am I, as a minority of long haired professionals, going to make any changes by trying to unionize? Simple, im not going to be able to. What would you suggest?

 

[Gem]

Smarter Wrote:

I don't. In fact, i'm pretty confident you'd feel differently once you're a victim of it.

This is a silly road to continue heading down. You don't know him...he has stated clearly that he wouldn't feel differently...getting into a pissing match of "Yes, you would." "No, I wouldn't." "Yes, you would." is a waste of time.

We could spend the next eight posts dedicated to me telling you you'd feel differently if you put your heart and soul into a private business that was your life's dream...only to be told you could fire employees who's poor personal choices were hurting your business....but if you responded that you wouldn't feel differently...then the point is moot.


P.S. Welcome to the US...you have the right to grow your hair to the ground if you choose. Businesses have the right to not hire your if they feel it looks unprofessional. I had my eyebrow and tongue pierced for a brief time in college...when I started grad school for my Master's in Education...guess that I did...I took them out...why? Because I understood that most schools didn't want to hire elementary school teachers with facial piercings...was it fair? Nope. Am I a better teacher without my tongue pierced than I was with it pierced? Nope. Its called life, its not fair...cut your hair and deal with it. Or don't cut your hair and deal with the consquences that come with that....good grief.

 

[SmarterThanYou]

What makes you think that politicians are any more "scrupulous" than those people who own the corporations and companies making these rules?

I don't think that. but I do know that they will answer to the people to keep their precious jobs and if the people object an unfairness, they will fix it.

 

[SmarterThanYou]

Smarter,

So basically you endorse the denial of one citizen's legal rights in this nation, rights provided and protected under the Constitution...in order to make life more comfortable for another citizen. Sorry...I don't agree.

would you care to show me where I said that?

Your freedom to smoke or not smoke does not supercede my right to not hire you if I feel that your habits have proven bad for my business.

the key word here is FEEL. If there is something thats PROVEN, i have no problem with it. But FEEL? wheres the logic in that?

Where you seem to be getting confused is your merging on non-"rights" like smoking...with actual rights, as set forth by our non-descrimination laws. While you and I are in complete agreement that employers are horribly misguided in making decisions like the ones we are discussing, and while we are in complete agreement that there is a line that legally can't be crossed...you feel that we should ignore the rights of the employer in order to ensure that the line isn't crossed...and I feel that restricting LEGAL rights in order to hope to keep illegal discrimination from happening is not the appropriate way to approach this matter.

Again, show me where I'm ignoring the business owners legal rights?

What we should be looking for is if there is a proper way (and more importantly, a true need) to regulate these decisions in order to best respect the rights of ALL involved: both the employee and the private business owner.

I agree with this.

 

[SmarterThanYou]

Don't take this personally Gem, in almost every way I agree with you.

That's why employees have a right to unionize and negotiate rules that will be applied to them. There already is such a system in place.

To simply ignore this and set Government as the negotiator for the employee is simply wrong. They have an avenue that they can use already in place, there is no need to fix something that isn't broken.

this is broken.

 

[no1tovote4]

this has been discussed by me many times before but here it is one more time. I'm a 6 year veteran of the USMC. I was an air traffic controller, a highly professional job. I've been turned down for many jobs including bank teller and warehouse worker for office depot for one reason only. My hair. I have long hair. It's not dirty, unkempt, or stringy. I dress well and take care of my appearance. Yet I was denied the opportunity because I didn't LOOK professional. Now, you tell me, how am I, as a minority of long haired professionals, going to make any changes by trying to unionize? Simple, im not going to be able to. What would you suggest?

I too had long hair after I left the military. However I found the same issue you are having. Employers prefer their employees to look professional and long hair doesn't fit that mold, I therefore cut my hair and was able to easily obtain employment. Hair length doesn't make you protected in any way, nor should it, it is too easily changed.

However if enough employees were effected by this rule there definitely would be a movement to unionize and change the rule, but that isn't the case, therfore most employees find this rule to be reasonable while you do not.

In this case you either need to change your chosen profession in order to work in areas where hair length would not effect your chances at employment or make the change to comply with their hiring rules so you can work in your chosen profession.

Cutting your hair didn't seem to be such a hardship to you while you were in the military. Why should they be able to set such an arbitrary rule but not other employers?

 

[Gem]

Smarter,

You FEEL that a private business owner should not be allowed to fire or not hire someone they believe will be bad for their business due to non-legally protected habits.

You FEEL that a private business should HAVE to hire you if you are qualified, despite the fact that they know (or think they know) that your long hair puts off their customers.

You want to restrict their legal rights to run their private business in order to protect your right to maintain your lengthy locks. Therefore, you support restricting the legal rights of one citizen in order to maintain the comfort of another.

I'll restate. I disagree.

 

[no1tovote4]

I don't think that. but I do know that they will answer to the people to keep their precious jobs and if the people object an unfairness, they will fix it.

And companies are answerable to their customers as well as to the employees. If you feel a company goes to far you can get a group together and boycott as well, very American and also legal. There are many different ways we can effect businesses without getting into socialistic practices where the Government is setting the rules of business.

 

[SmarterThanYou]

Smarter Wrote:


This is a silly road to continue heading down. You don't know him...he has stated clearly that he wouldn't feel differently...getting into a pissing match of "Yes, you would." "No, I wouldn't." "Yes, you would." is a waste of time.

We could spend the next eight posts dedicated to me telling you you'd feel differently if you put your heart and soul into a private business that was your life's dream...only to be told you could fire employees who's poor personal choices were hurting your business....but if you responded that you wouldn't feel differently...then the point is moot.

Would it make any sense for me to tell you I know what its like to have an abortion when you damn well know I wouldn't because I'm a man? NOBODY can seriously say they wouldnt feel any different about something IF they had never experienced it before. I know. I used to think I wouldn't feel any different about it, til it happened to me. the problem is that you choose to discount it because it doesn't fit in with your point.

P.S. Welcome to the US...you have the right to grow your hair to the ground if you choose. Businesses have the right to not hire your if they feel it looks unprofessional. I had my eyebrow and tongue pierced for a brief time in college...when I started grad school for my Master's in Education...guess that I did...I took them out...why? Because I understood that most schools didn't want to hire elementary school teachers with facial piercings...was it fair? Nope. Am I a better teacher without my tongue pierced than I was with it pierced? Nope. Its called life, its not fair...cut your hair and deal with it. Or don't cut your hair and deal with the consquences that come with that....good grief.

Was this posted from you?

Originally Posted by Gem
Smarter,

So basically you endorse the denial of one citizen's legal rights in this nation, rights provided and protected under the Constitution...in order to make life more comfortable for another citizen. Sorry...I don't agree.

 

[SmarterThanYou]

I too had long hair after I left the military. However I found the same issue you are having. Employers prefer their employees to look professional and long hair doesn't fit that mold, I therefore cut my hair and was able to easily obtain employment. Hair length doesn't make you protected in any way, nor should it, it is too easily changed.

However if enough employees were effected by this rule there definitely would be a movement to unionize and change the rule, but that isn't the case, therfore most employees find this rule to be reasonable while you do not.

In this case you either need to change your chosen profession in order to work in areas where hair length would not effect your chances at employment or make the change to comply with their hiring rules so you can work in your chosen profession.

Cutting your hair didn't seem to be such a hardship to you while you were in the military. Why should they be able to set such an arbitrary rule but not other employers?

you were in the military, what did they say was their reason for cutting your hair? The rest of your argument simply proves my point about 'he who has the gold makes the rules'. It's wrong.