Razing Ruth's niece adopted by same sex couple

[Deleted03]

Again, Republicans don't have any civil rights standing just because they're Republicans. People don't get hired because they're not "liked" all.the.time. It's not illegal.

If I said it was because he was black (he isn't) or that he was male (he is) or that he was Christian (dunno), it would be wrong. But it is not wrong to hire based on whether you like someone or not. A person has to fit in the culture of the workplace. He won't fit in mine.

There is some serious lack of critical thinking going on here.

I'm pretty sure you're not supposed to discriminate individuals based on their political opinions. That means their party affiliation or stated political ideas....

still O_o

[Guest Anonymous]

I'm pretty sure you're not supposed to discriminate individuals based on their political opinions. That means their party affiliation or stated political ideas....

still O_o

The thing is, regardless of what the law allows, there are clearly lots of people around with shitty, bigoted views - and so why feed them with information they don't need to know?

Even in those protected areas where it is unlawful to discriminate, all it means in practice is that an employer needs to document a 'non-protected' reason for not hiring them, and claims become difficult to pursue. It happens all the time, and it is in job applicants interest to play the game as far as they can.

[Deleted03]

The thing is, regardless of what the law allows, there are clearly lots of people around with shitty, bigoted views - and so why feed them with information they don't need to know?

Even in those protected areas where it is unlawful to discriminate, all it means in practice is that an employer needs to document a 'non-protected' reason for not hiring them, and claims become difficult to pursue. It happens all the time, and it is in job applicants interest to play the game as far as they can.

well, yes be careful. But I'm certainly not blaming that guy for Creaky Steal unethical decision.

Creaky, you did not even get this guy a chance to be in an interview. I know several liberatarians, not on the left side of the spectrum, but on the right side, and believe it or not, their beliefs just don't get out in professional situations. Some people may rent privately, and be very lovable persons in professional settings.

JesusFightClub I really can't believe you're saying that. Do you realize that in the US all "commies" have been excluded of a lot of stuff based on their political opinions? We're talking about a republican. Maybe he posted fox's stories? Who knows? (only creaky steel and she still made a decision based on political opinions. I don't care that she added other reasons later on, being republican is apparently a big no no to work with her).

Political opinions should be a criteria where discrimination is forbidden, I don't see how it's different from religion IMO.

Hopefully more states integrate this criteria as discrimination.

[Spider Burps]

Another thing: Google. If you all only understood the scope of what Google is up too. You know how you have to give them a cell phone number and an alt email address as a "security" device in case you get locked out of your account? What do you think they are doing with that data? Yep, correlating it. To your email, your contacts in gmail, your youtube viewing habits (hey, she likes hockey AND ballet). If you are logged on to Google and do anything, third party cookies are tracking your online behavior via third party cookies. Turn those cookies off and Gmail stops working. Nice racket they have going. Google (and many other company's) soul purpose is to track you and market to you..

I've used Gmail and other Google products with cookies disabled without any problems at all... Is this a brand new "feature"? Also, you don't have to give them a cell or an optional email address (or you can use a fake one--they don't verify). They're optional :) I'm the sort that will give information in exchange for a service, but only if I am required to; My eyes are always peeled for ways to make tracking me just a little more difficult. :)

[Guest Anonymous]

I've used Gmail and other Google products with cookies disabled without any problems at all... Is this a brand new "feature"? Also, you don't have to give them a cell or an optional email address (or you can use a fake one--they don't verify). They're optional :) I'm the sort that will give information in exchange for a service, but only if I am required to; My eyes are always peeled for ways to make tracking me just a little more difficult. :)

I'm opted out of the Google data-gathering too, and it works just fine here in the UK. Google don't exclude you on the basis of unclicking the box, they just tend to bring in changes by stealth and make data-sharing the default, so many people aren't aware of the possibility to unsubscribe to that. They don't have my genuine phone number, and my backup email addresses are alternative junk addresses, which give me security, and Google not very much.

[JesusFightClub]

Sophie, I know my commie history ;) and I still would not hire a known fascist. I'm antifa, I know what fash are and no. Not happening. I would not be prepared to put my customers and other workers at risk and would be opposed to any law requiring me to.

[Deleted03]

Sophie, I know my commie history ;) and I still would not hire a known fascist. I'm antifa, I know what fash are and no. Not happening. I would not be prepared to put my customers and other workers at risk and would be opposed to any law requiring me to.

I think definitions and limits can get blurry too pretty easily. Of course in France (and maybe in the UK?) some parties (I'm thinking neonazis for instance) are outlawed.... so I guess in those cases it would not fall under discrimination, although why would anyone publicize their belonging to an outlawed organization, I don't know...

[Austin]

My boss is a conservative and I am a liberal and quite active in politics. We work very well together because we (meaning everyone in our company) do not talk politics at work. I would hate to think he wouldn't have hired me based even partly on my political views. I don't doubt that it isn't illegal not to exclude someone for hiring based on the candidate's political views expressed elsewhere, but it does kind of seem wrong on some other level. Just because you *can* doesn't always mean you should.

Having said that, I haven't the slightest idea why people have open fb profiles when they know that potential employers are perusing the net these days when it comes to applicants. Even among my "friends", when I post something of a political or controversial nature, I choose a certain audience to view it and exclude everyone else (co-workers, acquaintances, etc.) Everyone else gets to see photos of flowers or hiking trails and that's about it.

[spragger]

So, I woke up this morning and rethought my position. I'm currently posting this from my phone while waiting for my fellow PTA officers so we can have an executive meeting. I realized as I was getting ready this AM that two of the people I work the best with are actually the ones I work the best with out of the group. One of them actually has as much more even temperment than any of us. She's what I would call the "diplomat" and often helps us find compromises when we disagree.

I still support Creaky Steel however in the sense that those posts could've revealed some very poor character traits as well. I'm sorry I don't have time to read thoroughly because the meeting will start soon but I agree you never know who you will work well with. I need people who are I can depend on when I am counting on them to complete projects, not somebody who is going to support me at a political rally. Ofc, that is specific to the nature of the job.

[luckylibrarian]

I'd like to know what was on his FB that specifically turned her off. If the guy posted homophobic, racist, or sexist remarks, then I think that's absolutely a reason to toss the application out. But if it just that he identified as a Republican, then I think that's unfair.

Like Austin, my boss is a Republican and a conservative Christian. I was nervous about working for her, but we get along fine and politics never come up. In fact, the only person here who drives everyone nuts about political stuff is extremely liberal. I think most people don't want to talk politics in the workplace, and I find it inappropriate, regardless of what side of the aisle you are on. This guy could very well have been someone who keeps his political thoughts separate from his work.

This thread has made me re-check my FB settings, though.

[sassyNoz47]

One point I'd like to make is when you give info to fb do NOT affiliate yourself with your employer. In some companies mine included that opens you up to losing some of your privacy.

I am often told to do internet checks on applicants because we have some very strict guide lines and such. Everyone has to be ran through both state and federal background checks. Drug testing and training, we don't always call someone in to even interview if a quick internet search shows us they might not pass one step of the testing. It costs our company thousands of dollars each year doing back ground checks when over half of the applicants aren't truthful on the application and fail. Its not MY choice but $$ had to be cut from some areas and this was one way they have found to cut costs.

[MadameX]

Wow, I am an employer and I think it is horribly unethical to not hire someone based on their political party ! I work for a non-profit that gets government money and can't discriminate based on about 100 different things - and I completely understand that having someone who fits in with their co-workers is important - but to blatantly discriminate based on their facebook profile ??? That is messed up.

There is a world of difference between your political affiliation and how you choose to manifest and express that point of view. While there is nothing wrong with differing political viewpoints, it's all in the delivery. If someone is an asshole, the content is just details.

[Little Miss Alien]

I have a professional name, and a nickname I use everywhere else. The surname is the same, butthe nickname isn't overtly obvious as a contraction of my given professional name (It's only 1 letter shorter!).

If my employers wanted to (or have already) track me down on facebook they could use my email address, but because I dont want my ex and ex in-laws looking at it it is on serious lockdown. They wouldn't even see pictures.

Searching the 'net for my professional name yields nothing on me.

Not that I even do anything dodgy - I'm a single Mum, quite introveted, the only thing I admit to is being a liberal, humanist, feminist. Luckily all the jobs I've had have welcomed that sort of person. I have a strict policy that I only say on the internet things I would 100% stand behind, and say, in person.

The reason I am so cautious is because I was raped nearly a decade ago, and in order to discredit me, the defence traced me down online and used my blog against me. Since then I've applied my policy and don't blog any of my personal life. I only stick to known facts about myself and the truly mundane. I work with very seriously confidential info about other people, which sometimes feels very voyeuristic. I would hate others having that kind of info about me, especially if I'd willingly put it out there!

[Kitchen Princess]

Hang on - we don't know what Creaky Steel does or who she is employing for what. If the guy was spouting e.g. anti-woman stuff, or similar, and she works for a women's organisation, would you still say she was unethical? She has to work with this person, possibly in situations that are tense and difficult.

If you were hiring, would you choose someone you realised you could not get on with because your views were very different? There is a difference between discriminating against someone based on race, gender, sexuality or ability and choosing not to hire them because they are a nasty small minded jerk.

You could have a disabled, gay, person of colour, totally suitable for the post and better qualified than anyone else, and obviously the best candidate, both in character and aptitude. Hiring them would make sense. Not hiring them because they were gay, disabled, or a person of colour would be discriminatory.

You could equally have a disabled, gay, person of colour ostensibly totally suitable for the post until you actually interviewed them and discovered that they were a nasty small minded jerk. Hiring them would not make sense because they would quickly screw up your organisation. Not hiring them because of this would a) make sense and b) not be discriminatory (although if they were a really nasty small minded jerk, they might well claim that it was.)

She didn't not hire someone based on their political party - she chose not to hire someone based on their expressed views, which she considered would not be suited to her workplace ethos. That's not discrimination, any more than it is discrimination when you choose anyone for a job because you consider them to be the person who can best fill it based on their aptitiude and views, and their ability to fit into their existing team.

Nothing prevents anyone from suffering from nasty small minded jerkness that is a barrier to being employed, whether they are Republican, Democrat, straight, gay, black, white, able, less able, or anywhere on any of those continua. If the guy came across on his Facebook page as a nasty small minded jerk who would potentially be hell to work with, what is discriminatory in not choosing him for the job? He happened to be a Republican. He could have been anyone.

You said it better than I could.

Truth is, I could take the stack of resumes I got and choose who to interview by random lottery, or I could tape them on the wall and throw darts at them blindfolded over my left shoulder for the first round, and the right shoulder for the second round. That makes about as much sense NOT finding out as much information as possible before I waste my time interviewing someone I know I could not tolerate being around for 72 hours straight, including sharing hotel rooms (which is the nature of my business).

Face it, none of you would hire Doug Phillips, no matter how qualified he was. He wouldn't even get an interview.

eta riffle.

[Coconut Flan]

Sharing a hotel room? I can barely do that with family.

[formergothardite]

Can't you set a FB profile to not be searchable? So employers couldn't search and find it.?

[Little Miss Alien]

Yes you totally can opt out of your facebook being searchable on google and in facebook's own search results. But I think you can search using an email adress, maybe?

[Still Standing]

I was reading somewhere, can't remember where, that there are search programs that employers can use to still view Facebook accounts even when those accounts are set private? Anyone know about this?

Yes you totally can opt out of your facebook being searchable on google and in facebook's own search results. But I think you can search using an email adress, maybe?

[Mama Mia]

I believe the courts just ruled that your employer has the right to ask for your facebook account information, including password.

Ridiculous.

[Artemis]

This has just propmted me to tighten up my Facebook, unfriend certain people and put others on the acquaintance list. Hopefully I also have my profile locked tight too.

[Boogalou]

I believe the courts just ruled that your employer has the right to ask for your facebook account information, including password.

Ridiculous.

Do you have a link for this? I have been searching and cannot find anything about this. Some bills are in the works, but mainly ones that deny employers the right to this.

[smores]

It's not just the internet, for you paranoid folks.

My husband works in marketing research with purchase data. Stores can track you by store cards, email address, phone number or even your credit card numbers/checking account numbers (I do know of certain stores that do this) and then do direct marketing campaigns to you based on your preferences.

I kind of just figure, at this point, privacy is dead. you would have to be living in a van down by the river growing your own crops to avoid being "tracked."

[hathorlive]

I know that in the U.K. if you are accused of a crime that involves a computer, you must turn over the password(s) so that the police can search them. It's sort of like being pulled over for a DUI. You don't have to take a breathalizer, but you are automatically assumed guilty for not doing so. There was a Federal court decision where the court was asked if the court could compel the defendant to turn over passwords despite the fifth amendment. I do believe that the court said it was a blatant constitutional violation. I need to check because I'm half asleep.

That said, there will be another case in front of a different circuit and we'll probably get a different verdict and if enough cases are brought around the country, it could be heard by the Supreme Court. At work, we track this stuff because what the Feds do in one part of the country can affect how things are processed in another part of the country. It's sort of like a "heads up" to the rest of us.

That said, this affects what I do and I'm very uneasy about saying you have to turn over passwords. I understand why it's important but nonetheless it makes me queasy. Besides, most password protected things like documents can usually be broken, with the right tools. Privacy advocates should look into full disk encryption. Works like a charm and is very difficult to break.

As for the marketing stuff, just think what will happen when your Kroger (or other loyalty rewards card) sells your shopping list to the health care companies. You might want to think about saying you don't drink or smoke once they start checking what you actually buy. I hate those cards. The last checker I had told me they weren't tracking anything, but you know that the only reason they do things is to make money.

[aimee]

Re: privacy

I have stopped using shopping reward programs because I was uncomfortable with the amount of information they were getting out of me. I, uh, had intimate knowledge of one program in particular that schooled me on the sheer amount of information I was giving away. While no financial information was tracked there were gobs of information any employee could view at any time. For example - you buy gas, swipe your points card and then it went on record - how much you bought, when you bought and what location you bought it from. You bought tampons last month? It's there on file. Condoms? It's there too. Granted, it's not like they're storing state secrets, but if you'd like to maintain your privacy as much as is possible these days, you might want to weigh the benefits of reward programs against what information they are storing on you and who can view it. It's really pretty creepy, in my opinion.

[TVR]

I post nothing on FB that I won't say in the presence of my mother or in the presence of a stranger :) It is linked to my business and seriously the industry is hard enough to be in without doing anything that would turn someone off from booking me.

In terms of profiles being searchable: Usually, even when someone isn't searchable (and that includes with their email address) but they have commented on an open group, you could get to their profiles that way.