Corporate Surveillance Of People's Private Lives

[Itsthetruth]

damn your old enough to be bald? I kind of assumed it was the other way around and your sac was still bald!

I'm probably older than you, will be collecting Social Security soon, and I still have a full head of hair!

I once went out with a girl who had long blond hair running all the way down her back.

Too bad she was bald.

That was an old Henny Youngman joke I believe.

 

[musicman]

I'm probably older than you, will be collecting Social Security soon.

Not if President Bush and his evil, thieving, theocratic minions have their way....MWAHAHAHA!

 

[Merlin1047]

I continue to be amazed at the number of folks who seem to think that being employed is similar to being owned by a corporation. Even more amazing is the distorted concept that corporations have rights, yet the rights of employees are perceived as "take it or leave it". Corporations are merely legal entities. THEY HAVE NO RIGHTS.

But I've been down this road before and I see no reason to do so again. The only reason I've bothered to stick my cent and a half into this thread is to make one observation. No doubt this type of excessive and unreasonable restriction on the personal conduct of off-duty employees will be challenged in court. Personally I have no doubt that some control freak CEO is going to cause his company to lose its corporate ass due to the judgement it will have to pay.

I sure hope that I get to be on that jury.

 

[no1tovote4]

I continue to be amazed at the number of folks who seem to think that being employed is similar to being owned by a corporation. Even more amazing is the distorted concept that corporations have rights, yet the rights of employees are perceived as "take it or leave it". Corporations are merely legal entities. THEY HAVE NO RIGHTS.

But I've been down this road before and I see no reason to do so again. The only reason I've bothered to stick my cent and a half into this thread is to make one observation. No doubt this type of excessive and unreasonable restriction on the personal conduct of off-duty employees will be challenged in court. Personally I have no doubt that some control freak CEO is going to cause his company to lose its corporate ass due to the judgement it will have to pay.

I sure hope that I get to be on that jury.

It will no doubt happen as you say, however I disagree that the company would agree to a jury trial. They will allow a Judge to rule because they will rule based in the law and not in anger of how they were treated by a corporation. It is unlikely that they will be allowed to continue in such overbearing rules, but I don't think it will be because of a lawsuit. I think it will be because people will use the power of the dollar to effect the bottom line with both strikes and boycotts. Companies in the US don't own their employees and will find that people are willing to give up comforts in order to see people receive freedom.

 

[Gem]

But I think this type of situation would be exactly the kind of freedom that many people here, myself included, was talking about.

The corporation tries something, the people don't like it, the people leave the job in protest, or stage a boycott, etc. The corporation begins to lose profits, productivity, and the positive image they enjoy from their consumer...suddenly the idiotic policy they were trying to institute doesn't seem so worthwhile...so they either a) drop the policy or b) sit down at the table with their workers to come up with a better solution.

We have enough problems already caused by over-legislation and the government getting involved where is truly isn't needed....in this case, where government legislation could quite possibly be a violation of protected rights and freedoms...often, legislating and/or regulating a problem that could have been solved on its own only serves to create a whole new realm of problems we had not known were going to exist before.

 

[Itsthetruth]

Not if President Bush and his evil, thieving, theocratic minions have their way....MWAHAHAHA!

I don't think that even George Bush wants older people rioting in the streets!

Starting to look like his privitazation scheme is going down in flames.

But, look out for his back up plan that will cut Social Security benefits. Some Democrats are willing to join Republicans in a "bi-partisan" effort to screw seniors.

Do I hear "price indexing", increasing the retirement age and bigger penalties for "early retirement"? Bush said all those options are on the table. Some Democrats agree.

Senator Dorgan, a corporate sponsored Democrat, has joined a Republican Senator in calling for economic "sacrifices" by workers in order to "save" Social Security!

 

[Merlin1047]

Do I hear "price indexing", increasing the retirement age and bigger penalties for "early retirement"? Bush said all those options are on the table. Some Democrats agree.

Senator Dorgan, a corporate sponsored Democrat, has joined a Republican Senator in calling for economic "sacrifices" by workers in order to "save" Social Security!

How can they do that? Every damn one of them says there is no crisis in social security, so it should be left alone.

Apparently it's only a crisis if Dems decide it is one.

 

[insein]

does that company have the right to tell you that you must eat fish on friday if the director is catholic? or that you must give up something for lent?

They offered you money to meet a certain set of standards. IF you can't or don't want to meet those standards, you either quit or they fire you. If an employer says to you in the interview that your job detail includes standing on your head and hopping up and down 3 times a day, will you work there?

We all have jobs we dont like. Instead of bitching about them, go find a better one.

 

[insein]

Do you think a corporation/owner should have the "right" to fire a good employee because they don't like his race, religion, sex, personal habits or political views?

Yes. If he hired you and up front said, "if your a jew, you cant work here" and you proceeded to accept the job knowing full well your a jew, then expect to be fired when he finds out your a jew. Private corporations can run their business anyway they want. However, if their customers choose not to shop at their establishments because of their business practices then they cant cry about it.

 

[SmarterThanYou]

They offered you money to meet a certain set of standards. IF you can't or don't want to meet those standards, you either quit or they fire you. If an employer says to you in the interview that your job detail includes standing on your head and hopping up and down 3 times a day, will you work there?

We all have jobs we dont like. Instead of bitching about them, go find a better one.

I like this response better.

I continue to be amazed at the number of folks who seem to think that being employed is similar to being owned by a corporation. Even more amazing is the distorted concept that corporations have rights, yet the rights of employees are perceived as "take it or leave it". Corporations are merely legal entities. THEY HAVE NO RIGHTS.

 

[no1tovote4]

I like this response better.

The response fails to mention the fact that Corporations are owned by people who do have rights as a group as well as individuals.

Face it arbitrary rules are set all the time by companies, to limit them by law to ones that you like is simply not constitutional. The only way to get companies to change the rules are using your right to unionize or boycott.

 

[SmarterThanYou]

The response fails to mention the fact that Corporations are owned by people who do have rights as a group as well as individuals.

Face it arbitrary rules are set all the time by companies, to limit them by law to ones that you like is simply not constitutional. The only way to get companies to change the rules are using your right to unionize or boycott.

I disagree.

 

[no1tovote4]

I disagree.

Wow. What clear and salient argument! Give us a link to prove your assertion! Oh wait, there was no assertion just simple negation with no pivotal reasoning behind it.

By what power of Government are people who own Corporations stripped of their rights simply through that ownership? Individuals are not stripped of rights simply because they own a Corporation. In fact you probably own part of a Corporation almost all of us do through 401Ks and other retirement programs.

 

[SmarterThanYou]

Wow. What clear and salient argument! Give us a link to prove your assertion! Oh wait, there was no assertion just simple negation with no pivotal reasoning behind it.

I'll clarify. I disagree with the second part of your statement.

By what power of Government are people who own Corporations stripped of their rights simply through that ownership? Individuals are not stripped of rights simply because they own a Corporation. In fact you probably own part of a Corporation almost all of us do through 401Ks and other retirement programs.

Its called the SEC and the FTC and they are not stripped of their rights. They have limited rights that deal only with trade, service, and manufacture policy. There is a department of Labor that deals with the rules and regulations of employer/employee relationships. Legislation that makes discrimination based on certain things illegal is required because power corrupts. Absolute power corrupts absolutely. Laws that forbid discrimination force otherwise unscrupulous individuals in power to play fairly.

 

[no1tovote4]

I'll clarify. I disagree with the second part of your statement.


Its called the SEC and the FTC and they are not stripped of their rights. They have limited rights that deal only with trade, service, and manufacture policy. There is a department of Labor that deals with the rules and regulations of employer/employee relationships. Legislation that makes discrimination based on certain things illegal is required because power corrupts. Absolute power corrupts absolutely. Laws that forbid discrimination force otherwise unscrupulous individuals in power to play fairly.

However this is not discrimination. This is equivalent to rules that cause people to take drug tests, this is well within the rights of Corporations.

 

[SmarterThanYou]

However this is not discrimination. This is equivalent to rules that cause people to take drug tests, this is well within the rights of Corporations.

are you referring to specific things like smoking or are you rounding out the whole argument?

 

[no1tovote4]

are you referring to specific things like smoking or are you rounding out the whole argument?

In specific, from the beginning of the thread. However I will elaborate, within the confines of discrimination laws of which all of us are subject to if we own a company, there are certain rights granted to corporations by laws. They have a right to require of you to take drug tests or to set rules on what you wear, etc. In the case of smoking, it is an equivalent of asking a person to take a drug test that includes some legal drugs, such as valium, and setting rules that pertain to the results of such testing.

 

[SmarterThanYou]

In specific, from the beginning of the thread. However I will elaborate, within the confines of discrimination laws of which all of us are subject to if we own a company, there are certain rights granted to corporations by laws. They have a right to require of you to take drug tests or to set rules on what you wear, etc. In the case of smoking, it is an equivalent of asking a person to take a drug test that includes some legal drugs, such as valium, and setting rules that pertain to the results of such testing.

yes, this is true. These rules are not designed because the owners or shareholders dislike drugs. They are utilized to keep a workplace safe from people under the influence. Clothing guidelines fall under the general business atmosphere and environment. These are about things that affect the company and all the employees. What doesn't affect the company and employees is whether someone practices judaism or budhism at home.

 

[no1tovote4]

yes, this is true. These rules are not designed because the owners or shareholders dislike drugs. They are utilized to keep a workplace safe from people under the influence. Clothing guidelines fall under the general business atmosphere and environment. These are about things that affect the company and all the employees. What doesn't affect the company and employees is whether someone practices judaism or budhism at home.

If a corporation is specifically a Christian Corporation they can discriminate by religion, just as one who is solely a Neo-Nazi group can as well. Amazingly the individuals that own the Corporation are allowed to set some dicriminatory rules based on the purposes of the Corporation. They may not be a Government Contractor based on anti-discrimination laws but are allowed some forms of discrimination based on the foundation of the company as well.

They can also have rules against such things like smoking at your house as it does effect the cost of Health Insurance at the company, as well as how you dress as it effects how people judge the company. To assume that Corporations have no rights would be wrong as they have de facto rights as given by legislation and rulings of courts as well as the rights of those that own the corporation.

 

[SmarterThanYou]

If a corporation is specifically a Christian Corporation they can discriminate by religion, just as one who is solely a Neo-Nazi group can as well. Amazingly the individuals that own the Corporation are allowed to set some dicriminatory rules based on the purposes of the Corporation. They may not be a Government Contractor based on anti-discrimination laws but are allowed some forms of discrimination based on the foundation of the company as well.

They can also have rules against such things like smoking at your house as it does effect the cost of Health Insurance at the company, as well as how you dress as it effects how people judge the company. To assume that Corporations have no rights would be wrong as they have de facto rights as given by legislation and rulings of courts as well as the rights of those that own the corporation.

then what we need to do is differentiate between a corporation as a public entity(which had no rights til a supreme court ruling around 10-20 years ago) and a corporation as a privately owned venture. Further, If a corporation called 'Baptist specialties inc.' were to specify that they would only hire baptists then this could be understandable. But IBM or Verizon couldn't and shouldn't be allowed to fire a person because they celebrate sam hain by pretending to ride around on a broom on Oct 31 when it doesn't affect their work performance and they don't do it on national tv.