Companies and Corporations - How far can they go? (unemployment, minimum wage, salary)

[ghaladh]

I'll go straight to the point. It's been two years now that I am living and working in the USA. Always searching for a better work position, I browsed through thousands of ads and I noticed that companies, nowadays, ask for data not relevant to the position they are offering. For example, a transport company requiring the applicants' personal medical history, a manufacturing plant demanding the permission to run a background check...

I understand if a bank company asks for a background check regarding a teller, or when a hospital requires to know if its nurses are sick with an infective illness, but now it looks like you have to give up your right of privacy if you want to get a job. Isn't that discrimination?

Does that means that if you ended up in jail in the past or if you have a chronic health condition, you're never going to get a job?

What's next? A DNA profile so that they can get exactly what they want? A certificate from the Eugenic Committee to test that you are free of defects?

I have the impression that people here in the USA do not realize that companies grow rich because of us, the people who work hard in the "lower levels" of the hierarchy, and that in spite of the bright geniuses of finance who lead those companies, nothing would happen without us sweating our salary and following their orders. When a company offers you a job, it`s not making you a favor: it's a reciprocal exchange.

Edit: A former boss of mine "invited" me to offer my resignation from the company, simply because I was using too often the sick leave I was accumulating. Worker rights anyone?

[Manuel de Vol]

Originally Posted by ghaladh

I'll go straight to the point. It's been two years now that I am living and working in the USA. Always searching for a better work position, I browsed through thousands of ads and I noticed that companies, nowadays, ask for data not relevant to the position they are offering. For example, a transport company requiring the applicants' personal medical history,

If you operated an airline, a bus company, a train company or some other form of transport company and you required that all the people who operate the transport for you could pass an eyesight test (amongst other things) then you would indeed be discriminating against blind people in your job selection.

If a blind person sued you because you declined to hire him as a pilot, how far do you think he should get?

If you have a chronic health condition which affects your ability to do a job why should an employer hire you for that job?

a manufacturing plant demanding the permission to run a background check...

There are many reasons that a manufacturing company may want to run a background check. You are not obliged to allow them to do so, but if you decline, then remember that they are not obliged to hire you.

I understand if a bank company asks for a background check regarding a teller, or when a hospital requires to know if its nurses are sick with an infective illness, but now it looks like you have to give up your right of privacy if you want to get a job. Isn't that discrimination?

Yes, it is discrimination. And it's legal discrimination, too.

Does that means that if you ended up in jail in the past or if you have a chronic health condition, you're never going to get a job?

You might end up having to get a job as a self-employed person.

What's next? A DNA profile so that they can get exactly what they want? A certificate from the Eugenic Committee to test that you are free of defects?

AFAIK, DNA Profiling has already been banned ... whether that will change as time goes by is anybody's guess.

I have the impression that people here in the USA do not realize that companies grow rich because of us, the people who work hard in the "lower levels" of the hierarchy, and that in spite of the bright geniuses of finance who lead those companies, nothing would happen without us sweating our salary and following their orders.

I've no doubt that's the case - and those companies who mistreat their workers are likely to end up with poor-quality workers who are not very loyal. It may also be the case however, that some companies think that some of their workers are of low quality and not very loyal and are not particularly interested in those workers. No doubt there is a range of opinions in the US.

When a company offers you a job, it`s not making you a favor: it's a reciprocal exchange.

Quite so. Just as the employee might think (s)he's not getting a good deal - that the employer is not reciprocating - I suppose occasionally the employer may feel the same way. Fortunately, most employment contracts can be terminated by either side.

Edit: A former boss of mine "invited" me to offer my resignation from the company, simply because I was using too often the sick leave I was accumulating. Worker rights anyone?

You've set us a bit of an imponderable, here. I don't suppose anybody on the forum knows how your employer arrived at the sick time entitlement.

If you are the employer (or the employee'S supervisor) and you find that one of your employees is makig full use of the allowable sick time, then you've got some work to do!

First of all perhaps, you should work out how much of the sick time other employees need on average. - That gives you some sort of benchmark.

Then you might like to compare that particular employee with the average.

If that employee is using significantly more sick time than the average, then it may be for a number of reasons.

1. The employee has a temporary problem which is causing him or her to be sick more often than usual. It is a temporary problem and hopefully you (and his co-workers, who may have to work a bit harder to carry him and to support him through his period of poor performance) can make some sort of allowance.

2. For some reason, the employee is medically unsuited to the work. You might be found to be failing in your duty of care towards an employee if you knew that said employee was unsuited to the job and you did nothing about it. You might not be able to find alternative work for the employee, in which case it may be that the best thing you could do to help him would be to suggest that he seek alternative employment elsewhere.

3. The employee is a lazy-arsed git who isn't interested in the company, isn't interested in the well-being of his fellow-workers, is quite prepared to 'swing the lead' and to offload his work onto them. This opinion would certainly be strengthened if they had complained to you that they were having to carry him because he was always off sick.

As I said, you've set us an imponderable. Only you know all the facts.

If you don't like where you work, have you asked your co-workers how they feel?

Have you considered that you might be better off working for yourself?

[ghaladh]

Originally Posted by Manuel de Vol

If you operated an airline, a bus company, a train company or some other form of transport company and you required that all the people who operate the transport for you could pass an eyesight test (amongst other things) then you would indeed be discriminating against blind people in your job selection.

I am arguing about those cases in which is unreasonable asking for the health conditions. Your exampple is quite absurd. For instance, I am now a self-employed driver, and I drive my own car. A deliveries company specialized in transport of motor parts asked the access to my health history. Can you guess the reason? I think that it's only because they wanted to know if I am usually available or sick.

Originally Posted by Manuel de Vol

If you have a chronic health condition which affects your ability to do a job why should an employer hire you for that job?

Whatever you declare on your resume must be true. Declaring something which is not true is a federal offense. The employer has the right to ask me if I have chronic condition that might affect my ability to do the job: I have the duty to answer honestly. I justify the request only if the safety of other people is directly dependent by your health condition.

Originally Posted by Manuel de Vol

There are many reasons that a manufacturing company may want to run a background check. You are not obliged to allow them to do so, but if you decline, then remember that they are not obliged to hire you.

I justify the request for a background check only if the worker is going to handle sensible data, cash or valuable items. I understand no one likes the idea of working near a condemned sexual offender or a thief, but once that person has paid his debt to the society, he should be enabled to start over, like anyone else, without having his past errors haunting him for the rest of his life.

Originally Posted by Manuel de Vol

Yes, it is discrimination. And it's legal discrimination, too.

I am not arguing about whether is legal or not: the question is about whether it should be legal or not.

Originally Posted by Manuel de Vol

You might end up having to get a job as a self-employed person.

That would be surely a valid alternative.

Originally Posted by Manuel de Vol

You've set us a bit of an imponderable, here. I don't suppose anybody on the forum knows how your employer arrived at the sick time entitlement.

If you are the employer (or the employee'S supervisor) and you find that one of your employees is makig full use of the allowable sick time, then you've got some work to do!

First of all perhaps, you should work out how much of the sick time other employees need on average. - That gives you some sort of benchmark.

Then you might like to compare that particular employee with the average.

Very reasonable. I wonder, however, why a company grants you, let's say, 100 hours of sick leave, but fires you when you use them all. Isn't that hypocrite? If the company wants you to use no more than 50 hours, they should give you only 50 hours! No one should be condemned only because he makes use of his right.

Originally Posted by Manuel de Vol

If that employee is using significantly more sick time than the average, then it may be for a number of reasons.

I my case I had only three sick leaves, but they were quite prolonged:
1) a work injury (strained shoulder) that costed me 2 weeks of rehabilitation.
2) a car crash in which I broke two ribs. (it was a heavy physical job, so I wasn't able to perform it due to the pain for 15 days)
3) A virus caught on the job (I was used to work in a scientific animal facility) that knocked me out for other two weeks.

After I returned to the job, my boss told me that they were considering to fire all of the people that were making too much use of their sick leave. I told her that two of the three sick leaves I got were due to the job itself... she answered that she was warning me only because she liked me as a worker and she wanted me to end the contract in a more "advantageous" way for myself. Better going away with your feet, rather than being kicked out, I thought.

The point is that, if a company get access to my health history and see what happened, how many chances do you think I'll get to explain what happened? Wouldn't they simply forget about me and move on to the next candidate?

Originally Posted by Manuel de Vol

If you don't like where you work, have you asked your co-workers how they feel?

No one liked that job, but in this moment of crisis is better to stick to the job, even tough you hate it. Of course the employer knew that, too...

Originally Posted by Manuel de Vol

Have you considered that you might be better off working for yourself?

I bless the day in which I decided to start working as a hotshot driver. I am so much more happy now! I am searching for a position better suited to my background (and with a few more benefits), but I can honestly say I am satisfied with what I have now.

Bottom line: I hate the attitude shown by some companies, but don't get me wrong... I damn love this country! :-) I am not the usual foreigner babbling about how much better it is in Europe and how he would like to go back! Actually in Europe, companies are a little more controlled, but the working conditions are practically the same as here.

[DRob4JC]

Employers are under more and more demands from government red tape and exposure to legal actions.

My bet is that they don't want to get all of this info - because it does cost them to process the information - but they get the info for screening candidates and protecting themselves.

[Wardendresden]

Originally Posted by DRob4JC

Employers are under more and more demands from government red tape and exposure to legal actions.

My bet is that they don't want to get all of this info - because it does cost them to process the information - but they get the info for screening candidates and protecting themselves.

Forty years ago I was hired into a very large insurance company as an underwriter trainee. The training consisted of spending anywhere from three days to two weeks in each department of the branch office out of which I worked. One of the stops was human resources.

It was the early seventies and civil rights were just coming out of the dark ages, but since I am "white", the manager of human resources showed me how they kept track on their applications of minority candidates, since questions about race were no longer allowed. Instead they colored in a small portion of their logo on the application of minority candidates so they could "keep track of how many minorities" were in their candidate pool. Didn't want to "over" hire them, but wanted to find another one quickly if the need arose.

I needed the job and stayed with that company almost five years, but I confess I'm ashamed I did so.

Never underestimate why a corporation wants personal information from you, or what information they will keep on file about you when you are unaware. I think it was Walmart about a decade ago used to buy life insurance on low level employees in their company without telling them and naming Walmart as the beneficiary. In the insurance business it is not unusual to insure the lives of high level employees, but what is now called "peasant" insurance, is where they take out coverage on low level employees in order to gain tax free money upon the death of said employee(s).

Hartford and AIG sold the policies to Walmart which BORROWED the money from the insurers to pay the premiums, then wrote off the premiums as "business expense" on its Federal taxes. Now Walmart was nice enough to offer its employees a "free" special death benefit of $5000 on $50,000 policies that it took out on its, in some cases, minimum wage employees. There was no mention to employees that the policy in which they were named was worth far more. Those who turned down the "free" life insurance, were also rejecting health insurance.

Ya see, there is more than one way to make profit from a hand-to-mouth worker.

[Manuel de Vol]

Originally Posted by ghaladh

I am arguing about those cases in which is unreasonable asking for the health conditions. Your exampple is quite absurd. For instance, I am now a self-employed driver, and I drive my own car. A deliveries company specialized in transport of motor parts asked the access to my health history. Can you guess the reason? I think that it's only because they wanted to know if I am usually available or sick.
...

Just looking at this one point, Ghaladh:

It's hardly absurd. You are a self-employed driver, so presumably if you were going to deliver parts for a company you would be acting as a contractor.

Let's assume that there was a self-employed driver who took a job as a contractor to deliver parts for a firm using his own car who (a) did not have insurance cover to use his own car for commercial deliveries and (b) suffered from an ailment which was liable to cause him to black out.

Let's imagine that this individual did suffer a blackout while driving and caused $300,000 worth of damage to private property (no personal injury.)

If the car wasn't insured for business use (commercial deliveries), I doubt that the car insurer would pay.

If you were the lawyer trying to get compensation for the third party who had suffered the $300,000 loss would you say: "Oh, the driver wasn't insured. That's it then. There's nothing we can do"?

Or would you ask what steps the company which had hired this self-employed contractor had taken to ensure that he was insured and fit to do the job?

Would you go after the firm which had hired the contractor?

If you could show that the firm which had hired the contractor hadn't even bothered to check, do you think that would strengthen your case?

After all, we live in a country where somebody who sells a cup of coffee can be sued by somebody who chooses to wear it rather than drink it.

[Wardendresden]

My previous post indicated Walmart had bought "peasant" insurance about a decade ago on low level employees so as to profit from their deaths.

Appears they are at it again:

So how does this system work with Walmart? Here we go again:
Walmart continues to buy these policies hoping no one will ever find out.They borrow the money from the insurance company to pay the individual employee premiums. At the same time they 'write it off' as a business expense on their federal taxes.

The firms that manage the insurance policies for Walmart run 'sweeps' (or 'death runs' more commonly known to the pirates), of social security numbers and uncover who died every quarterly. Than the death certificates are located and make their way to the insurance company. This brings us to one conclusion. Could the working class, minimum wage employee be worth more to the Walmart dead than alive?

Hmmm....what do you think, America?

It is an elaborate, fraud tax dodging workout. But this workout only makes Walmart that much fatter in the wallet.

Breaking News: Walmart Employee Insurance Fraud, Dead or Alive - Yahoo! Voices - voices.yahoo.com

Texas is apparently the only state that considers this to be an illegal activity.

Now if Walmart could only figure out how to insure the significantly shorter lives of the Chinese workers of their manufacturers------hmmmm????

[swagger]

Originally Posted by ghaladh

I noticed that companies, nowadays, ask for data not relevant to the position they are offering.

Oh?

Originally Posted by ghaladh

For example, a transport company requiring the applicants' personal medical history

The U.S. government requires that commercial drivers meet certain physical requirements, including health checks. Don't blame "companies," when it's federal regulations that are making those demands.

Originally Posted by ghaladh

a manufacturing plant demanding the permission to run a background check...

Would you hire an accountant that was convicted of embezzlement?

If I'm going to give you access to millions of dollars of machinery, raw materials and heavy equipment, not to mention set you to work in a potentially dangerous situation (working with heavy machinery), why shouldn't I be allowed to check your history to make sure that you're competent, haven't filed a hundred slip-and-fall lawsuits, haven't been convicted of theft, etc.? Like it or not, your history and the choices you've made in the past are part of your qualifications.

Originally Posted by ghaladh

now it looks like you have to give up your right of privacy if you want to get a job. Isn't that discrimination?

1. You're not giving up your right to privacy. Only the government can infringe that right. Your dealings with every other entity are completely voluntary. If you don't want to submit to a background check as a condition of employment, don't apply for that job.

2. No, it's not discrimination. By your own admission, you're new to this country. I suggest you google the term "protected classes" to find out what is and is not discrimination.

Originally Posted by ghaladh

Does that means that if you ended up in jail in the past or if you have a chronic health condition, you're never going to get a job?

It means that if you've been convicted of a crime that you chose to commit, that choice may impact the opportunities you have available in the future. If you don't want to be ruled out for a cushy high paying job, don't commit a crime that would disqualify you from it. Simple, eh?

Originally Posted by ghaladh

I have the impression that people here in the USA do not realize that companies grow rich because of us, the people who work hard in the "lower levels" of the hierarchy, and that in spite of the bright geniuses of finance who lead those companies, nothing would happen without us sweating our salary and following their orders.

In response, I would like to quote YOU:

When a company offers you a job, it`s not making you a favor: it's a reciprocal exchange.

Thank you for making my point.

Yes, "it's a reciprocal exchange." Do you know what reciprocity is? You agree to provide your knowledge, time, labor, etc. in exchange for an agreed upon compensation package. How, exactly, are you being shorted in this deal? If you think you are, why are you accepting the offer? Just how selfish and self-centered ARE you?

Originally Posted by ghaladh

Worker rights anyone?

You have the right to not accept the job. You have the right to quit at any time. You have the right to start a competing company. What rights do you think you're being denied, exactly?

[Phil P]

Originally Posted by ghaladh

I'll go straight to the point. It's been two years now that I am living and working in the USA. Always searching for a better work position, I browsed through thousands of ads and I noticed that companies, nowadays, ask for data not relevant to the position they are offering. For example, a transport company requiring the applicants' personal medical history, a manufacturing plant demanding the permission to run a background check...

I understand if a bank company asks for a background check regarding a teller, or when a hospital requires to know if its nurses are sick with an infective illness, but now it looks like you have to give up your right of privacy if you want to get a job. Isn't that discrimination?

Three reasons why they do this IMO. First, they are in no shortage of applicants, so they will look for the best. Just a fact of the hard times. Secondly, if they are going to train the person, they have to be sure they will not leave right after the training. Thirdly, it's hard to fire or lay off employees and pay unemployment, which means that their is an even greater risk in hiring someone.