Incompetent HR Departments and Facebook

Another day and another story about how horrible it is that employers are requiring prospective employees to hand over Facebook passwords. I say that everybody is looking at this issue the wrong way. The real issue is what employers have human resource departments that are so full of fail that they are setting them up for a major lawsuit?

 An employer may not ask about my religion, age, marital status, organizations I belong to and several other protected classes during an interview -- it is illegal. By looking at my Facebook page today (which is set to the most private setting Facebook allows) they will see pictures at some recent events I have attended and comments I have made. Just from there they will know if I am married, of a certain age, whether I have children and what my religion is (they will also see I'm a Mets fan, which some would argue should also be a protected class). From this they may surmise I wouldn't work on certain days due to my religion or parental obligations,  I wouldn't want to travel extensively or wouldn't want to work 36 hour days (lawyer joke -- if you ever worked at a big Manhattan firm you'd get it).

And this was just my page. We have married gay friends and family whose marital status is noted on their page. Pregnant friends and family who share the news on their page. Older friends and family who note that they are moving along in life on their pages. By looking at their pages, their prospective employers will have just found out information that they are not allowed to ask.

Now, if I, or any of the people I mentioned above weren't hired we could potentially turn around and file a claim with the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission against them because, by looking at our Facebook pages and obtaining information they are not allowed to ask, they have just opened themselves up to claims of discrimination (religion, age, politics, pregnancy). Pretty dumb on the employers part. 

You want to Google me? Fine. You may or may not find this blog (one of the pluses of having a common name) and I don't post anything here that you couldn't find out anyway -- and truthfully, probably the same for my Facebook page as pretty much anything I have on there I'm not really hiding. But, my Facebook page is rather lame and tame these days --  posts aren't of drinking binges and doing illegal things, they revolve around normal, mundane things that people my age and in my position in life tend to do. Professionally, my LinkedIn page is a better barometer of how I will be as an employee.

But hey, if being lazy and demanding my Facebook password to know my religion and what political organizations I may belong to are so important, my lawyer (my wife) is standing by. Bring it on.

Parents of children with Autism earn less? DUH!

I saw an interesting article on today's motherlode blog in the NY Times writing on a study that says mothers of children with autism earn earn less then those whose children do not suffer from this affliction. Well, duh! But I do have one correction. It is not just mothers who earn less but fathers too.

My wife and I are both attorneys, licensed for nearly 15 years in NY and NJ. Parents of an 11 year old with Asperger syndrome, neither one of us is currently practicing. Instead we are in alternate careers that allow us to have more flexible hours so we can tend to our son's needs. I have taken a position where I can work from home more often than not, with flexible hours, that allows me to take our son to his various therapies/group sessions etc. My wife took a position in a courthouse near our home so she could take him to his appointments on the rare days I can not. And, my wife actually earns more then me these days (yay for unions I guess).

We do this so our son can be the best he can be. That is a parent's role and we don't ask for favors or sympathy. We have met many who are worse off then us with children with more serious health issues. We have both turned down promotions because that would have caused us to travel and/or work longer hours. And while we make a decent living, especially compared to many Americans, we do earn less than our graduating class peers. While luxury vacations, new cars and big houses are out, we do quite nicely in our middle class existence.

So we are not living the life we had hoped, big deal. Don't get me wrong, we have serious vacation envy when we hear stories from friends and family who take luxurious vacations or hop on a plane for a quick weekend in the Bahamas with their children with barely a thought (assuming we had the extra money, which always seems to go to therapies our son needs not covered by insurance, our son does not like sudden changes and we need to plan things out in advance). We both miss meeting friends on weekends because our son's issues keep us busy (a 10 minute book report can be quite an ordeal that can kill a Sunday -- don't get me started on his first attempts at acute angels, gave me nightmares about my 9th grade algebra teacher). First world problems and we remind ourselves that compared to many in a similar situation we are blessed. Our son is otherwise healthy and we have the skills and education that allow us to pick careers where we have time for our son -- many parents do not have our options.

We are enjoying our alternate route in life as best as we can. We are undoubtedly less stressed then our more highly paid peers. One benefit of our extra free time, is that we are able to go the gym (my NJ Transit reading time is now my sweating at the YMCA time) and have the time to cook healthy meals. And both our children benefit from having us around more. Perhaps we are actually "richer," though our lower income means I type this letter on a Saturday night while the family is watching a movie from Netflix on our non-HD TV, in lieu of my wife and I hiring a sitter and going out for dinner and a movie. In any event, though we planned a luxurious cruise to London, we are taking our steerage cruise to Holland one day at a time and seeing where it takes us.

Do ditto heads know what the First Amendment really says?

First Amendment: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech

Rachel Nelson, Premiere spokeswoman: "It's not about ethics and it's not about the nature of our public discourse. It's a direct attack on America's guaranteed First Amendment right to free speech. It's essentially a call for censorship masquerading as high-minded indignation."

Rush Limbaugh's supporters are claiming that an organized boycott of the radio star due to his slut comment is a denial of his constitutional rights. I'm sorry. Is Media Matters now run by the government?

Freedom of speech does not mean freedom from the reactions of that speech when people get angry. Having people point our your statements go beyond the line of common decency is one of the prices of not having the government censor you in the first place.

Limbaugh is free to say what he wants (within FCC guidelines -- pandering for recordings of Ms. Fluke having sex may be an issue, just ask Howard Stern). And the rest of us are free to ridicule him, criticize him and to inform his sponsors that we won't buy from them if they continue to support Limbaugh. If enough people do this, his sponsors, who just want to make money, will head for the hills. People personally boycott companies all the time due to a perceived slight or poor service. This is the free market at work.

Anyone saying this is some attack on Rush Limbaugh's First Amendment rights demonstrates a lack of understanding that this boycott is an application of the First Amendment rights of those who want Limbaugh off the air. This is about people telling Limbaugh's sponsors that they do not want to fund his hate speech by buying their products.

Limbaugh offended a lot of people who are women and the people who love them -- husbands, brothers, boy friends, fathers. Many saw a man who bullied, harassed and slandered a previously unknown woman whose only "crime" was to testify before Congress to offer a different opinion regarding the pill and were disgusted by it (any libelous action for accusing Ms. Fluke of a criminal activity (prostitution) with no proof is a matter for civil court).

If enough people still want to hear Limbaugh, sponsors will return and his show will survive. If not, well that's the free market for you. In the meantime, I suspect Limbaugh is laughing his way to the bank chuckling over the way he's trolled all of us during this bread and circus show.

Single parent? You evil child abuser!

Seriously Republicans? You want a bill that labels single parents as child abusers? Are you fraking nuts? Ignoring that some families are better off if the abusing parent is kicked out of the house or some parents choose to abandon their families, your blanket labeling will also include parents who are single due to unfortunate circumstances that no one chose.

My father died while my youngest brother was still a minor. By this logic, as my mother didn't remarry before he turned 18 (and in fact she never did remarry), she would have been labeled as a potential child abuser even though during that time my brother stayed out of trouble, did volunteer work, graduated high school & went to college (he turned 18 while a freshman). Meanwhile, married parents of some of the neighborhood punks, who probably were abusing their kids in some way, would not have been labeled as abusers. Where is the logic in that?

What is next?  A law mandating shotgun weddings or forcing widows to marry their husband's brother? The Republican party is dead. We need a real opposition party (or 2 or 3).

Hey Rick? Shut up and go away!

We in the United States, above all, must remember that lesson, for we were founded as a nation of openness to people of all beliefs. And so we must remain. Our very unity has been strengthened by our pluralism. We establish no religion in this country, we command no worship, we mandate no belief, nor will we ever. Church and state are, and must remain, separate.

--Ronald Reagan

I believe in an America where the separation of church and state is absolute, where no Catholic prelate would tell the president (should he be Catholic) how to act, and no Protestant minister would tell his parishioners for whom to vote; where no church or church school is granted any public funds or political preference; and where no man is denied public office merely because his religion differs from the president who might appoint him or the people who might elect him.

I believe in an America that is officially neither Catholic, Protestant nor Jewish; where no public official either requests or accepts instructions on public policy from the Pope, the National Council of Churches or any other ecclesiastical source; where no religious body seeks to impose its will directly or indirectly upon the general populace or the public acts of its officials; and where religious liberty is so indivisible that an act against one church is treated as an act against all.

- John F. Kennedy

"As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion,-as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility, of Mussulmen,-and as the said States never entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries."

Treaty of Tripoli, Article 11. Submitted for ratification by President John Adams and Vice President Thomas Jefferson after signing and ratified unanimously by the United States Senate on June 7, 1797. 

I don't believe in an America where the separation of church and state are absolute.

 Rick Santorum, Republican candidate for President of the United States, February 2012

[H]e looks tired.

Dr. Who

I wish the GOP would remember that Reagan statement, that we were founded as a nation of openness to people of all beliefs, and so we must remain and move on to important stuff instead of playing to people who still think it is 1950. Separation of Church and State is what protects religious freedom in this country. Many politicians, citizens and religious clerics understand this, but they are unfortunately in the vocal minority. Government staying out of religious matters (secularism) is as much for the protection religious majorities as it is for religious minorities, or atheists. To have a debate about birth control and religious control of the government in the US in the second decade of the 21st century is insane. We may all be sorry if the adults don't take control of the situation.

Below are some comments I found interesting from a message board regarding an article about Rick Santorum (R) getting physically ill regarding the separation of church and state. Hopefully, one day soon, we can laugh about this:

Conservatives quite often and earnestly make statements like "there is no separation of church and state in the Constitution." On a technical level they're right: the words "separation of church and state" do not in fact appear in the Constitution. Churches are political entities. Their goal is to have you under THEIR governance, as THEY see fit. That is why we have a separation of church and state. Churches are free to exist and do as they will, to bring people under their influence. They just aren't free to merge with government and FORCE people to do as they say.

The words "Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion, nor prohibiting the free exercise thereof" are in the Constitution. But read the first clause closely, and listen carefully whenever a conservative quotes it. They almost always misquote it. They like to eliminate the word "respecting the," change the word "establishment" to "establishing," and replacing the "of" with "a," or "any particular."

The invasion of religion into the state is easily one of the gravest threats this country has to face. Forget what morals, beliefs, or ethics organized religion might occasionally provide, it has no place in deciding laws and how the country should be run. I understand that people's belief motivates their actions including their actions regarding public policy and that is fine. However, what Rick and others like him really want is to enforce their beliefs on me through the force of law. The government that governs least is the government that governs least. I don't need a religious person ordering me to follow their morals. I will quite happily give you the right to not use birth-control, not get abortions and pray until your knees bleed, please be so kind as to recognize that I have every right to do exactly the opposite of you if I see fit.

The Founders knew this better than anyone, having just come out of a period where radical religious beliefs had led the world down a path of violence and blissful ignorance, helping to destroy countless civilizations and end the lives of millions. Religion is dangerous to the state because it accepts no competing views: Christianity and Islam are some of the most prominent examples of this.

Jefferson himself made it very clear that the country was NOT founded on 'Christian principals' and was to be a secular nation (separation of church and state is a term used in a letter by Thomas Jefferson to Bible-thumping Connecticut Baptists in the early 19th century). Religion was to be separate from government.This is all very well documented and extensively commented upon. the concept of America is a christian nation' is deliberately and willfully wrong, and mildly toxic to the political processes of this nation.

I can only hope that there is enough sanity left in this country to keep someone like Santorum from moving up the totem pole. He's already dangerous enough in the position he currently holds---and it's already horrifying enough that he can spew this sort of nonsense and actually GAIN support by doing so.

Organized religion has always been about the control of the masses. From the Pharaohs, to the Divine Right of Kings, down to "One nation, under God." It is Iron Age superstition designed to keep the poor, poor, and the rich,rich.

Better morals will take care of the unemployment problem

Working-class America is having a bad time of it, traditional jobs, wages, and benefits have contracted mightily. However, according to conservatives, these bad times can be solved not with on-shoring blue collar jobs that have moved overseas or better training for new careers, but with better morals. Puritans have been saying that since they landed here. They were wrong then and they're wrong now.
 
The Republican party is the party of the selfish. They want to hold onto what they have, and they are not concerned about people who don't have it. A feudal system would make them extremely happy. These conservatives  are the same people who encourage cutting and gutting and locking as many poor kids out of education as possible, paying them poor wages after outsourcing the better paying jobs, and not leaving them a future to envision. And yet, those who don't have anything will vote for them any way.

The only way I can wrap the idea of lower middle class folk one paycheck away from Government assistance and bankruptcy voting for those who want to keep them down is that by most worldly standards and all historical standards we have the wealthiest "poor" people right here in America. Let's face it. Most "poor" people have access to shelter, clean water and food, plus luxuries like a way to keep fresh food fresh, heat for their homes and entertainment devices that the ultra rich of 200 years ago would consider luxuries. People aren't hurting enough to really get upset, yet. 

Not everyone in Occupy has figured out what has farked them over, but most know of the giant scam the financial elite have been pulling. These kids have been told their whole lives: "study hard, go to college... do you wanna flip burgers for a living? The debt is an investment in your future." And then what does the market offer them on that promise? Burger King applications. That has to be completely crushing to them but also takes away jobs from the low-educated graduates that should be working at flipping burgers.

Democrats...Republicans... Both are equally corrupt and money hungry. But, at least one of those sides isn't corrupt, money hungry, AND inhuman. I'll vote for the human every time. Arguing for better morals does not change the little problem that for certain people of a certain skill set, there are 5 unemployed people for every job opening.

It does get better

Another day, another gay teen takes his life because of bullying. These poor kids can't see it ever getting better and it doesn't help that many of our political leaders on the right take to gay bashing, calling homosexuals evil deviants and even promoting religious bullying. But it does get better, it just takes time, no matter what is causing you mental harm at this point in your life.

I'm not gay, and can't imagine what these kids go through on a daily basis, but I've had my moments of darkness. It was during college, the semester after my dad died suddenly of a heart attack. My college years basically sucked -- my first 2 1/2 years started with my younger brother dying in a car accident, losing my grandmothers and then my dad. The car accident was especially bitter as, not only did I lose my brother, but it involved common friends so I had virtually no peers to help me get through the situation. After my father's death,  my mother's health began to decline and I, as the eldest, started feeling the pressure to become the parent.  Though I didn't realize it at the time, it had all taken a toll on me and I was really depressed and was taking it out on food. I had gained weight and was getting pretty big before I finally decided it was time to climb out of the hole I was in and started getting my act back together. Diet and exercise became my mantra and the weight slowly started coming off (it took me over a year, but by time I graduated college I had lost 65 pounds).

One morning, not long after I decided it was time to watch what I eat and start getting serious about school again, I was having a small breakfast in the Student Union when this cute girl came up and said she wanted to ask me a question. Finally, things are looking up. She and her friend wanted to know, looking at my breakfast, if that was all I was going to eat. I said yes and asked why she wanted to know. No, reason, just curious. A few seconds later, after she walked away. I got that I was the butt of a joke.

Not necessarily hateful but not really funny at that point in my life. Now, almost 25 years later, I still remember that person who saw someone when they were down and decided it would be a good time to make fun of him.

As far as I know I never ran into those girls again. I don't even remember what they looked like. I do remember the SU, where I was sitting and what I was eating and reading. It did send me back into my funk, it was another few months until I really started losing the weight again. And then it was not long after that that my now wife started at the school (though we didn't meet until a few years later) so I now look at that period as the darkness before the dawn. 

I really wish I had something to say to the teens who feel there is no way out but, aside from hanging on, I don't.  This was only a few years out of my life, but it had a big affect on me. Still I stuck it out and waited for this brief period of darkness to end. For the gay teens I can only suggest the same. We live on average 75-80 years and as you get older this brief period will become relatively insignificant in the hopefully rich tapestry of your full life. It does get better.

The real words should be spoken to the haters. To the closet homosexuals and other homophobes who feel they need to gay bash to secure their own mainstream sexuality, stop it, you're not fooling anybody. To those who say God doesn't like homosexuals I remind them that homosexuals are God's children too. If God (assuming there is one of course) hates homosexuals, why does He keep making them?

As to those who say gay marriage is against what society has accepted as marriage, I remind them that the mainstream idea that marriage is for love is fairly recent. It wasn't all that long ago that marriage was for economic only reasons, arranged by parents. Do the terms marriage of convenience or arranged marriage sound familiar? What about polygamy and polyandry? How about the illegalities of interracial marriage? At one time these were all accepted and, for some, not all that long ago. Yet today, all that seems ridiculous.

To our leaders whose words virtually condone a life of taunts, mental abuse, physical attacks and alienation for gays I say you are no leaders and should be ashamed of yourselves. And to those who say mankind will not survive if men marry men and women marry women due to their not being able to reproduce, I say with over 7 billion people raping the resources of this planet, a few less people wouldn't necessarily be a bad thing. Finally, to basically force our children to leave their homes to move to a bigger city or town where their sexuality is more readily accepted is wrong.

As to the girls who got me that day, I really don't care what happened to them. This bullying of teens due to their sexuality is a stain on our society and should be ended. Hopefully the bullied teens will be able to look back as I can and say I can't believe I let a few idiots get me. It does get better.