Laws catching up to technology? Here's a thought: let technology solve the problem, leave the law out of it. This is the kind of lube that allows things like SOPA/PIPA to slip right in.

Why are they using the word "coercive" so carelessly? Nobody owes you a job. If you don't get a job for not disclosing your password, that's awful, really, but I don't see any coercion going on there.

It doesn't matter how bad the job market is, laws like these have the best intentions towards the employee, but they just add to the already huge burden of hiring people, and establish a bad precedent of letting government overregulate every aspect of job relationships.

And people wonder why the job market sucks.

It is absolutely coercion.

In this job market people feel absolutely compelled to answer any question asked--or give up anything they ask for. And corporations are using this to intrude into everyones lives and history.

And, I'm sure that telling corporations not to spend all that time, money, and manpower checking every little thing that applicants have ever done in their lifetimes is a huge "burden".

I don't wonder why the job market sucks right now--it's because the powerful want it that way.

This is why I keep two Facebook accounts. One that I use to post lolcats pics and play Farmville and my hidden account is used to manage my white supremisist fan page.

Will this proposed bill prevent the Canadian government from accessing my private information before I get to see it?

@Boise_Lib *Feeling* compelled or however you want to phrase it to seem "forced", is not the same as the actual thing.

If you stretch the meaning of coercion to "people withholding what they don't owe you", then you can be coerced by a local coffeeshop that refuses to hand you a free doughnut, by a random woman who doesn't want to have sex with you, or by Google for not making you CEO.

Doesn't matter how important you consider a job to you or your family's survival, it's never your only possible means to survive.

Keep ignoring the fact that employers are part of the hiring equation, and watch your precious laws corrode the job market even further.

You blame the powerful, and I agree with your vague statement. The powerful being the ones that *coerce* the rest of us with stupid laws.

Is it OK for an employer to open your mail? Tap your phone lines? Read all your texts? Look at all your non-work emails? Send spies to your backyard BBQ? Flip through your photos?

@renatojj , do you understand what coercion is? What these employers are doing is absolutely coercion. Your pet economic theories have nothing to do with it.

This isn't ideological, it's about defining coercion. If you can prove in court that you were under real economic duress, then you can say there was coercion involved in denying your job because you didn't hand out your passwords.

However, we must be careful not to accept this interpretation that employers owe us jobs. That when they deny us a job, they are taking away something that is rightfully ours.

A job is a voluntary relationship that usually involves a contract. So, by definition, no coercion is involved, because no one is ever forced to hire/accept a job.

The hipocrisy of people who yell coercion, is that they want government to make laws to coerce those that aren't coercing at all. So we end up with a less civilized society overall.

You shouldn't resort to violence to stop something that isn't violent to begin with. How about not panicking, and coming up with non-violent solutions?

It's obvious that you have a steady job and/or a lot of money. I'm so very happy for you.

I apply for a job--I jump thru all the hoops, except I refuse to give up my passwords--I don't get the job--how am I to know what their reasons are? If it's because I didn't give up my passwords how would I ever be able to prove it?

No one ever said that employers owe anyone a job--they do however owe everyone a modicum of dignity.

You don't see your argument as idealogical--your ideology has blinded you.

"Doesn't matter how important you consider a job to you or your family's survival, it's never your only possible means to survive." I imagine that someone probably would have said the same thing to Jean Valjean before he stole that loaf of bread.

I'm done responding to you.
>> ^renatojj:

This isn't ideological, it's about defining coercion. If you can prove in court that you were under real economic duress, then you can say there was coercion involved in denying your job because you didn't hand out your passwords.
However, we must be careful not to accept this interpretation that employers owe us jobs. That when they deny us a job, they are taking away something that is rightfully ours.
A job is a voluntary relationship that usually involves a contract. So, by definition, no coercion is involved, because no one is ever forced to hire/accept a job.
The hipocrisy of people who yell coercion, is that they want government to make laws to coerce those that aren't coercing at all. So we end up with a less civilized society overall.
You shouldn't resort to violence to stop something that isn't violent to begin with. How about not panicking, and coming up with non-violent solutions?

@Boise_Lib isn't the employer jumping through a lot more legal hoops than you?

Can anyone else appreciate the irony of wanting people to treat each other with dignity, through force?

It's not that I don't see the role of ideology, I'd just rather focus on something more tangible.

What if you decide to quit your job? Do you even have to explain why? You can just walk out with middle fingers akimbo yelling "FUCK YOU ALL!". Maybe you're a racist sexist who doesn't like working for a black woman. Can the boss sue YOU for wrongful termination? LOL

You get my resume, references and that's all.

The day you hand over your passwords is the day I start to think about letting you have mine.

Wonder if Hooters is going to start making them show the full monty, just so they can make sure they don't have weird nipples.....because they want the candidates to be perfect for the job.

Or perhaps full nude pictures so they can make sure you don't have an unsavory body art, piercings, stretch marks, moles, or hair they think might negatively impact the company if someone were to see them.

It's a good way for all the freaks to see the goods...on facebook and otherwise.

It's akin to having the secretary who has to put out to keep her job, despite what the laws might say.