Shorter University faces mass resignations over "lifestyle" statement

More than two dozen faculty members have resigned from Shorter University, a Baptist school in Georgia, after it required them to sign a “personal lifestyle statement” that condemns homosexuality, premarital sex and public drinking.

An online campaign called “Save Our Shorter” says that the lifestyle pledge, adopted in the fall of 2011 along with a statement of faith, has led to dozens of resignations. University president Donald Dowless on Friday (May 18) confirmed that 36 faculty have resigned and at least 25 cited disagreement with either the personal lifestyle statement or the faith statement.

Read the rest here.

Behold freedom in action. An employer announces its intention to regulate various aspects of the personal lives of its employees (perfectly legal if of doubtful wisdom), and a majority of the employees tell their now former employer to go pack sand. For the record I would have done the same thing purely on principle. Once you allow your employer into your bedroom or to tell you what you as an adult can or can't consume in a public establishment, on your own time and at your own expense, you pretty much have announced that they own you.

Odd as this may sound I applaud both sides in this matter. I admire the school for taking a stand to uphold its religious tenets and I admire the employees who (like me) found the demands unacceptable. At least for the moment it appears the government is not involved (wonders never cease). No need for the government to be involved at all. The school is within its rights to set any standards it wants for employees and the employees are free to walk if those standards are overly intrusive. If enough employees leave and the school has a hard time replacing them we may see the free market work its magic.

On a side not Jesus would have been sacked by Shorter (or just not hired) given his public drinking and turning water into wine at weddings.  But like I said, it's a private school and in a free country you have a right to be foolish if you wish.

Bill would sharply limit employer online spying

Legislation that would give workers broad protection from the prying eyes of employers was introduced in both houses of the U.S. Congress on Wednesday. Both bills would make it illegal for employers to force workers or candidates to divulge social media passwords, similar to legislation nicknamed SNOPA, which was introduced last month. But the new Password Protection Act, sponsored by Sen. Richard Blumenthal, D-Conn.. goes even further, extending such limitations to smart phones, private email accounts, photo sharing sites and any personal information that resides on computers owned by the workers.

But Blumenthal's proposal -- and its companion in the House, introduced by Rep. Ed Perlmutter, D-Colo. -- is narrower in some ways than the Social Networking Online Protection Act(SNOPA) introduced April 27 by Rep. Eliot Engel, D-N. Y. SNOPA extended similar protections to elementary, high school and college students. Under the Password Protection Act,  students would not be protected.

Still, Blumenthal's legislation is "a good start," said Chris Calabrese, a lawyer for the American Civil Liberties Union. "We feel like it's a very flexible standard. It extends to your iPhone, to information you have on Google and anything else that may come up in the future that we haven't thought of yet. “

Read the rest here.

Employees fighting for overtime pay

Everyone from pharmaceutical reps to home health care aides to waiters and waitresses in fancy restaurants are sick of working off the clock, and they’re looking to finally punch in.

This week, the Supreme Court is reviewing a case involving pharmaceutical representatives who claim they’re owed overtime pay even though their employer, GlaxoSmithKline, contends they’re sales people and not entitled to it.

Last month, a case involving celebrity chef Mario Batali’s restaurants and unpaid overtime and tips for employees was settled for $5.2 million. And earlier this year, Swiss drugmaker Norvartis AG agreed to settle a class action overtime suit for $99 million brought by its sales representatives.

Read the rest here.

Job candidates' purgatory

Job seekers expect to have two or three interviews with an employer before they land a position. But 10 interviews?

Ebonee Younger’s interview odyssey began in September when she embarked on her quest to land an HR manager’s position at a rental truck company.

Ten interviews and a lot of sweat equity later, Younger, who lives in Birmingham, Ala., ended up not getting the gig.

“The whole experience cost me two new suits, a new pair of shoes, $40 in stationery and postage -- I wrote handwritten notes to almost everyone I spoke with -- two paid time-off days, and $200 plus in taxi fare,” she explained.

“I'm not so much irritated that I didn't get the job, I was just disappointed in the candidate experience,” she noted. “I really believe they could have, and should have, made a decision earlier in the process.”

Unfortunately, Younger’s interview purgatory is not unusual. Employers are increasingly putting applicants through a seemingly endless cycle of interviews these days, a byproduct of the tight labor market. Some hiring managers feel they have the upper hand because unemployment, at over 8 percent, is still relatively high so they can put candidates through a hiring rigmarole. Others are just too inept to trust their own judgment, or are fearful a wrong hire will get them in hot water.

Read the rest here.

As with so many things in life, baseball provides a very good rule for this sort of thing. Three strikes and you're out.  Or alternatively ball four and walk.  Unless your interviewing for an extremely important or sensitive position there is no justification for endless interviews. Three should be the maximum that anyone is required to go through for all but a handful of jobs. If you haven't persuaded someone to hire you after three interviews (or four at the most) then you just politely explain that you are withdrawing your name from consideration.

More than three interviews strongly suggests several  things.  First would be that if you can't persuade someone to hire you in three interviews you are probably not the right person for the job.  Secondly, even if you did eventually get the job your new employer will have clearly demonstrated that they don't have confidence in their decision to hire you. Your position there may be weak.  And third it demonstrates poor and indecisive management on the part of your prospective employer.  Remember job interviews are a two way street.  They are interviewing you.  But you are also interviewing them.

I have some considerable sympathy with those in a really bad job market having some experience with fruitless job hunting myself.  And I do know what it's like to interview several times for a job (though I have not had more than three for any position) and not get the job.  But unless your applying with the CIA or for a six figure salaried management position there is no justification for more than three interviews.  Frankly you might even improve your odds by showing a little backbone with your perspective employer and politely declining to do the endless interviews.

Govt. agencies, colleges demand applicants' Facebook passwords

If you think privacy settings on your Facebook and Twitter accounts guarantee future employers or schools can't see your private posts, guess again.

Employers and colleges find the treasure-trove of personal information hiding behind password-protected accounts and privacy walls just too tempting, and some are demanding full access from job applicants and student athletes.

In Maryland, job seekers applying to the state's Department of Corrections have been asked during interviews to log into their accounts and let an interviewer watch while the potential employee clicks through wall posts, friends, photos and anything else that might be found behind the privacy wall.
Previously, applicants were asked to surrender their user name and password, but a complaint from the ACLU stopped that practice last year. While submitting to a Facebook review is voluntary, virtually all applicants agree to it out of a desire to score well in the interview, according Maryland ACLU legislative director Melissa Coretz Goemann.

Read the rest here.

A couple of years ago I filled out a job application for a civil service position in Wyoming. They asked right on the application for passwords to my email and all social networking sites and the names of any blogs I owned. I wrote "None of your business" on that line. They never even bothered sending me a "thank you for applying" note.

When the only crime is having a common name

Samuel M. Jackson, of the Chicago area, already has it rough when it comes to name recognition.

But comparisons with the famous actor, Samuel L. Jackson, likely sounded wonderful to him after three other Samuel Jacksons got mixed up into his criminal background report. They're Samuel Jacksons all convicted of sex offenses, two of whom are currently in prison.

"He had a background check company that ran a background report that was grossly inaccurate. Almost laughably so if it wasn’t so outrageous," said attorney Chris Wilmes, who represented the job-seeking Jackson in a lawsuit against the background check company InfoTrack. "He had a background check report that suggested he was a serious, serious sex offender and that he had committed crimes that merited life in prison."

Wilmes said his client has no criminal record. His only fault? Having a common name.

"People with common names -- there is a significant risk that they’re going to get a background check that has nothing to do with them that shows a criminal record that doesn’t exist. And it is going to harm them when they are trying to get employment," according to Paul Strauss of the Chicago Lawyers Committee for Civil Rights, who also worked on the case against InfoTrack.

Read the rest here.