@roger,
It's a real pain for guys that want to do cross-border driving. We spent a lot of money at a previous employer trying to help our customers work with those forms. They couldn't respond to the documents here ... and if they did, we couldn't help them with what they wanted from us since they had illegally obtained information.
@ehBeth,
Methinks we're in the same industry...
@Ceili,
In practice, confirming dates of employment was about all I ever gave out, unless there was solid reason for a glowing endorsement. I never felt responsible for any conclusions that might have been drawn for the lack a positive report.
Oh, yeah, they often asked if we would rehire the person. I declined that one too.
@roger,
The woman on the other end of the phone, not the rude one who answered first... told me this was new to her. That Canuck companies regularly gave this info out. I called bullshit.
You have confirmed what I thought.
@roger,
roger wrote:
In practice, confirming dates of employment was about all I ever gave out, unless there was solid reason for a glowing endorsement. I never felt responsible for any conclusions that might have been drawn for the lack a positive report.
Oh, yeah, they often asked if we would rehire the person. I declined that one too.
i recently tried to validate employment with an applicant with a indian casino...i got told that it is tribe policy to not even state that a person was now or was employed by the tribe unless that person comes into HR and signs a letter that they can talk to me specifically. i assume that this has something to do with helping employees shield their income from the government.
@Ceili,
Privacy laws in the United States are not lax, it's only that you don't know what they are, and neither do a lot of other people. Americans too readily give up their social security numbers, but the original legislation clearly states that an individual cannot be forced to give out the number, and that only the Social Security Administration has any authority to reliease the number, apart from the account holder. What you describe violates the law in the United States, as well. It's a matter of people enforcing their rights. Employers DO NOT have the right to give out personal information about prospective empolyees, even with a written, signed consent. People routinely do, though, because they are ignorant. Strictly following privacy laws, i reached the point at which i would only tell people who inquired if someone had been an employee, and their dates of employment. I would tell them nothing else.
Anyone who gives out their social security number is a fool. Anyone who in any mannter publishes someone's social security number is, effectively, a criminal. If i found that someone had done that, i'd sue them.
I can give a perfect example of this. Utility companies--gas, electric, water, etc.--routinely insist that a prospective customer provide a social security number. They don't have a right to it, and it's a violation of the social security enabling legislation. They cannot deny your service for refusing to provide your SSAN. People don't know that. Like a bunch of dopes, they just fill in the information. When i arrived in Ohio, i had already learned that. I refused to give out my SSAN. The electric company said, so sorry, no service. I told the lady, OK, i'll contact the public utilities commission. She had a sudden "inspiration," hauled out a thick stack of print-outs, and assigned my account the next number in a sequence of randomly generated, false SS numbers (they start with zero, so they are obviously fake). At the gas company, i was actually obliged to contact the public utilities commission. These people act as though they're being put upon, too.
No American can be required to give their SSAN (Social Security Account Number) to anyone but the Social Security Administration, the Internal Revenue Service, a bank (for IRS purposes), an employer (who remits tax withholding) or a state or local taxing agency. But people are idiots, they do it all the time.
That Indian casino was being smart, you can get sued for giving out almost any information on a former employee apart from dates of employment.
@Setanta,
Note of information: Because a SSN starts with a zero does not mean it's fake, it was probably issued in New England in the 1950's ....like mine.
I first time I applied for a job in Texas, they said they had never see a SSN starting with zero. I told them to contact all the members of my high school graduating class.
Joe(Zero-##/###/#####)Nation
@Setanta,
A thing that bothers me, our SS numbers are the ID numbers on a license to work on air conditioners. I might could have fought it, but it was that or lose my job at the time.
@edgarblythe,
The cards used to clearly state :Not for identification purposes.
Does yours?
Joe(I still have the one I got when I went to work in the tobacco fields.)Nation
@Joe Nation,
That could be--the number the electric company gave me was 000-##-####. I was just throwing that out as an example.
@edgarblythe,
I think there are a lot of cases in which people give up their SSAN rather than object, and for sound reasons. I moved into an apartment complex in 1999, and they insisted on my SSAN, and i refused. They said i couldn't have an apartment, and i said fine. My work phone was on the application, and they called me about three or four days later and said i could have an apartment. I suspect people usually just go along--after all, they're used to giving their SSAN to every Tom, Dick and Harry.
I was once told, and cannot vouch for this, that this porvision went into the social security act because the Republicans were getting hysterical, and said it was the first step tin setting up a polic state, that every citizen would become a number and no longer be seen as a person. So according to the guy telling me this, the privacy provision was put in the act to steal the Republican thunder.
@Setanta,
Setanta wrote:
I was once told, and cannot vouch for this, that this porvision went into the social security act because the Republicans were getting hysterical, and said it was the first step tin setting up a polic state, that every citizen would become a number and no longer be seen as a person. So according to the guy telling me this, the privacy provision was put in the act to steal the Republican thunder.
Yeah but that's what's happening anyway. Your SS # has become your govm't ID, as much a part of you as the name on your birth certificate. Call the Social Security Admin. some day (or a number of other govm'nt agcys); they don't care what your name is or how you spell it. The question is always, "What's your Social?" followed by DOB.
@msolga,
Good. There are consequences to being asshole.
@Joe Nation,
That was his problem, really - he wanted to be a troll and be a respected member of the community, but the thing is that you can't have it both (or you can, but you can't do it with the same handle - you need a sock-puppet for trolling). The fact that he went to such effort to ingratiate himself with the reddit admins is where he went really, wildly wrong. Also, if you have a lot to lose, holy moly, don't risk it all just to post nasty pictures on the internet.
@msolga,
I'm not wasting any tears.
I'll bet he does alright from all this
@IRFRANK,
IRFRANK wrote:
Good. There are consequences to being asshole.
I wonder what'll happen to Daniel Tosh then
@thack45,
He'll be made president of The Tea Party and claim to be the poster boy for Free Speech.
What I found most disturbing was how many creeps he attracted to his bait. People are criticizing him for starting the topics, but it took an active, interested audience of bobble heads to keep the threads going.
