Forcing employees to have microchips under the skin.

[Chessmistress]

First the source:

Indiana is the latest state to prohibit employers from requiring job seekers or employees to have devices such as microchips or radio frequency identification device (RFID) tags implanted into their bodies as a condition of employment.

The new law banning mandated implantable technology is set to take effect July 1.

No Indiana employers or workplaces in any other state require such devices to be implanted, but lawmakers in 11 states now have made their position known in advance of any interest in implantable technology.

"It's a pre-emptive strike," said Susan Kline, a partner at law firm Faegre Drinker in Indianapolis. "It sends a signal of 'don't even think about it.' Why? First, because it's invasive. Then there are the ramifications in terms of lack of control over what data is collected, and how it is used, and how device mandates put employees in the position of feeling pressured or at risk of retaliation. The Indiana law contains a prohibition against retaliation for refusing to voluntarily receive a device implant."

Full article here:

https://www.shrm.org/resourcesandtools/ ... rkers.aspx

My thoughts on the matter: I think that this technology must be used just only for medical reasons and it should be always voluntary, it should also be granted the right to remove the device for free at any time.
It's a major threat even used as convenience on a voluntary basis, and people should avoid it, some campaign against this should be started.
It's even more a threat when it's subtly make mandatory by employers.

The article doesn't cite another potential application: tagging criminals who aren't in jail but under restrictions. This is potentially the next major spread of the technology.

Other random thought:
Employers are banned from requiring device implants in Arkansas, California, Missouri, Montana, Nevada, New Hampshire, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Utah and Wisconsin. And similar proposals have been pending in the state legislatures of Iowa, Rhode Island and Tennessee.
So it doesn't seems that on such issue there's an ideological war between Republicans and Democrats, it's more a bipartisan issue. That's very interesting, the sensibilities seems similar in both parties.

What do you think, NS?

[Risottia]

...What do you think, NS?

I wonder, was it actually necessary? I mean, forcing people to alter their bodies as a requirement for a job looks, dunno, grossly illegal to me.

[Galloism]

...What do you think, NS?

I wonder, was it actually necessary? I mean, forcing people to alter their bodies as a requirement for a job looks, dunno, grossly illegal to me.

It's not, generally speaking - at least in the US, provided disclosure is made up front and with consent of the employee.

I would argue it should be - employers should not be able to mandate that employees give up their bodily autonomy to work there, but it's not the reality as is.

[Fartsniffage]

I wonder, was it actually necessary? I mean, forcing people to alter their bodies as a requirement for a job looks, dunno, grossly illegal to me.

It's not, generally speaking - at least in the US, provided disclosure is made up front and with consent of the employee.

I would argue it should be - employers should not be able to mandate that employees give up their bodily autonomy to work there, but it's not the reality as is.

Is it any different from requiring employees to perform manual labour? The injury might be more immediate and obvious but both cause injury to the body.

[Galloism]

It's not, generally speaking - at least in the US, provided disclosure is made up front and with consent of the employee.

I would argue it should be - employers should not be able to mandate that employees give up their bodily autonomy to work there, but it's not the reality as is.

Is it any different from requiring employees to perform manual labour? The injury might be more immediate and obvious but both cause injury to the body.

I would argue yes, it is. One is a side effect of an employee performing a task. The other is the intended consequence of the policy.

I would argue employers should be much more taken to task (financially speaking) for injuries sustained in the process of such manual labor than they currently are, though.

[Chessmistress]

It's not, generally speaking - at least in the US, provided disclosure is made up front and with consent of the employee.

I would argue it should be - employers should not be able to mandate that employees give up their bodily autonomy to work there, but it's not the reality as is.

Is it any different from requiring employees to perform manual labour? The injury might be more immediate and obvious but both cause injury to the body.

Yes, because they have the microchip under the skin even before and after the job.
Yes, because the injury isn't a condition required by the employer, the injury it's an accident.

[Chessmistress]

...What do you think, NS?

I wonder, was it actually necessary? I mean, forcing people to alter their bodies as a requirement for a job looks, dunno, grossly illegal to me.

It's not necessary, in example in Indiana, the last to ban the practice, there are zero employers requiring the microchip, but in the whole USA there are few here and there, and politicians of both parties are pre-emptively striking against such practice.

[Tinhampton]

This is good.

(also OMG Chessmistress I was wondering where you've been all that time )

[Ethel mermania]

Not the worst legislation they have passed, so its good.

[Krasny-Volny]

First the source:

Indiana is the latest state to prohibit employers from requiring job seekers or employees to have devices such as microchips or radio frequency identification device (RFID) tags implanted into their bodies as a condition of employment.

The new law banning mandated implantable technology is set to take effect July 1.

No Indiana employers or workplaces in any other state require such devices to be implanted, but lawmakers in 11 states now have made their position known in advance of any interest in implantable technology.

"It's a pre-emptive strike," said Susan Kline, a partner at law firm Faegre Drinker in Indianapolis. "It sends a signal of 'don't even think about it.' Why? First, because it's invasive. Then there are the ramifications in terms of lack of control over what data is collected, and how it is used, and how device mandates put employees in the position of feeling pressured or at risk of retaliation. The Indiana law contains a prohibition against retaliation for refusing to voluntarily receive a device implant."

Full article here:

https://www.shrm.org/resourcesandtools/ ... rkers.aspx

My thoughts on the matter: I think that this technology must be used just only for medical reasons and it should be always voluntary, it should also be granted the right to remove the device for free at any time.
It's a major threat even used as convenience on a voluntary basis, and people should avoid it, some campaign against this should be started.
It's even more a threat when it's subtly make mandatory by employers.

The article doesn't cite another potential application: tagging criminals who aren't in jail but under restrictions. This is potentially the next major spread of the technology.

Other random thought:
Employers are banned from requiring device implants in Arkansas, California, Missouri, Montana, Nevada, New Hampshire, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Utah and Wisconsin. And similar proposals have been pending in the state legislatures of Iowa, Rhode Island and Tennessee.
So it doesn't seems that on such issue there's an ideological war between Republicans and Democrats, it's more a bipartisan issue. That's very interesting, the sensibilities seems similar in both parties.

What do you think, NS?

Big companies cannot do whatever they want to their employees. Mandating implants would be a clear, clear invasion of privacy and bodily sovereignty.

But technology is advancing so rapidly, what might seem ludicrous to us today might not seem so far-fetched in the future, like say, the 2040s when cheap implants might become more common, and serve a variety of practical purposes. See here, for example - cheaply manufactured, minimally invasive implants to store data about one’s vaccination status, eliminating the need for a physical paper or physical device-stored vaccination card:

https://www.insider.com/swedish-firm-un ... 021-12?amp

I remember when my company made the transition from mostly paper to electronic data entry. It happened almost overnight, and we were given no choice in the matter. No more paper. All data entry now had to be done on a computer. They did this with minimal warning, and minimal instruction to employees as to how to carry out the change. I can totally see that in the next fifty years, as more and more data is stored on alternative data sources (including implants) there will be companies that simply mandate everybody switch data entry and storage to these alternative sources overnight. They cut back on paper because it was less efficient, so eventually they’ll cut back on the use of physical data storage devices such as computers for the same purpose.

My company also had a “get vaccinated for COVID or be fired by X date” mandate. Many, many other employers did the same. While I got vaccinated without grumbling long before the mandate and I’m certainly not an anti-vaxxer, the fact is there is a precedent set where companies can mandate employees make certain decisions in their personal medical affairs or face termination. I can see companies in the future using a similar procedure with mandated implants.

[-Goguryeo]

It's a good thing these pre-emptive bans happened. It's a well known fact that if things become the norm in the market place, it will inevitably become unavoidable for most members of society to participate in. We've seen this with the digital disruption of smart technology. But compulsory microchips in order to participate in the most essential task of someone's life— a job? It should never be compulsory if there is a choice. Technology is almost always allowed to bypass personal privacy in one form or another, it's about time people slow down this trend.

[Chessmistress]

This is good.

(also OMG Chessmistress I was wondering where you've been all that time )

I had a lot of things to do.

[Chessmistress]

Big companies cannot do whatever they want to their employees. Mandating implants would be a clear, clear invasion of privacy and bodily sovereignty.

But technology is advancing so rapidly, what might seem ludicrous to us today might not seem so far-fetched in the future, like say, the 2040s when cheap implants might become more common, and serve a variety of practical purposes. See here, for example - cheaply manufactured, minimally invasive implants to store data about one’s vaccination status, eliminating the need for a physical paper or physical device-stored vaccination card:

https://www.insider.com/swedish-firm-un ... 021-12?amp

I remember when my company made the transition from mostly paper to electronic data entry. It happened almost overnight, and we were given no choice in the matter. No more paper. All data entry now had to be done on a computer. They did this with minimal warning, and minimal instruction to employees as to how to carry out the change. I can totally see that in the next fifty years, as more and more data is stored on alternative data sources (including implants) there will be companies that simply mandate everybody switch data entry and storage to these alternative sources overnight. They cut back on paper because it was less efficient, so eventually they’ll cut back on the use of physical data storage devices such as computers for the same purpose.

My company also had a “get vaccinated for COVID or be fired by X date” mandate. Many, many other employers did the same. While I got vaccinated without grumbling long before the mandate and I’m certainly not an anti-vaxxer, the fact is there is a precedent set where companies can mandate employees make certain decisions in their personal medical affairs or face termination. I can see companies in the future using a similar procedure with mandated implants.

There's a difference here: such microchips can be contained in a bracelet or a glove, something you can dress and undress, it's unnecessary to have them fixed under your skin.
The employer requires a microchip?
Okay, it's in a bracelet, I'll wear the bracelet during the job - but not before and after, and I can take it away from my arm at any time.

[Hemakral]

If someone tries to put a microchip in me, I will bite off their fingers.

[Arisyan]

Indiana passing labour rights legislation? Certainly a first, but I'm not complaining. Good on them I guess.

[Kerwa]

Implanting people with ID chips is a horrifying idea and it shouldn’t be done to anyone (even if they consent). There’s all kinds of problems with it.

[The Black Forrest]

Let’s see legislation in search of a problem. Who is running Indiana these days? Ah yes. Republicans.

This is probably some weird ass attempt to attack vaccines or some moron believes these can happen.

Rfid is not exactly new tech. I was in government once and worked on things you would think being implanted would be part of the job. It wasn’t.

The desired workforce are the millennials. They aren’t going to put up with that. Companies aren’t going to enforce it as it would turn people away.

Someday tags might actually be useful. For example, if you were having a medical emergency; such an implant could alert medical authorities. Such tech is long way away.

Even then mankind is still too immature for such things…..

[Rumasaya]

What do you think, NS?

Better acting too early than acting too late I guess.

I'm not sure how the myriad of states in the EU are going to respond if companies ever decide to force employees to get chipped, the last time this was in the news some countries (their governments and business elites, at least) were actually fairly positive about it as a new step towards progress - but that was years ago and since then the average European is (in my observations) somewhat more sceptical about "revolutionary technology".

[Krasny-Volny]

Let’s see legislation in search of a problem. Who is running Indiana these days? Ah yes. Republicans.

This is probably some weird ass attempt to attack vaccines or some moron believes these can happen.

Rfid is not exactly new tech. I was in government once and worked on things you would thing being implanted would be part of the job. It wasn’t.

The desired workforce are the millennials. They aren’t going to put up with that. Companies aren’t going to enforce it as it would turn people away.

Someday tags might actually be useful. For example, if you were having a medical emergency; such an implant could alert medical authorities. Such tech is long way away.

Even then mankind is still too immature for such things…..

Not sure why the Republican quip, given that California already passed pretty much the exact same law.

[Bloodstained Castle]

I'm not sure why anyone would want these from their employer. Unless one has deluded oneself that the company genuinely cares about its employees well being, it should be alarming this is going on in the first place. A company only cares about profit and this sounds like an exploitative scheme to earn even more money at the cost of the employee's privacy and paycheck.

[Barfleur]

I fully, fully agree with what Indiana (and, by extension, the other states that have similar laws) is doing. Taking aside the aspect of privacy and bodily sovereignty while at work, allowing an employer to keep workers under surveillance even when off the clock would basically kill whatever is left of work-life balance. I hope European nations adopt similar legislation, preferably before microchip/RFID requirements become accepted employment practices.

[The Black Forrest]

Let’s see legislation in search of a problem. Who is running Indiana these days? Ah yes. Republicans.

This is probably some weird ass attempt to attack vaccines or some moron believes these can happen.

Rfid is not exactly new tech. I was in government once and worked on things you would thing being implanted would be part of the job. It wasn’t.

The desired workforce are the millennials. They aren’t going to put up with that. Companies aren’t going to enforce it as it would turn people away.

Someday tags might actually be useful. For example, if you were having a medical emergency; such an implant could alert medical authorities. Such tech is long way away.

Even then mankind is still too immature for such things…..

Not sure why the Republican quip, given that California already passed pretty much the exact same law.

Republicans are passing many election laws in search of problems these days. Same on the vaccine and freedom front.

-edit-

Oh and for California that was back in 2008 and was in response to Verachip which was going to allow access to healthcare records. The security was easily breached

https://www.aclunc.org/blog/california- ... y-governor

[Ethel mermania]

Let’s see legislation in search of a problem. Who is running Indiana these days? Ah yes. Republicans.

This is probably some weird ass attempt to attack vaccines or some moron believes these can happen.

Rfid is not exactly new tech. I was in government once and worked on things you would thing being implanted would be part of the job. It wasn’t.

The desired workforce are the millennials. They aren’t going to put up with that. Companies aren’t going to enforce it as it would turn people away.

Someday tags might actually be useful. For example, if you were having a medical emergency; such an implant could alert medical authorities. Such tech is long way away.

Even then mankind is still too immature for such things…..

Not sure why the Republican quip, given that California already passed pretty much the exact same law.

He is biased against Republicans.

[The Black Forrest]

Not sure why the Republican quip, given that California already passed pretty much the exact same law.

He is biased against Republicans.

[Ethel mermania]

He is biased against Republicans.

Boomie, I think I am the only one you mildly like.