Forcing employees to have microchips under the skin.

[Chessmistress]

It actually isn't. You're allowed to mandate your employees take vaccines and iirc even that they go on birth control, both of which are technically bodily modifcations.

Neither isn't (vaccines aren't permanent and neither is birth control), and even that is quite illegal - except for some very specific jobs which require anyway a provision in the contract, or at least this is what happens in the EU. I would have guessed the same would happen in the US.

Actually once done vaccines can't be undone, while under skin microchips can be removed...

That's not the difference to highlight, indeed, the difference is: vaccines are a social thing, they also protect other people (who are less likely to be infected by someone who have taken a vaccine), while the body is your.

I'll avoid the birth control thing because I don't want to get a warning.

I think that focussing specifically on implanted monitoring technology is a mistake. Wearable devices can turn a workplace into something like a panopticon just as much as implanted devices.

Yep.
Also, so do personal devices linked to the company network.

Just only as long as the company knows who's the owner of the alien device...

[Jerzylvania]

Good job Indiana. It isnt right to force employees to have microchips under their skin.

Yes, Indiana, that's nice. But how about making it easier for voters to vote instead of harder? Indiana Senate Bill 398. What's up with that?

[Haganham]

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 actually isn't. You're allowed to mandate your employees take vaccines and iirc even that they go on birth control, both of which are technically bodily modifcations.
This is a specific exemption banning microchips, and I'm all for a ban on mandatory microchipping.

I don't think a birth control mandate would fly under the EEOC

[Esternial]

Yes, vague. Not nonexistent. It can be applied. The difference here is that - again - I do not agree your notion that microchip mandates are looming on the horizon. I do not see it as a possibility given existing legislation in Europe.

All that said, why have one safeguard when you can have more?

No, due to the simple fact that US =/= EU and there is no equivalent to GDPR there.

Indeed: given the GDPR is very vague, now those 11 US states have more protection than Europe.

Personally I would agree with that. Additional legislation within the EU could be useful.

[Ayytaly]

Bet you as soon as Elon Musk creates Starlink microchips people will readily volunteer to get them implanted because "Elon's a cool boss, yo!"

[Ifreann]

Bet you as soon as Elon Musk creates Starlink microchips people will readily volunteer to get them implanted.

I'm sure there's people begging him to jam computers chips in their skulls already.

[Ayytaly]

Bet you as soon as Elon Musk creates Starlink microchips people will readily volunteer to get them implanted.

I'm sure there's people begging him to jam computers chips in their skulls already.

It unnerves me just how fanatical Muskbros are to the point they're willing to take humanity down with them and make him the world's first trillionaire.

[Bear Stearns]

covid gave the precident that corporate america can force people do inject anything they want and liberals will support it because apparently tyranny doesn't count unless the government explicitly does it

[The Black Forrest]

covid gave the precident that corporate america can force people do inject anything they want and liberals will support it because apparently tyranny doesn't count unless the government explicitly does it

Awwww. Did your company mandate vaccines?

[Jinggangshan]

covid gave the precident that corporate america can force people do inject anything they want and liberals will support it because apparently tyranny doesn't count unless the government explicitly does it

every time an americans speaks about "liberals" this old meme comes to my mind:



classical liberalism would support your point of view, you know that, right? Then again economic liberalism would mean the company is allowed to dictate to their employees - after all they can stop being employees if they disagree.

Personally I say get the police to bring in any nonvaccinated s***thead, hold him down and vax away, but then I'm not a bloody liberalist. Your "freedom" means s***t-all, compared to the harm you do to other people by remaining unvaccinated, or refusing to wear a proper mask. It is the governments and the polices' job to ensure the safety of the citizens. Hell, properly regulated and controlled I'd actually be in favour of Chip-ID for every citizen. One scan, instant identity secured. No more ID, no more wallets, not even bus tickets. One Number, one ID. Would do wonders for efficiency and public safety... corporations would use it for their profit, that must of course be prevented, but a decent state implementing such for the benefit of all, now that would be another matter.

Socialism and liberalism are two entirely distinguished points of view. Personally I'd argue they are actually opponents - why else would we need to mandate laws about things like child-labour? Laws that restrict freedom, to the benefit of the people? Personally I'd rather have more restriction of that venue than 12-year-olds pulling minecarts again.

[Gallia-]

Why would the state implement a "benefit for all" when it can implement a "benefit for Party members" or "benefit for elite bureaucrats" or "benefit for Parliamentarians"?

[Chessmistress]

covid gave the precident that corporate america can force people do inject anything they want and liberals will support it because apparently tyranny doesn't count unless the government explicitly does it

As far as I know this is the tenet of US law and Constitution and it's supported by both Reps and Dems (probably even more by the Reps):

Tyranny doesn't matter as long as it's enforced by a company and not by the government.

This is basically the argument I always read, being repeated countless times - a very common form of such argument is:

Free speech means you're free from government intervention, not from punishment by your employer

People seems very glad to repeat this argument, they perhaps even think that it makes them looking smart and/or "cool".
But the above is basically:

Tyranny doesn't matter as long as it's enforced by a company and not by the government.

Actually, it shouldn't work so: if free speech is held dear, then no retaliation by an employer should be possible. It doesn't matter what the employee write on a social media (in example): as long as S/he doesn't mention the employer then the employer shouldn't be able to fire the employee for opinions expressed on a social media.

If you accept that an employer can fire people at will just for their opinions, posted on social medias without mentioning the employer, then an employer mandating vaccines is less important just because the vaccines are intended to protect all people in the workplace, while opinions on a social media are irrelevant to the job (as long as the message doesn't mention the employer name).

Look at this case:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forstater ... ent_Europe

It doesn't matter in the slighest if her opinion is "worthy of respect", it could be even a very stupid and/or offensive opinion, what it does matter is: is it an opinion breaking a specific law?
The answer is NO, because she was fired by her employer but not arrested by the police: if someone write something and it's not arrested by the police then the message is LAWFUL. Therefore firing someone for something LAWFUL done outside the workplace shouldn't be possible. But in USA this is allowed and I see a lot of people both Reps and Dems, gladly repeating:

Free speech means you're free from government intervention, not from punishment by your employer

And the meaning is

Tyranny doesn't matter as long as it's enforced by a company and not by the government.

[Chessmistress]

covid gave the precident that corporate america can force people do inject anything they want and liberals will support it because apparently tyranny doesn't count unless the government explicitly does it

every time an americans speaks about "liberals" this old meme comes to my mind:



classical liberalism would support your point of view, you know that, right? Then again economic liberalism would mean the company is allowed to dictate to their employees - after all they can stop being employees if they disagree.

Personally I say get the police to bring in any nonvaccinated s***thead, hold him down and vax away, but then I'm not a bloody liberalist. Your "freedom" means s***t-all, compared to the harm you do to other people by remaining unvaccinated, or refusing to wear a proper mask. It is the governments and the polices' job to ensure the safety of the citizens. Hell, properly regulated and controlled I'd actually be in favour of Chip-ID for every citizen. One scan, instant identity secured. No more ID, no more wallets, not even bus tickets. One Number, one ID. Would do wonders for efficiency and public safety... corporations would use it for their profit, that must of course be prevented, but a decent state implementing such for the benefit of all, now that would be another matter.

Socialism and liberalism are two entirely distinguished points of view. Personally I'd argue they are actually opponents - why else would we need to mandate laws about things like child-labour? Laws that restrict freedom, to the benefit of the people? Personally I'd rather have more restriction of that venue than 12-year-olds pulling minecarts again.

It means that in USA they have two right wing parties: conservative right and liberal right.
Even socialism can be socially conservative or liberal, but it's still socialism in both cases.

[Kalaron]

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?

I strongly invite them to do so, and even more strongly invite hackers to obtain these chips, break into the company network, and nuke every resource they have until the CEOs are poverty stricken.

[Salus Maior]

Uh...No.

This is fucking ridiculous. The workers are not the property of employers.

[Salus Maior]

It actually isn't. You're allowed to mandate your employees take vaccines and iirc even that they go on birth control, both of which are technically bodily modifcations.

Neither isn't (vaccines aren't permanent and neither is birth control), and even that is quite illegal - except for some very specific jobs which require anyway a provision in the contract, or at least this is what happens in the EU. I would have guessed the same would happen in the US.

Hold up, requiring workers take birth control is absolutely an overreach of an employers prerogative and completely unacceptable.

[Dreria]

the libs won’t like this, not at all.

[Salus Maior]

the libs won’t like this, not at all.

I don't think any sensible human being will like this.