5 ms·

This is a weird one to me. To not consent to having your fingerprint scanned yet continuously doing so seems questionable. To do something for years without iss

by donatj 4y ago

This is a weird one to me. To not consent to having your fingerprint scanned yet continuously doing so seems questionable. To do something for years without issue and then sue long after the fact doesn’t feel like justice. It feels to me that providing your print to begin with without coercion fulfills consent. I understand that the need to keep one’s job can be seen as coercion but I am confident the percentage of employees that actually objected at the time was negligible.

tantalor 4y ago
> involves the use of workers' fingerprints to access pay stubs and company computers Maybe: requiring fingerprint to access your pay is effectively coercion.
- donatj 4y ago
  Pay stub, not pay. Very different things
  - wpietri 4y ago
    Given the rampant level of wage theft in this country, not so different at all.
  - NoZebra120vClip 4y ago
    If these employees are receiving any sort of public benefit, or become involved in some legal claim, or basically just need to prove their income to someone, they will absolutely require pay stubs. If they're not able to come up with proof of income, they could be denied Medicaid, Social Security, Section 8 housing assistance, SNAP "food stamps", WIC, TANF, or all sorts of other benefits that they would be entitled to, if only they could prove that they're earning a legitimate income from their employer who is required to provide pay stubs in an accessible fashion (they used to be simply attached to the paper check, or mailed via postal service; how complicated was that?)
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
COGlory 4y ago
>It feels to me that providing your print to begin with without coercion fulfills consent. I understand that the need to keep one’s job can be seen as coercion but I am confident the percentage of employees that actually objected at the time was negligible. This comes across as a pretty privileged take. For many fast-food workers, a few things are true: * They have no money or other job opportunities * They have a legal requirement to work (parole, child support, rehab) * The local franchise operator is influential and owns multiple franchises * Already owed pay (and already spent pay) are locked behind these barriers * The average fast food worker doesn't have education or resources to challenge them It absolutely is coercion, and another arm of corporatism.
- donatj 4y ago
  This is like the infantilization checklist. Have I got news for you, poor people are people. They’re not the hapless imbeciles you make them out to be, they are just as capable as you and I, and they have just as much access to information as you and I. We live in a literal world of plenty for unskilled jobs. They exist everywhere and they are screaming for workers. We literally don’t have enough unskilled workers to fulfill the need. If you can work fast food you can work in a shop, you can deliver packages. The person who HAS TO work at White Castle or they die simply does not exist. Figment of the imagination.
  - A4ET8a8uTh0 4y ago
    << They exist everywhere and they are screaming for workers. Eh. I don't really want to make it sound that way, but, well, if they are screaming, they are screaming for cheap workers. << This is like the infantilization checklist. Can you elaborate a little? It is possible that I am misunderstanding your point.
    - mixmastamyk 4y ago
      The shortage of worker pay in favor of fatcats is on going.
  - COGlory 4y ago
lumost 4y ago
I strongly disagree. This presumes that the employee is a free agent able to decline - this is rarely unambiguously true in the US economy, particularly for service workers. Employees may also have extremely limited negotiating power and be forced to accept a "shrink wrapped" contract. Reasons the employees might not consent but still go through with the fingerprinting. - Every other employer mysteriously started doing the same thing as their owned by the same franchise owner and/or their friends. - There are no other employers. - You live paycheck to paycheck and can't just quit a job. - Commuting to a different site would increase your gas bill. - The extra .25 that BK pays is necessary for you to live.
- DangitBobby 4y ago
  That's all speculation and frankly has nothing to do with whether White Castle violated the law or the spirit of the law. Either way, I can't agree. If everything a potential employer requires you to work there is considered to be "under duress" then we've got bigger problems on our hands. Namely, lots of slaves in the US.
_8j50 4y ago
Imagine being in prison and getting raped by some guy in the shower yet you keep taking showers. You adapt to hostile conditions out of neccesity and helplessness. That's an extreme, but you get the point. When the law says get consent, it clearly means there is none implied by participation. Even if the employee signs a paper on their own volition granting consent, your inability or refusal to obtain that consent makes you a violator of the law because as far as you know and can prove in court, your finger print collection was being done without you specifically knowing about that employee's consent. It is your state of mind and intent that is a violation of the law .
- donatj 4y ago
  That’s just a bad take. No one is forcing you to work at White Castle
  - _8j50 4y ago
    Coercion was never a factor in the law. Even if you wanted your fingerprints taken, you can still sue them for taking it without consent. It is a restriction put into place to enforce a practice. Another example would be medicine, even if you took medicine knowing possible side effects, the maker of the medicine is still culpable if they don't follow FDA rules. You can't say consent was implied when the law is telling you a definition of what viable consent is in a specific way. You can't just ignore the law and make excuses or blame the employees. On their part, they only have to prove that fingerprints were taken and consent was not. If you are they can just quit, then the entire point of the law is sl they won't have to and instead punish the company.
- nulbyte 4y ago
  Extreme, yes, and also a faulty analogy. I don't think White Castle took an employee's finger and placed it on the reader by force.
DangitBobby 4y ago
Absolutely. There's 0% these employees weren't consenting to fingerprint scans when accessing their paystubs. My question is, if they didn't consent to having their fingerprints collected, how did they have the fingerprint to begin with? I'm not reading anything claiming the employees were held down or that prints were secretly pulled off of surfaces. They very obviously consented. Below are the law in question and the opinion. Dissent is interesting. 1. https://www.ilga.gov/legislation/ilcs/documents/074000140K15.html https://www.ilga.gov/legislation/ilcs/documents/074000140K15... 2. https://ilcourtsaudio.blob.core.windows.net/antilles-resources/resources/e304b011-82d9-4832-9cae-d8205749a2ec/Cothron%20v.%20White%20Castle%20System,%20Inc.,%202023%20IL%20128004.pdf https://ilcourtsaudio.blob.core.windows.net/antilles-resourc...
- autoexec 4y ago
  My question is what would happen to an employee who refused (as I would) to the collection of their fingerprints. If they'd lose their job, that'd mean they were being subject to coercion and consent was not given.
  - DangitBobby 4y ago
    That's not coercion. If an employer can coerce an employee merely by requiring some compliance actions to remain employed, our legal system has a much bigger problems on its hands than this case.
    - autoexec 4y ago
      From the wiki, coercion is distinguished by things like: > the intent, the willingness to cause harm, the result of the interaction, and the options available to the coerced party If the intent is to get people to hand over sensitive data knowingly violating the law and putting people at risk because it makes things easier for the company, I think there's a case to be made that it is coercion. White castle employees aren't exactly known for having a ton of "options available" either. I doubt very many employees have dreamed of working there because of their passion for steamed meats or love for the company. Seems like more of a "when I have zero other options" kind of career move to me.
wpietri 4y ago
>providing your print to begin with without coercion fulfills consent Informed consent? Absolutely not. People here are arguing that the poor white collar employees and execs of White Castle couldn't possibly be expected to understand the nuances of installing fingerprint readers. So how could minimum wage workers, many of them minors, be expected to understand the issues at play?
advisedwang 4y ago
> To do something for years without issue and then sue long after the fact doesn’t feel like justice. Perhaps the person didn't know Illinois had a biometric privacy law? Imagine you're company has been making you do something you hate for years, then you discover it's illegal. You'd absolutely want to sue, and to have lost that right because you waited is unjustified.

by donatj 4y ago

tantalor 4y ago

> involves the use of workers' fingerprints to access pay stubs and company computers Maybe: requiring fingerprint to access your pay is effectively coercion.

donatj 4y ago
Pay stub, not pay. Very different things
- wpietri 4y ago
  Given the rampant level of wage theft in this country, not so different at all.
- NoZebra120vClip 4y ago
  If these employees are receiving any sort of public benefit, or become involved in some legal claim, or basically just need to prove their income to someone, they will absolutely require pay stubs. If they're not able to come up with proof of income, they could be denied Medicaid, Social Security, Section 8 housing assistance, SNAP "food stamps", WIC, TANF, or all sorts of other benefits that they would be entitled to, if only they could prove that they're earning a legitimate income from their employer who is required to provide pay stubs in an accessible fashion (they used to be simply attached to the paper check, or mailed via postal service; how complicated was that?)

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

COGlory 4y ago

>It feels to me that providing your print to begin with without coercion fulfills consent. I understand that the need to keep one’s job can be seen as coercion but I am confident the percentage of employees that actually objected at the time was negligible. This comes across as a pretty privileged take. For many fast-food workers, a few things are true: * They have no money or other job opportunities * They have a legal requirement to work (parole, child support, rehab) * The local franchise operator is influential and owns multiple franchises * Already owed pay (and already spent pay) are locked behind these barriers * The average fast food worker doesn't have education or resources to challenge them It absolutely is coercion, and another arm of corporatism.

donatj 4y ago
This is like the infantilization checklist. Have I got news for you, poor people are people. They’re not the hapless imbeciles you make them out to be, they are just as capable as you and I, and they have just as much access to information as you and I. We live in a literal world of plenty for unskilled jobs. They exist everywhere and they are screaming for workers. We literally don’t have enough unskilled workers to fulfill the need. If you can work fast food you can work in a shop, you can deliver packages. The person who HAS TO work at White Castle or they die simply does not exist. Figment of the imagination.
- A4ET8a8uTh0 4y ago
  << They exist everywhere and they are screaming for workers. Eh. I don't really want to make it sound that way, but, well, if they are screaming, they are screaming for cheap workers. << This is like the infantilization checklist. Can you elaborate a little? It is possible that I am misunderstanding your point.
  - mixmastamyk 4y ago
    The shortage of worker pay in favor of fatcats is on going.
- COGlory 4y ago

lumost 4y ago

I strongly disagree. This presumes that the employee is a free agent able to decline - this is rarely unambiguously true in the US economy, particularly for service workers. Employees may also have extremely limited negotiating power and be forced to accept a "shrink wrapped" contract. Reasons the employees might not consent but still go through with the fingerprinting. - Every other employer mysteriously started doing the same thing as their owned by the same franchise owner and/or their friends. - There are no other employers. - You live paycheck to paycheck and can't just quit a job. - Commuting to a different site would increase your gas bill. - The extra .25 that BK pays is necessary for you to live.

DangitBobby 4y ago
That's all speculation and frankly has nothing to do with whether White Castle violated the law or the spirit of the law. Either way, I can't agree. If everything a potential employer requires you to work there is considered to be "under duress" then we've got bigger problems on our hands. Namely, lots of slaves in the US.

_8j50 4y ago

Imagine being in prison and getting raped by some guy in the shower yet you keep taking showers. You adapt to hostile conditions out of neccesity and helplessness. That's an extreme, but you get the point. When the law says get consent, it clearly means there is none implied by participation. Even if the employee signs a paper on their own volition granting consent, your inability or refusal to obtain that consent makes you a violator of the law because as far as you know and can prove in court, your finger print collection was being done without you specifically knowing about that employee's consent. It is your state of mind and intent that is a violation of the law .

donatj 4y ago
That’s just a bad take. No one is forcing you to work at White Castle
- _8j50 4y ago
  Coercion was never a factor in the law. Even if you wanted your fingerprints taken, you can still sue them for taking it without consent. It is a restriction put into place to enforce a practice. Another example would be medicine, even if you took medicine knowing possible side effects, the maker of the medicine is still culpable if they don't follow FDA rules. You can't say consent was implied when the law is telling you a definition of what viable consent is in a specific way. You can't just ignore the law and make excuses or blame the employees. On their part, they only have to prove that fingerprints were taken and consent was not. If you are they can just quit, then the entire point of the law is sl they won't have to and instead punish the company.
nulbyte 4y ago
Extreme, yes, and also a faulty analogy. I don't think White Castle took an employee's finger and placed it on the reader by force.

DangitBobby 4y ago

Absolutely. There's 0% these employees weren't consenting to fingerprint scans when accessing their paystubs. My question is, if they didn't consent to having their fingerprints collected, how did they have the fingerprint to begin with? I'm not reading anything claiming the employees were held down or that prints were secretly pulled off of surfaces. They very obviously consented. Below are the law in question and the opinion. Dissent is interesting. 1. https://www.ilga.gov/legislation/ilcs/documents/074000140K15.html https://www.ilga.gov/legislation/ilcs/documents/074000140K15... 2. https://ilcourtsaudio.blob.core.windows.net/antilles-resources/resources/e304b011-82d9-4832-9cae-d8205749a2ec/Cothron%20v.%20White%20Castle%20System,%20Inc.,%202023%20IL%20128004.pdf https://ilcourtsaudio.blob.core.windows.net/antilles-resourc...

autoexec 4y ago
My question is what would happen to an employee who refused (as I would) to the collection of their fingerprints. If they'd lose their job, that'd mean they were being subject to coercion and consent was not given.
- DangitBobby 4y ago
  That's not coercion. If an employer can coerce an employee merely by requiring some compliance actions to remain employed, our legal system has a much bigger problems on its hands than this case.
  - autoexec 4y ago
    From the wiki, coercion is distinguished by things like: > the intent, the willingness to cause harm, the result of the interaction, and the options available to the coerced party If the intent is to get people to hand over sensitive data knowingly violating the law and putting people at risk because it makes things easier for the company, I think there's a case to be made that it is coercion. White castle employees aren't exactly known for having a ton of "options available" either. I doubt very many employees have dreamed of working there because of their passion for steamed meats or love for the company. Seems like more of a "when I have zero other options" kind of career move to me.

wpietri 4y ago

>providing your print to begin with without coercion fulfills consent Informed consent? Absolutely not. People here are arguing that the poor white collar employees and execs of White Castle couldn't possibly be expected to understand the nuances of installing fingerprint readers. So how could minimum wage workers, many of them minors, be expected to understand the issues at play?

advisedwang 4y ago

> To do something for years without issue and then sue long after the fact doesn’t feel like justice. Perhaps the person didn't know Illinois had a biometric privacy law? Imagine you're company has been making you do something you hate for years, then you discover it's illegal. You'd absolutely want to sue, and to have lost that right because you waited is unjustified.