9 ms·

Is it legal to deny people employment based on their having worked on projects like this?

btilly 13y ago
What I have been told is that as long as it is not a protected status, you can discriminate on it. Having worked for companies you don't like doing things you don't like is generally not protected, so I personally doubt that you would get into trouble in not hiring from people who were contractors. However there may be exceptions. For example if you do contract work with the federal government then http://www.dol.gov/ofccp/regs/compliance/factsheets/vetrights.htm http://www.dol.gov/ofccp/regs/compliance/factsheets/vetright... applies and you would probably not be allowed to discriminate against veterans who had worked on these projects. If in doubt, as always, hire a lawyer.
tptacek 13y ago
Yes, it absolutely is.
- sneak 13y ago
  Not snark, but how do you figure? I'm curious.
  - patio11 13y ago
    Civilian employees of the federal government are not a protected class. You can deny someone a job in the US for any reason, no matter how capricious, except membership in a protected class. Don't like football? You can refuse to hire someone for having participated once in a football game when they were seven. If you live in an employment-at-will state, you can fire them for watching a football game on their own time at home. You can even fire them for suspicion of watching a football game. For that matter, you can fire them for watching a football game or, in the alternative, not having watched a football game, for failure to complete the labors of Hercules, or for any reason or no reason at all, unless that reason is membership in a protected class.
    - sneak 13y ago
      Oops, I read the top comment as "illegal". You confirmed what I already believed.
bennyg 13y ago
Meet Bob. Bob got a job working on a random system through an NSA subcontractor. After several weeks on the job, and having gone through rigorous training, Bob was starting to feel uneasy with the work requirements and amount of details he knew. Bob had a TopSecret clearance however, and couldn't tell anyone - not even his wife. After a few more weeks, he decided to try his luck at another employer. Bob was damn good too, one of the best in his field - he was guaranteed a job anywhere for competitive pay. Except word got out about Bob's employer - and specifically the subsystems Bob was responsible for implementing. After the negative press, the NSA didn't renew Bob's company's contract which forced said company to let Bob go. That's okay, Bob thought, he had enough experience in the field, right? Everywhere Bob looked was disgusted at his previous job and the moral choices his superiors' superiors made. But they took it out on Bob. Bob was never offered a job anywhere for close to the amount of money and psychological income he had at his former job. Must suck to be Bob.
- crazygringo 13y ago
  Great illustration of a great point.
  - gcb0 13y ago
    I wouldn't hire Bob because he's the kind of person that does not clean up after a mistake, instead try to pretend it is not in his powers and move on to let other people fix it. I would never like a person like this in my team. I would hire bob snowden, or Bob manning though.
    - robryan 13y ago
      What is Bob meant to do in this case? The program certainly isn't going to be shut down because an employee at a contractor has some objections.
      - mhurron 13y ago
        Well Bob didn't feel the need to act on his supposed objections so I guess it wasn't that objectionable to him. Kinda says a lot about Bob. Not that this is a real situation anyway. The majority of the US agree with these programs.
bilbo0s 13y ago
[If it were ILLEGAL], the company doing the hiring would just give a different reason for declining you. "We found a better qualified candidate." or "We decided to go with the internal candidate." or, and this one is ironclad in the case of these sorts of contractors... "We can't meet your salary expectations." This type of government contractor generally makes FAR more than most companies would be willing to pay. In any case, they don't need to tell you that it's because you worked for BAH for instance.
- D9u 13y ago
  In the past I've been told that I'm "over qualified." (completely ridiculous)
  - HelloMcFly 13y ago
    Not if you are actually over-qualified, which makes hiring managers doubt how long you'll stick around.
  - samstave 13y ago
    That could just mean you're too expensive. I went through a few rounds with a company and after they asked me how much I make they were stunned because they wanted to pay someone 40% of what I make for that position.
  - rmc 13y ago
    Makes sense really. Someone over qualified for a job will probably take this job and continue to look for a new job and if they find one quit and move on. You don't want to hire someone only for them to quit in 4 months time.
- rmc 13y ago
  Sure, they can claim that's the reason why they didn't hire you. But if you can show in court that that wasn't their actual reason, and the actual reason for not hiring you was illegal, then yes, you can win.
javert 13y ago
All American technologists are supporting the surveillance state, indirectly but tangibly. Would you ask all of us to give up our careers and skills completely? There is no point in sacrificing yourself when there is nothing to actually be gained by doing so. If somebody could organize a general strike of enough of the civillian workforce (especially engineers) until the NSA is banned, that would be worthwile. If a few of us quit sporadically, there will be no gain; it will just be a loss. So, I wouldn't blame the individual engineers that work in the defense industry and end up contributing to these projects more directly. Nor do I blame the poor folk who end up getting a job screening me at the TSA checkpoint (violating the 4th Amendment is literally their job), though I used to be mad at them. We are all victims. Collective action could accomplish something, but individually, we only each have one life to live; we can't just throw it away for nothing in return.
- MrMan 13y ago
  "GIVE ME LIBERTY, OR, well whatever you've got, I am fine with whatever."
  - javert 13y ago
    I used to be really not know how to handle the fact that the Founding Fathers started a revolution, and I haven't been even trying to start one. I mean, they wouldn't put up with this shit! They rebelled over a freaking stamp tax! Then I realized that my thinking was disconnected from reality. There is a HUGE difference between my situation, and that of the Founding Fathers. They knew that they could win. They were selfish people. They would not have started the Revolution if there had been no chance of actually gaining something and actually winning. We cannot win, at least, not that way. The only way we can probably hope to win is by speaking up and slowly changing the culture. We are far closer to 1984 than the Founding Fathers were.
- sneak 13y ago
  > All American technologists are supporting the surveillance state, indirectly but tangibly. Technically, all American taxpayers are.
kintamanimatt 13y ago
Legalities aside, the way you drain the pro-surveillance companies' talent pool dry is to be more welcoming and enticing than they are. If private businesses started discriminating based on whom qualified candidates worked for before, a whole bunch of people would effectively be forced to return to or stay with the surveillance industry. Your idea has superficial appeal but would backfire in the real world.

What I have been told is that as long as it is not a protected status, you can discriminate on it. Having worked for companies you don't like doing things you don't like is generally not protected, so I personally doubt that you would get into trouble in not hiring from people who were contractors. However there may be exceptions. For example if you do contract work with the federal government then http://www.dol.gov/ofccp/regs/compliance/factsheets/vetrights.htm http://www.dol.gov/ofccp/regs/compliance/factsheets/vetright... applies and you would probably not be allowed to discriminate against veterans who had worked on these projects. If in doubt, as always, hire a lawyer.

tptacek 13y ago

Yes, it absolutely is.

sneak 13y ago
Not snark, but how do you figure? I'm curious.
- patio11 13y ago
  Civilian employees of the federal government are not a protected class. You can deny someone a job in the US for any reason, no matter how capricious, except membership in a protected class. Don't like football? You can refuse to hire someone for having participated once in a football game when they were seven. If you live in an employment-at-will state, you can fire them for watching a football game on their own time at home. You can even fire them for suspicion of watching a football game. For that matter, you can fire them for watching a football game or, in the alternative, not having watched a football game, for failure to complete the labors of Hercules, or for any reason or no reason at all, unless that reason is membership in a protected class.
  - sneak 13y ago
    Oops, I read the top comment as "illegal". You confirmed what I already believed.

bennyg 13y ago

Meet Bob. Bob got a job working on a random system through an NSA subcontractor. After several weeks on the job, and having gone through rigorous training, Bob was starting to feel uneasy with the work requirements and amount of details he knew. Bob had a TopSecret clearance however, and couldn't tell anyone - not even his wife. After a few more weeks, he decided to try his luck at another employer. Bob was damn good too, one of the best in his field - he was guaranteed a job anywhere for competitive pay. Except word got out about Bob's employer - and specifically the subsystems Bob was responsible for implementing. After the negative press, the NSA didn't renew Bob's company's contract which forced said company to let Bob go. That's okay, Bob thought, he had enough experience in the field, right? Everywhere Bob looked was disgusted at his previous job and the moral choices his superiors' superiors made. But they took it out on Bob. Bob was never offered a job anywhere for close to the amount of money and psychological income he had at his former job. Must suck to be Bob.

crazygringo 13y ago
Great illustration of a great point.
- gcb0 13y ago
  I wouldn't hire Bob because he's the kind of person that does not clean up after a mistake, instead try to pretend it is not in his powers and move on to let other people fix it. I would never like a person like this in my team. I would hire bob snowden, or Bob manning though.
  - robryan 13y ago
    What is Bob meant to do in this case? The program certainly isn't going to be shut down because an employee at a contractor has some objections.
    - mhurron 13y ago
      Well Bob didn't feel the need to act on his supposed objections so I guess it wasn't that objectionable to him. Kinda says a lot about Bob. Not that this is a real situation anyway. The majority of the US agree with these programs.

bilbo0s 13y ago

[If it were ILLEGAL], the company doing the hiring would just give a different reason for declining you. "We found a better qualified candidate." or "We decided to go with the internal candidate." or, and this one is ironclad in the case of these sorts of contractors... "We can't meet your salary expectations." This type of government contractor generally makes FAR more than most companies would be willing to pay. In any case, they don't need to tell you that it's because you worked for BAH for instance.

D9u 13y ago
In the past I've been told that I'm "over qualified." (completely ridiculous)
- HelloMcFly 13y ago
  Not if you are actually over-qualified, which makes hiring managers doubt how long you'll stick around.
- samstave 13y ago
  That could just mean you're too expensive. I went through a few rounds with a company and after they asked me how much I make they were stunned because they wanted to pay someone 40% of what I make for that position.
- rmc 13y ago
  Makes sense really. Someone over qualified for a job will probably take this job and continue to look for a new job and if they find one quit and move on. You don't want to hire someone only for them to quit in 4 months time.
rmc 13y ago
Sure, they can claim that's the reason why they didn't hire you. But if you can show in court that that wasn't their actual reason, and the actual reason for not hiring you was illegal, then yes, you can win.

javert 13y ago

All American technologists are supporting the surveillance state, indirectly but tangibly. Would you ask all of us to give up our careers and skills completely? There is no point in sacrificing yourself when there is nothing to actually be gained by doing so. If somebody could organize a general strike of enough of the civillian workforce (especially engineers) until the NSA is banned, that would be worthwile. If a few of us quit sporadically, there will be no gain; it will just be a loss. So, I wouldn't blame the individual engineers that work in the defense industry and end up contributing to these projects more directly. Nor do I blame the poor folk who end up getting a job screening me at the TSA checkpoint (violating the 4th Amendment is literally their job), though I used to be mad at them. We are all victims. Collective action could accomplish something, but individually, we only each have one life to live; we can't just throw it away for nothing in return.

MrMan 13y ago
"GIVE ME LIBERTY, OR, well whatever you've got, I am fine with whatever."
- javert 13y ago
  I used to be really not know how to handle the fact that the Founding Fathers started a revolution, and I haven't been even trying to start one. I mean, they wouldn't put up with this shit! They rebelled over a freaking stamp tax! Then I realized that my thinking was disconnected from reality. There is a HUGE difference between my situation, and that of the Founding Fathers. They knew that they could win. They were selfish people. They would not have started the Revolution if there had been no chance of actually gaining something and actually winning. We cannot win, at least, not that way. The only way we can probably hope to win is by speaking up and slowly changing the culture. We are far closer to 1984 than the Founding Fathers were.
sneak 13y ago
> All American technologists are supporting the surveillance state, indirectly but tangibly. Technically, all American taxpayers are.

kintamanimatt 13y ago

Legalities aside, the way you drain the pro-surveillance companies' talent pool dry is to be more welcoming and enticing than they are. If private businesses started discriminating based on whom qualified candidates worked for before, a whole bunch of people would effectively be forced to return to or stay with the surveillance industry. Your idea has superficial appeal but would backfire in the real world.