I'm not sure the scans are the equivalent of grayscale skeletons. For one thing, that wouldn't be very useful to pick up dangerous materials. Also they would be extremely dangerous for people to get them regularly (there is a reason your dental aid always leaves the room before taking the x-ray of your teeth).
I think these are examples of typical scans.
They are not particularly detailed, but they do not appear to be skeletons either.
I'm not sure the scans are the equivalent of grayscale skeletons. For one thing, that wouldn't be very useful to pick up dangerous materials. Also they would be extremely dangerous for people to get them regularly (there is a reason your dental aid always leaves the room before taking the x-ray of your teeth).
I think these are examples of typical scans.
They are not particularly detailed, but they do not appear to be skeletons either.
Good article. Funny how the government gets to ignore the safety regulations it imposes on everyone else.
TSA Outrage: Tennessee Woman Arrested For Protesting TSA Grope of Her Daughter July 13, 2011Reading the article, it appears that TSA did not actually touch the daughter at all -- if I understand it correctly, the woman refused to go through the scanner (and wouldn't allow her daughter to do so) and then started yelling "I won't let you take naked scans of us or grope my daughter's crotch!" No TSA officer touched the daughter, inappropriately or otherwise.
1. Has anyone seen the scans? X-ray scans do NOT look like Playboy spreads, unless you're into grayscale skeletons.
2. If you're afraid of someone seeing your skeleton, you can opt for the pat-down (I wouldn't, but hey, whatever). I'm sure there are TSA agents who go too far. I'm equally sure that it's not realistic to assume that all of them will.
All that said, I personally don't feel the "heightened security" is doing a whole hell of a lot. I'm against it. But I'm just as much against the blatant lies and misrepresentations that people make about it. I know it's sort of expected now that everyone lies and misrepresents everything, but I'd prefer to work towards reversing that trend, rather than accelerating it.
I believe the child and mother were both groped, but I'll need to double check.
1. I think the scans are a virtual strip search at best and kiddie porn at worst.
2. I doubt that every single TSA agent is a child molester too, but I doubt that is comforting to the children who are molested at tax payer expense. It seems like a bad way to spend tens of billions of dollars.
I would agree that the TSA is an epic failure. Its behavior will get worse as it tries to justify its continued budget and existence much like the ATF. DHS seems to be one of the most massive, invasive, corrupt, and incompetent bureaucracies in government.
2. I doubt that every single TSA agent is a child molester too,
Seriously? The way you phrase that sounds like you wouldn't be surprised if they all were, but there might be some exceptions?
What do you think? 95%? 90%?
I'd say maybe 1% at most.
I don't know. I worked at the airport for 2.5 years and those TSA agents were some weird dudes...
2. I doubt that every single TSA agent is a child molester too,
Seriously? The way you phrase that sounds like you wouldn't be surprised if they all were, but there might be some exceptions?
What do you think? 95%? 90%?
I'd say maybe 1% at most. Actual child molesters are rare. Most TSA employees started long before this policy and had nothing to do with creating it. Most probably find the whole process as stupid and demeaning as any of us, but it's a job and the economy is lousy.Sadly I wouldn't be surprised if more perverts did join TSA, given these silly rules.
I do agree that this, like much of the airport security, is pointless. It's security theater intended to reassure people not to actually make anything safer.
I'm not trying to be obtuse, but I have no idea why you would infer this. See Kirth's #2 and my #2. The point is that
A. I never said that all agents would go too far.
B. The percentage of offenders probably won't mean much to the victims and their families.
If you have the opportunity to watch the House TSA committee hearings I recommend it. I also believe that 25,000 documented security breaches is only a fraction of the actual number.
I agree that most of what the TSA and DHS are doing is theater, but I think there may be more to the systematic public humiliation of people in the US than just theater. I'm amazed and saddened by how many Americans are willing to tolerate this.
All of this is a classic example of how government, especially at the federal level, works.
I think the scans are a virtual strip search at best and kiddie porn at worst.
Not seeing it at all. Looking at Pres Man's examples, it's sort of hard to tell they're human. Then again, maybe your idea of "strip searches" and "porn" are a LOT different than mine, which wouldn't at all surprise me -- it seems that what constites "porn" is something that no two people ever agree on. The old canard of "I can't define porn, but I know it when I see it" leads to fun examples like my mother, who, upon seeing a Sports Illustrated swimsuit issue, remarked (with great indignity) "This is hard-core pornography!"
Yes, I think the scans are a pointless waste of time and resources; I just don't agree that sparking a moral panic (a la "D&D is Satanism!") is the right way to combat them. Eager use of extremely hot-button terms like "kiddie porn," geared to provoke an immediate and violent knee-jerk reaction, might get a lot of people to oppose the TSA scans in the short term. In the long run, though, sooner or later the use of those terms to describe "anything I disagree with" will inevitably lead to desensitization to the actual thing -- not at all a desirable goal.
I guess I presume that because I would not make the inference that others would not either. I'm not trying to make the case that that the TSA is a secret den of pedophiles. I'm not even suggesting that the groping policy and execution have generally lascivious motives. I am saying it's invasive and harmful especially to small children.
I'm got arguing that the percentage of agents who do their job poorly doesn't matter. I think it matters a great deal as a matter of policy. I know a lot of them aren't doing their jobs very well from personal experience and from friends in the field, but I'm not privy to some body of data that gives me a detailed analysis. Clearly some agents give others a bad name, but I think the organization has serious leadership, cultural, and policy failings that go back even before 9-11.
It's much like my criticisms of law enforcement, education, corrections, regulators and so forth. I try not to judge everyone in those fields even though those fields have huge failings. I don't think it adds to the conversation to say, "ALL corrections officers suck!", but I certainly think our penal system is an abomination. Some people in the system have done unspeakably evil things, but I try hard to avoid accusing everyone in the system.
Somewhere in the archives there is a thread about aviation security where I go into great detail about many of these failings.
EDIT: @ Jeff; Kirth ninja'ed me. I thought this post would have appeared directly under yours. ;)
I am saying it's invasive and harmful especially to small children.
This leads to a larger issue than the TSA, and one that we can't blame entirely on the government. Personally, I believe the use of "protecting the children" to push through almost any agenda, however tangentially related to them, will ultimately be more harmful to children than any of the things we're trying to ban by using it. Backlash and desensitization are both potentially powerful social forces. I would not like to see a day -- which I think is being hastened -- in which someone says "it's dangerous to children," and the immediate reaction of 99% of the audience is "Oh, this guy's full of it; he's just trying to get me to agree with some kind of pet project."
I think the scans are a virtual strip search at best and kiddie porn at worst.Not seeing it at all. Looking at Pres Man's examples, it's sort of hard to tell they're human. Then again, maybe your idea of "strip searches" and "porn" are a LOT different than mine -- what constites "porn" is something that no two people agree on; the old canard of "I can't define porn, but I know it when I see it" leads to fun examples like my mother, who, upon seeing a Sports Illustrated swimsuit issue, remarked (with great indignity) "This is hard-core pornography!"
LOL. Fair point. Let me clarify my reference to kiddie porn. I didn't mean to suggest that there is some underground market for these images or that the TSA agents are using them that way.
I was thinking of instances where parents get accused of possessing kiddie porn for having pictures of toddlers playing in the bathtub or something equally absurd. In the back of my head I'm thinking of those absurdly overzealous prosecutions and these images.
My statement didn't confer this idea at all, so I imagine it just came off as bomb throwing.
I think the TSA's policy and execution is unconstitutional and dehumanizing, but I have no evidence that TSA agents are using federal government assets to manufacture actual child pornography.
My use of the term kiddie porn without providing context was a poor phrasing choice for making my argument.
[My use of the term kiddie porn without providing context was a poor phrasing choice for making my argument.
In your defense, similar use of the term is increasingly common; see my post just above. Andrew Vachss has a lot of thought-provoking stuff to say on this issue, and I like his definition the best:
Q: "How do you define 'child pornography'?"A: "Evidence of a crime."
I'm not trying to make the case that that the TSA is a secret den of pedophiles.
I don't know, some of the guys at Logan were pretty borderline...
I am saying it's invasive and harmful especially to small children.This leads to a larger issue than the TSA, and one that we can't blame entirely on the government. Personally, I believe the use of "protecting the children" to push through almost any agenda, however tangentially related to them, will ultimately be more harmful to children than any of the things we're trying to ban by using it. Backlash and desensitization are both potentially powerful social forces. I would not like to see a day -- which I think is being hastened -- in which someone says "it's dangerous to children," and the immediate reaction of 99% of the audience is "Oh, this guy's full of it; he's just trying to get me to agree with some kind of pet project."
I think we are getting there very rapidly. I'm more cynical and skeptical than most, but I have become extremely dubious of anything that sounds even remotely like many of the fear mongering slogans that drive policy.
"It's a matter of national security!" and "Think of the children!" are probably at the top of the list.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think we are getting there very rapidly. I'm more cynical and skeptical than most, but I have become extremely dubious of anything that sounds even remotely like many of the fear mongering slogans that drive policy.
"It's a matter of national security!" and "Think of the children!" are probably at the top of the list.
Like the "Protecting Children from Internet Pornographers Act of 2011"?. Which basically only entails forcing service providers to keep all your web surfing records for 18 months. Nope, nothing nefarious could be done with those.
I think we are getting there very rapidly. I'm more cynical and skeptical than most, but I have become extremely dubious of anything that sounds even remotely like many of the fear mongering slogans that drive policy.
"It's a matter of national security!" and "Think of the children!" are probably at the top of the list.
Like the "Protecting Children from Internet Pornographers Act of 2011"?. Which basically only entails forcing service providers to keep all your web surfing records for 18 months. Nope, nothing nefarious could be done with those.
This makes me think of the national sex offenders data base. It was a great idea that the government screwed up. I'm reminded of a lady who was doing her post graduate work in education to become a teacher. She got a misdemeanor ticket (indecent exposure) for flashing her boobs at a sorority party. She paid the ticket and didn't think anything of it until she found out she couldn't teach because she was a registered sex offender.
Only from what I am understanding, this was never that great of an idea. They tried to get Internet Providers to keep detailed records before,(since third party records are not subject to fourth amendment, as you noted earlier.)but the providers lobbied against it. So they give it a "protecting kids" name to increase the likelihood that it will pass. After all it would be career suicide to vote for "internet pornographers" I'll try to find a better link.
Only from what I am understanding, this was never that great of an idea. They tried to get Internet Providers to keep detailed records before,(since third party records are not subject to fourth amendment, as you noted earlier.)but the providers lobbied against it. So they give it a "protecting kids" name to increase the likelihood that it will pass. After all it would be career suicide to vote for "internet pornographers" I'll try to find a better link.
By great idea I was referring to a national sex offenders date base. Many years ago public schools, day cares, etc. only got state results for the most part when they ran a background check. The result was that serious predators learned to jump from state to state so they could still work with children and not show up on the background checks.
It was a great common sense idea that has turned into a bureaucratic train wreck.
There are far too many guys who can't get a job that requires a background check because they are registered sex offenders for taking a leak in their own backyards after a few too many beers. (indecent exposure)
Great idea; stupid execution!
Better link found
Wow! Just wow!
Yeah, there's just been too much crap surrounding it. I remember reading about guys with "homosexuality" charges from, say, the fifties, finding their names on the list, and, of course, there was that guy in Maine who was murdered by vigilantes for being on the list when his only "crime" was being a year above the age of consent and sleeping with his girlfriend when she was a year under (or something like that).
Yeah, there's just been too much crap surrounding it. I remember reading about guys with "homosexuality" charges from, say, the fifties, finding their names on the list, and, of course, there was that guy in Maine who was murdered by vigilantes for being on the list when his only "crime" was being a year above the age of consent and sleeping with his girlfriend when she was a year under (or something like that).
Great idea; stupid execution!
Victimless crimes are a dumb idea.
If some pervert is flashing 4th graders I have no sympathy. If some drunk soldier pees on a dumpster while walking back to the barracks at two in the morning so he (or she) didn't drive drunk who is the victim and why should he (or she) be in the national sex offenders data base?
Tracking sex offenders across state lines = good idea.
Criminalizing a 22 year old girl who flashes her boobs = stupid! (see above)
EDIT: I don't think I can say t*$%.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I don't know, I think if we believe that someone should still be punished, then we should keep them in jail. Make the sentences harsher if you believe you must protect others. But once someone has done their time and paid their debt to society, to force them to continue to be punished is messed up.
Only from what I am understanding, this was never that great of an idea. They tried to get Internet Providers to keep detailed records before,(since third party records are not subject to fourth amendment, as you noted earlier.)but the providers lobbied against it. So they give it a "protecting kids" name to increase the likelihood that it will pass. After all it would be career suicide to vote for "internet pornographers" I'll try to find a better link.By great idea I was referring to a national sex offenders date base. Many years ago public schools, day cares, etc. only got state results for the most part when they ran a background check. The result was that serious predators learned to jump from state to state so they could still work with children and not show up on the background checks.
It was a great common sense idea that has turned into a bureaucratic train wreck.
There are far too many guys who can't get a job that requires a background check because they are registered sex offenders for taking a leak in their own backyards after a few too many beers. (indecent exposure)
Great idea; stupid execution!
People both in and out of government have been working to get the kinks out of this system for years. Unfortunately I don't see them making much progress. Common sense ideas are rarely good ones when backed up by law and enforced en masse. Also, regarding the bold, sometimes things go wrong when criminals aren't as dumb as we would like them to be.
I don't know, I think if we believe that someone should still be punished, then we should keep them in jail. Make the sentences harsher if you believe you must protect others. But once someone has done their time and paid their debt to society, to force them to continue to be punished is messed up.
Yup. I have a real problem with someone never being able to vote again for the rest of their lives for getting caught with some pot in the '60's. Then there is the whole self defense issue, and getting a job that might pay the bills.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
... and getting a job that might pay the bills.
And that's how we know that prisons are not meant to rehabilitate: because the system is set up so as to make recidivism practically mandatory. Once someone is convicted of a crime, their only ability to make a living upon release is by committing more crimes. Effing brilliant.
People both in and out of government have been working to get the kinks out of this system for years. Unfortunately I don't see them making much progress. Common sense ideas are rarely good ones when backed up by law and enforced en masse. Also, regarding the bold, sometimes things go wrong when criminals aren't as dumb as we would like them to be.Only from what I am understanding, this was never that great of an idea. They tried to get Internet Providers to keep detailed records before,(since third party records are not subject to fourth amendment, as you noted earlier.)but the providers lobbied against it. So they give it a "protecting kids" name to increase the likelihood that it will pass. After all it would be career suicide to vote for "internet pornographers" I'll try to find a better link.By great idea I was referring to a national sex offenders date base. Many years ago public schools, day cares, etc. only got state results for the most part when they ran a background check. The result was that serious predators learned to jump from state to state so they could still work with children and not show up on the background checks.
It was a great common sense idea that has turned into a bureaucratic train wreck.
There are far too many guys who can't get a job that requires a background check because they are registered sex offenders for taking a leak in their own backyards after a few too many beers. (indecent exposure)
Great idea; stupid execution!
"Common sense ideas are rarely good ones when backed up by law and enforced en masse." :D
... and getting a job that might pay the bills.And that's how we know that prisons are not meant to rehabilitate: because the system is set up so as to make recidivism practically mandatory. Once someone is convicted of a crime, their only ability to make a living upon release is by committing more crimes. Effing brilliant.
Strange. I thought many companies were encouraged by the government to hire people who were convicted of crimes for at least a handful of positions- low paying, yes, but they are still jobs. Actually I'd like more input on this- anybody have any information on this?
"Common sense ideas are rarely good ones when backed up by law and enforced en masse." :DPeople both in and out of government have been working to get the kinks out of this system for years. Unfortunately I don't see them making much progress. Common sense ideas are rarely good ones when backed up by law and enforced en masse. Also, regarding the bold, sometimes things go wrong when criminals aren't as dumb as we would like them to be.Only from what I am understanding, this was never that great of an idea. They tried to get Internet Providers to keep detailed records before,(since third party records are not subject to fourth amendment, as you noted earlier.)but the providers lobbied against it. So they give it a "protecting kids" name to increase the likelihood that it will pass. After all it would be career suicide to vote for "internet pornographers" I'll try to find a better link.By great idea I was referring to a national sex offenders date base. Many years ago public schools, day cares, etc. only got state results for the most part when they ran a background check. The result was that serious predators learned to jump from state to state so they could still work with children and not show up on the background checks.
It was a great common sense idea that has turned into a bureaucratic train wreck.
There are far too many guys who can't get a job that requires a background check because they are registered sex offenders for taking a leak in their own backyards after a few too many beers. (indecent exposure)
Great idea; stupid execution!
Yeah, I said it. Common sense does a very, very bad job of allowing for exceptions, and when backed up by something as inflexible as the law and enforced across a broad spectrum, things go wrong.
|
Yeah, I said it. Common sense does a very, very bad job of allowing for exceptions, and when backed up by something as inflexible as the law and enforced across a broad spectrum, things go wrong."Common sense ideas are rarely good ones when backed up by law and enforced en masse." :DPeople both in and out of government have been working to get the kinks out of this system for years. Unfortunately I don't see them making much progress. Common sense ideas are rarely good ones when backed up by law and enforced en masse. Also, regarding the bold, sometimes things go wrong when criminals aren't as dumb as we would like them to be.Only from what I am understanding, this was never that great of an idea. They tried to get Internet Providers to keep detailed records before,(since third party records are not subject to fourth amendment, as you noted earlier.)but the providers lobbied against it. So they give it a "protecting kids" name to increase the likelihood that it will pass. After all it would be career suicide to vote for "internet pornographers" I'll try to find a better link.By great idea I was referring to a national sex offenders date base. Many years ago public schools, day cares, etc. only got state results for the most part when they ran a background check. The result was that serious predators learned to jump from state to state so they could still work with children and not show up on the background checks.
It was a great common sense idea that has turned into a bureaucratic train wreck.
There are far too many guys who can't get a job that requires a background check because they are registered sex offenders for taking a leak in their own backyards after a few too many beers. (indecent exposure)
Great idea; stupid execution!
Common Sense equates to prudence and sound judgment without having to rely on study and research. From that I would assume that common sense would be what would actually allow for said exceptions, that way the law is not some Draconian monster, or in gamer parlance the Law does not mean Lawful Neutral bordering on Lawful Evil.
Or it could be I am just reading this wrong.
Common Sense equates to...Yeah, I said it. Common sense does a very, very bad job of allowing for exceptions, and when backed up by something as inflexible as the law and enforced across a broad spectrum, things go wrong."Common sense ideas are rarely good ones when backed up by law and enforced en masse." :DPeople both in and out of government have been working to get the kinks out of this system for years. Unfortunately I don't see them making much progress. Common sense ideas are rarely good ones when backed up by law and enforced en masse. Also, regarding the bold, sometimes things go wrong when criminals aren't as dumb as we would like them to be.Only from what I am understanding, this was never that great of an idea. They tried to get Internet Providers to keep detailed records before,(since third party records are not subject to fourth amendment, as you noted earlier.)but the providers lobbied against it. So they give it a "protecting kids" name to increase the likelihood that it will pass. After all it would be career suicide to vote for "internet pornographers" I'll try to find a better link.By great idea I was referring to a national sex offenders date base. Many years ago public schools, day cares, etc. only got state results for the most part when they ran a background check. The result was that serious predators learned to jump from state to state so they could still work with children and not show up on the background checks.
It was a great common sense idea that has turned into a bureaucratic train wreck.
There are far too many guys who can't get a job that requires a background check because they are registered sex offenders for taking a leak in their own backyards after a few too many beers. (indecent exposure)
Great idea; stupid execution!
Things fall apart because what you may be willing to dismiss, I might take exception to. Common sense really isn't that common, not because everyone is an idiot, but because different things get people's panties in a bunch.
|
|
Things fall apart because what you may be willing to dismiss, I might take exception to. Common sense really isn't that common, not because everyone is an idiot, but because different things get people's panties in a bunch.
Too true, which has always been my issue with the current legal structure. It has been legislated, in my meager opinion, into ineptitude. Instead of allowing leeway to Judges to make decisions many regions give mandatory sentencing for specific crimes. This means, as far as I am concerned, no chance for exceptions or the use of any common sense. Because people's panties were in a bunch, many legislators to appeal to their constitutes have put laws into effect, once again my opinion, that hamstrings our judicial system.
Strange. I thought many companies were encouraged by the government to hire people who were convicted of crimes for at least a handful of positions- low paying, yes, but they are still jobs. Actually I'd like more input on this- anybody have any information on this?
1. "Handful of positions" - How many jobs vs. how many ex-cons trying to fill them?
2. "Low paying" - above poverty?"Hey, Spike, I need you to work 17 hours of unpaid overtime this weekend, in hazardous conditions, without sleep."
"Uh, Boss, that's suicidal."
"Want to look for another job? Good luck!"
"I could report you to OSHA..."
"And I could say you're threatening me and put you back in the slammer."
That smacks of slavery to me.
|
|
Strange. I thought many companies were encouraged by the government to hire people who were convicted of crimes for at least a handful of positions- low paying, yes, but they are still jobs. Actually I'd like more input on this- anybody have any information on this?1. "Handful of positions" - How many jobs vs. how many ex-cons trying to fill them?
2. "Low paying" - above poverty?
"Hey, Spike, I need you to work 17 hours of unpaid overtime this weekend, in hazardous conditions, without sleep."
"Uh, Boss, that's suicidal."
"Want to look for another job? Good luck!"
"I could report you to OSHA..."
"And I could say you're threatening me and put you back in the slammer."That smacks of slavery to me.
*cough* Strawman *cough*
*cough* Strawman *cough*Strange. I thought many companies were encouraged by the government to hire people who were convicted of crimes for at least a handful of positions- low paying, yes, but they are still jobs. Actually I'd like more input on this- anybody have any information on this?1. "Handful of positions" - How many jobs vs. how many ex-cons trying to fill them?
2. "Low paying" - above poverty?
"Hey, Spike, I need you to work 17 hours of unpaid overtime this weekend, in hazardous conditions, without sleep."
"Uh, Boss, that's suicidal."
"Want to look for another job? Good luck!"
"I could report you to OSHA..."
"And I could say you're threatening me and put you back in the slammer."That smacks of slavery to me.
Agreed.
*cough* Strawman *cough*
Please explain -- it seemed like a very logical progression to me.
Step 1 - set up a limited pool of jobs that ex-cons can actually have, knowing their records will prevent them from finding employment elsewhere.
Step 2 - ex-con must do anything to keep said job.
Are you saying the argument was that these jobs are plentiful? I'd point to "at least a handful" stated in the initial premise. Starting from FDM's statement, one can look at incarceration rates in the U.S. (currently close to 1% of the adult population, and very few life sentences). That's a LOT of ex-cons being released and looking for work. Actual fact; not making stuff up.
Or is the argument that my scenario is ridiculous, because the assumption is that no one would ever exploit workers?
Or what? Please tell me where I'm going wrong. I'm not trying to pull anything clever here, just stating how the situation looks to me.
*cough* Strawman *cough*Please explain -- it seemed like a logical progression to me.
Step 1 - set up a limited pool of jobs that ex-cons can actually have, knowing their records will prevent them from finding employment elsewhere.
Step 2 - ex-con must do anything to keep said job.Are you saying the argument was that these jobs are plentiful? I'd point to "at least a handful."
Or is the argument that my scenario is ridiculous, because the assumption is that no one would ever exploit workers?
Or what? Please tell me where I'm going wrong.
It's in the last two lines of your above situation and Step 2 of your most recent post. OSHA is no joke, and people who are hired by whatever entity hires them post prison DO have the right to complain if they feel they are being violated. In my VERY limited understanding, they are hired under a contract that gives very clear stipulations regarding how said people are to be treated on the job. They *should* be able to call HR just as readily as anyone else.
them post prison DO have the right to complain if they feel they are being violated. In my VERY limited understanding, they are hired under a contract that gives very clear stipulations regarding how said people are to be treated on the job. They *should* be able to call HR just as readily as anyone else.
Do you really think people would blow the whistle if they knew it meant they would be permanently unemployed thereafter? I'd point at BP as a good example of people with much better prospects, consistently and company-wide, refusing to report blatant safety violations, for fear of loss of employment. That's a VERY real situation, not make-believe.
Or is your claim that these positions are being constantly monitored and audited by the government (if so, I missed that part).
|
|
*cough* Strawman *cough*Please explain -- it seemed like a very logical progression to me.
Step 1 - set up a limited pool of jobs that ex-cons can actually have, knowing their records will prevent them from finding employment elsewhere.
Step 2 - ex-con must do anything to keep said job.Are you saying the argument was that these jobs are plentiful? I'd point to "at least a handful" stated in the initial premise. Starting from FDM's statement, one can look at incarceration rates in the U.S. (currently close to 1% of the adult population, and very few life sentences). That's a LOT of ex-cons being released and looking for work. Actual fact; not making stuff up.
Or is the argument that my scenario is ridiculous, because the assumption is that no one would ever exploit workers?
Or what? Please tell me where I'm going wrong. I'm not trying to pull anything clever here, just stating how the situation looks to me.
Step 1 I find not only that I agree with you but is more likely than not.
Step 2 is extreme. "Must do anything to keep job," I find in my limited experience, to be a fallacy. A rewording I could agree with would be more on line with "Must be more careful and work harder than a non ex-con for the same or even a lower paid job in many places"The scenario is specifically what I was calling out, OSHA violations are regulated in most areas very well. Most larger companies, the ones in my experience who can afford to take on an ex-con are stringent in their application of HR policies.
them post prison DO have the right to complain if they feel they are being violated. In my VERY limited understanding, they are hired under a contract that gives very clear stipulations regarding how said people are to be treated on the job. They *should* be able to call HR just as readily as anyone else.Do you really think people would blow the whistle if they knew it meant they would be permanently unemployed thereafter? I'd point at BP as a good example of people with much better prospects, consistently and company-wide, refusing to report blatant safety violations, for fear of loss of employment. That's a VERY real situation, not make-believe.
Or is your claim that these positions are being constantly monitored and audited by the government (if so, I missed that part).
If it's in the ex-cons own best interest to actively abet a breach of contract -- even when that breach is dangerous and unfair to him -- then the contract itself is only so much paper.
|
|
them post prison DO have the right to complain if they feel they are being violated. In my VERY limited understanding, they are hired under a contract that gives very clear stipulations regarding how said people are to be treated on the job. They *should* be able to call HR just as readily as anyone else.Do you really think people would blow the whistle if they knew it meant they would be permanently unemployed thereafter? I'd point at BP as a good example of people with much better prospects, consistently and company-wide, refusing to report blatant safety violations, for fear of loss of employment. That's a VERY real situation, not make-believe.
Or is your claim that these positions are being constantly monitored and audited by the government (if so, I missed that part).
Depends on the situation. The one you outlined, yes I feel most people would in fact "blow the whistle" rather than be forced into slavery. At that point honestly what would they have to loose?
Depends on the situation. The one you outlined, yes I feel most people would in fact "blow the whistle" rather than be forced into slavery. At that point honestly what would they have to loose?
Their only chance at avoiding returning to prison? A lot of people would rather be slaves than rape-meat.
Keep in mind the guy has only 3 options: (1) keep that job, no matter what the cost; (2) turn back to crime instead to feed himself, and ultimately end up back Inside; or (3) starve. He can't just go find another job, because criminal background checks prevent him from being employed almost anywhere in the world. Option (1) would have to be indescribably horrific not to be far preferrable to (2) and (3). The extreme situation I outlined might tip the scale, but that leaves an awful lot of space in between.
We can just assume that the employer in question is one of the "good guys" that you claim to have experience with, but what's to keep out the bad apples? It seems like a situation tailor-made for abuse.
Strawman: Inventing a fictitious persona with actions or beliefs which are then criticized, implying that the person represents a group of whom the speaker is critical.
Strawman (more commonly): A word thrown out as an attempted "instant-win" button to an argument, without bothering to make a counterargument or actually point out any actual holes in logic.
Like I said, I was arguing in good faith; immediately assuming mendacity on my part is insulting and uncalled-for. Compounding that by pretending like I don't know the actual definition (vs. not seeing how you're assuming that's what I'm doing) is even worse. If my logic goes astray, you do me a favor by pointing out exactly where, rather than simply making snide remarks.
Agreed.*cough* Strawman *cough*Strange. I thought many companies were encouraged by the government to hire people who were convicted of crimes for at least a handful of positions- low paying, yes, but they are still jobs. Actually I'd like more input on this- anybody have any information on this?1. "Handful of positions" - How many jobs vs. how many ex-cons trying to fill them?
2. "Low paying" - above poverty?
"Hey, Spike, I need you to work 17 hours of unpaid overtime this weekend, in hazardous conditions, without sleep."
"Uh, Boss, that's suicidal."
"Want to look for another job? Good luck!"
"I could report you to OSHA..."
"And I could say you're threatening me and put you back in the slammer."That smacks of slavery to me.
In terms of the scenario Kirth spells out in quotes this is a common occurrence.
I work with a lot of convicted felons, but I think a lot of that is because hazardous construction seems to be one of few fields where cons can get a fair shake. Of course most ex cons, like most people, can't handle the demands of jobs where you climb 27 stories up a ladder cage just to start your work day.
Trade unions help too. The Iron Workers unions and Painters unions have a lot of experience standing up for members who are ex-cons. Ex-cons seem to be disproportionately represented in high steel and other hazardous work.
That said there is still a lot of exploitation of ex-cons. Some employers deliberately choose to hire ex-cons specifically because they are vulnerable to exploitation.
I really don't see how this is a strawman.
I think I have to agree with basically everything Kirth has posted on this issue.
I've known guys who have been able to rebuild a good life after getting out, but as far as I can recall they all work in high risk construction fields.
|
|
Strawman: Inventing a fictitious persona with actions or beliefs which are then criticized, implying that the person represents a group of whom the speaker is critical.Strawman (more commonly): A word thrown out as an attempted "instant-win" button to an argument, without bothering to make a counterargument or actually point out any actual holes in logic.
Like I said, I was arguing in good faith; immediately assuming mendacity on my part is insulting and uncalled-for. Compounding that by pretending like I don't know the actual definition (vs. not seeing how you're assuming that's what I'm doing) is even worse. If my logic goes astray, you do me a favor by pointing out exactly where, rather than simply making snide remarks.
Mendacity? When did I say you lied? I merely pointed out that in my opinion, the extremist example was by far a poor one. I still believe so. BT disagrees with me. You do as well. Fine. I still say it was poor logic and a worse example and having chatted with you here on the boards for this long I expected different.
|
|
I think I have to agree with basically everything Kirth has posted on this issue.
I've known guys who have been able to rebuild a good life after getting out, but as far as I can recall they all work in high risk construction fields.
Construction jobs tend to favor open employment for sometimes less than skilled workers. This does not mean the boss will expect the workers to go clean the dynamite, so to speak.