I have had pre-screening HR people call me and tell me off because they said they checked my degree and some places that I work do not exist.  My degree is under my maiden name and some of the places I have worked at are no longer in business.  Usually I could discuss this in an interview but people don't even give me that chance.  Even some places where I have worked, it was years ago and no one there remembers me.  They just call up and ask to speak to anyone, not just people given as references.  So if they talk to the boss or co-worker who harassed and bullied me, am I supposed to get a job for that?

I registered with one nanny agency that asked me for much personal information and ID they needed to do a police check.  This woman called me and said there was a problem.  I know I have never had a problem with the police.  I told her to send me the report.  She won't.  Probably she was lying and never did a check.  

I talked to the police and they told me that when a report is being done, the person will receive a letter from the police telling them it is being done  and they have to sign a consent form first.  

One of the problems is that if someone had the police stop them and ask for their name because they were walking around looking "suspicious" -- it could be recorded on their report.  This is stupid.  I look suspicious walking around most of the time but really I am not breaking any laws or doing anything wrong.  How many other people with autism are affected by this?

I know one man who was given a ticket for "loitering" because he was sitting on a bench in front of a school on a sunday for five minutes.  He was not doing anything wrong.  It was only because of his race and the prejudice of the police officer.  This affected him getting his citizenship.  

I am so sick of needing all these "courses" and "certificates" for event the most basic jobs.   I can't afford to get them and then not get any work because I don't have "experience" or "work references".

Actually the weirdest job application story happened to me.  I applied to a newspaper ad for a childcare agency.  This person called me and said they wanted to let them alone with the children.  I asked why.  They said they had been in jail for molesting and that they were on parole.  I told them to get lost.  Later the police called me and said this person was put back in jail and asked me why he had my application.  Then they told me that I should not give out my name and phone number to strangers.  I asked them how the hell was I supposed to get a job then?    so now is my name in the police computer concerning this?  I didn't do anything wrong.

"ATM PANOPTICON is here.  What can we do about it?"

ATM's response:  That is almost a separate question from the issue of workplace rights, even though the two are related on a deeper level. As for workplace rights, I do not have the solution, which is why I am asking for a broad-based democratic conversation.

As for privacy rights in general, against employers, governments, religious institutions, Universities (et al), I am caught between three basic solutions.  All of them are non-violent, because they have to be.  Any solution requiring violence would lead to total repression, I mean, TOTAL repression.  So, here are the only three solutions that I could possibly see...

A)A voting boycott.  No participation in a political process that legitimate repression in the name of democracy.  Such are tactics used by democracy activists in the Third World whenever elections are rigged.  It can also be used when there is no real choice in the major political parties, as is the case in the Anglo-Saxon countries.  The voting boycott would end when certain key demands are met (end to cameras, et al), and would not continue indefinitely.

B)The other possibility might be a new political party centered primarily around privacy.  It would unify libertarians on the right and democrats on the left, all around a common ground.  The problem with this one is that it is easily predictable, and relies on electoral politics which does not seem to lead to freedom as much as it used to in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries.

C)Collective jamming of the system for all non-criminal background checks.  In other words, a leaderless resistance around all background checks not related to criminal matters, or matters of misconduct around children, or matters of having hurt someone et al.  We could play creative games with all matters not related to education or past employment that relates to the job. It would also be discouraged for government jobs, of course, or any matter related to perjury.  

Where you worked twenty years ago, in unrelated job, would be answered very creatively by a massive number of people. For instance; you could all say that you worked at AFF corporation.  We could then enter a name that would register.  The employer would then come across a thread like this, with a definite social message.  The purpose would NOT be to deceive, but to jam the system.  The joke would be revealed, but then repeated by massive numbers of people as a social protest.  This is one possibility.  With all of the creativity here, there might be others.  

As for where you went to school, one could give the correct answer.  However, if you did not do so well in school, then you could get a letter of recommendation from a local hippie, artist, homeless person, visionary philosopher, or religious nut.  You could have the letter say, "best eco-philosopher," or "most likely to solve Goldbach's Hypothesis by moving a quilt pen with his teeth."  Again, the purpose would not be to deceive, but to confound.  Stimulating thought among otherwise droll HR people would be the objective.

We can defend privacy by being unpredictable in a creative way.  Dressing as space aliens in front of survaillence cameras can help confound the system.  Spouting random philosophy in the public square (I so admire the English for this freedom!) would also help free minds.  Holding signs stating "SHUT DOWN THE JUDGE ROTTENBERG CENTER" at sports stadiums would help spread the word.  Again, these should be non-threatening actions.  Threatening actions, or actions with offensive language and hostile intent, lead to repression.  It turns the public against you.  There is nothing worse than a twenty-something radical who spouts the f-word every other word, and yet who is always on to some cause here and there.  He is the best friend that the System has.  

So, come to think of it, "C" might work for privacy and workplace rights.  We need to be careful, however.  None of these will work if people are atomized.  Hispanic day laborers cannot effectively use A and C.  A lot of them are undocumented, so they cannot use B.  If we do this, we have to think of people who cannot defend themselves, be they Hispanic day laborers or inmates in the JRC.  Make sure that you do nothing unintelligent.  And, make sure that whatever you do will influence the young people correctly.  The last concern is why I am not comfortable advocating "C", because stupidity can high-jack intelligence very easily.  I leave it for consideration, but I do not advocate it necessarily.


And, make no mistake about it, there will be infiltrators (google "CONINTELPRO").  Be ware of those who advocate violence, or who denounce others in harsh tones.  I have denounced others at times, but only when I felt it was necessary to expose people. At this point, I no longer feel it is necessary.  Only engage in an action if you can remain positive throughout.  I am between A and B personally.  C is a nice idea, but one with possible abuses.  

God bless.

I recommend reading the entire post by ATM - but I just quoted a few portions...

Thanks ATM.. (love hearing from you)

I am fond of C as an option.

We have to stop the system from getting more fixated on someones past background when it has nothing to do with the present.  The tides are turning against people with medical conditions particularly in hard economic times - it will be easier for many to discriminate against people.... Privacy doesn't really exist when the majority of people give away their information so freely.  We do need a movement of people to realize it is not in THEIR best interest and that discrimination can happen to them, very easily.

I have heard about people giving out fake work histories and giving a phone number.  They would get a friend to answer the phone and pretend that they were working at that company and give a good reference.  I know someone who hired someone to work in an office and the person said they had a previous job doing typing and computer.  It turns out that they didn't know how to type or use a computer.  

So now to protect myself when applying to jobs -- I look up the company in the 411 directory.  I find that phone number and address and any other information available.  I do not apply to listings that just have a fax number or email address and no company name.  

I agree that privacy is a huge issue.  There is too much fraud and exploitation going on -- especially by some employers.  I want to ask them to apply for a police check before I work for them.

There is a rally in Washington DC tomorrow (May 1 2009) 3 PM in Malcolm X Park in support of workers/immigrants. I was reading it at Subway on a sign in Spanish posted outside (backwards). Pretty good skill if you ask me.

If I was not working I would join a counter demonstration against illegal immigration.

But is the protest going to block the whole road and all traffic?

Why do some people seem to think that they have some right to do that?  People have a right to assemble -- it does not mean blocking the roads, intimidating people, making a mess, costing the police and city $1000's.  

Illegal immigration -- how do all these people find jobs?  Who is hiring them?

All this would do is give more power to the bigots in the system.  I think openly protesting would be a better venue.   Picketing works for other groups, why not us?

I've had several bacground checks so far, but all were legitimate IMHO:  once to work in a kids' summer camp, once to substitute teach, and once to do volunteer ministry at the federal prison.   The first two were looking for pedophiles.  I have no idea what the prison was looking for -- terrorists maybe?  Illegal aliens?  (Martians beware -- they WILL find you!)

Apparently employment verification checks are not being enforced well enough or there is identity theft. Another system is proposed (E-Verify I think).  The reasoning is if you take away their employment with strict verification of checking legal status, they will go home because they can't work, can't beg, and (I guess) can't get welfare (if they're illegal and they're trying to hide from the system).

Build a nice high fence. The Burrito Wall.

Hi Shrek.  Do you have to kill us now you've told us?  
Alison

ROFL!!!

Picketing is not very effective.  It is really a lazy and low tech way of trying to give a message.  Most people don't want to listen to picketters.  If I see a protest, I will walk the other way.  

So HR people seem to be the problem -- target them with the information that autists are humans, have resources and if they continue to discriminate against us, they will suffer legal consequences.  

Talk to politicians and explain to them how personality testing discriminates against people with autism.  

Make human rights cases when necessary.  I was really shocked to find out that Michelle Dawson won the first discrimination case for autism in Canada.  Another surprise was that she was working for Canada Post, a government agency.

You know, I think these comments are quite bigoted. Wouldn't it be better to just worry about your own life and leave these people be? If they are doing the wrong thing, rest assured they will eventually be caught out.

I think looking to solutions from south of the border (or a high tech visa) is an excuse to ignore Americans (which by the way include lawfully naturalized Hispanic citizens and permanent residents)

Americans need to learn to work with each other.  If that means higher wages, so be it.
They would be forced to if the labor pipeline were cut off by a 25 foot concrete wall topped with barbed wire from the Gulf of Mexico to the Pacific.

If Americans could learn to work with Americans, we would see a lot less unemployment, welfare, and in theory, disability benefits. Those are all good and desirable things.

Americans would have to change too, both the employers and the workers.

I was reading HisPANIC last night by Geraldo Rivera (sympathetic to the illegal immigrant).  Elvira had a baby in America and said "he has a right to stay in the U.S." "I have a right to raise him" (but not in the U.S., sister).

Elvira you are a coward using your own child to break the U.S. law. You think a judge, INS agent, etc. is too scared to separate a child from his mother. Guess again. Judges often need to be brave to enforce justice. The child is with his godmother in Chicago and she is in Tijuana, Mexico.