- I9 employment eligibility verification, listing the documents I use to prove my right to work.
- background search data form, listing my name, address, and various stuff.
- Notification and Disclosure: in order to protect the interests of the payroll services company, they need information about me.
- Authorization for release of medical information, letting them have the results of piss tests.
- acknowledgment of receipt of mpn information, stating I g ot informatoin about workers' comp.
- Payrolled employee benefit waiver, stating that I don't get some benefits that some non-payroll employees get.
- Acknowledgment and consent, allowing various agencies to tell my employers stuff about me.
- Payrolled employee employment agreement, saying that I have to work all the time on their stuff, waive all holidays, vacation, sick time, that they can fire me any time but that I have to give them ten days' notice, and that I wont tell their secrets.
- Form W4
- Employment application
- receipt of employment policies
- direct deposit request form
- health care enrollment form (which doesn't matter anyway because I can't take any time off to see a doctor, according to the other form)
- non-disclosure agreement, which signs over to them any patentable ideas I get between now and six months after I stop working for them, and that they get to sue me in Texas if I patent something anway, even if I worked on it on my own time.
- A form about travel expense reimbursement
Every form puts the advantage on the employer's side and takes it away from me the employee. The secretary who sent me the forms ha s three different names for each one: the name on the form, the name of the file, and her own name for the form. So what she may call a "Medical Provider Network (CA Form)" is really a "NOTICE OF NEW WORKERS’ COMPENSATION PROGRAM" and it is in file "Workers Comp Acknowledgement_CA.doc".
I'd like to get employers to fill out certain forms as well.
- MMPI - Minnesota Multphasic Inventory - to screen out schizophrenics, assholes, and drama queens
- Concise Job Description - to be filled out individually by every person who interviews me, my boss, and his boss. Any discrepancies must be explained by the
- Concise Job Discrepancy Reconciliation Form, which explains why no can agree on what my job really is.
- Justification for Unfair NDA, to explain why, if they think that my inventions would be so profitable for them that they want all my intellectual property for the next year, they think they can pay me shit wages.
- Information Discrepancy Form to list any discrepancies in personal information I provided in two dozen forms. Did I spell my name differently? Did my birthday change from one form to the next?
- Incidental Damage Risk Form, listing the number of people who may die or the total cost of communication satellites that may be damaged because of mis-wiring because of feared employee drug use.
- Waiver of NDA for Backup and Archives Form. As I am expected to supply my own laptop to use at work, I will continue to use my backup and archive policies and the employer waives right to search through my computers and effects on termination of employment.
- Waiver of NDA for unrelated creative activities. Employer realizes that I have a life and that I think of things on my own which employer is not paying me for and thus does not have any claim over.
- Windows Kool-Aid Justification Form, explaining why the corporation standardized on an operating system that with every release has become more bloated, performed more poorly, and imposed greater restrictions on what people can do with their computers.
Of course, the real situation is that Republicans, back by large corporations, have fucked up the economy and that people will do anything to get work that barely keeps their heads above water, and that we're willing to sign anything—you could say we're under duress ("sign this form or you can't work for us")—to get a job. Does anyone seriously think that they can push people around like that without eventually facing the consequences?
Profile
timberwoof- timberwoof
- Timberwoof's Den
Comments
Also I'd like to see Unicru personality tests be razed and the earth of the corporation's bank accounts salted.
Unicru is apparently as bad as the Scientology Personality "test" which only measures how similar your personality is to L. Ron Hubbard'd and whose results don't determine whether you need Scientology. If you score low, you need Scientology to help you score higher. If you score high, you need Scientology to teach you what to do with the high score. If you use any of various spoofing methods (answering randomly or with set patterns), the test cannot detect them. They're both unscientific hogwash.
It might be interesting to set up a friendly lawsuit to get the Scientology test ruled unusable as an employment requirement, and then use that result to go after Unicru.
Claudia Center, the senior staff attorney for Legal Aid Society–Employment Law Center in San Francisco, said she thinks there is definitely a case to be made against the tests.
“California law does not permit psychological testing of job applicants,” Center said, noting the alleged distinction from personality testing. She said any testing should be job-related and consistent with business necessity.
Center said she thinks that any company administering personality tests in California “would have a hard uphill battle,” because addition to proving that the tests were not psychological, which Center believes is nearly impossible, Unicru would have to prove that applicants with disabilities are not screened out and that applicants’ privacy was not invaded.
“These tests have a horrible reputation,” Center said. “Those types of questions will come out different depending on the demographic--race, age, income.”
And, later in the same article:
In an independent research project David Autor, a professor at MIT, took an objective look at whether any discrimination existed in Unicru’s tests against non-white applicants. With the cooperation of Unicru, the study used an unnamed national retail company with more than 1,300 stores as a sample group. The retailer was an exception, as Unicru does not otherwise require nor collect information on applicants’ ethnicity.
Although the data showed that minorities “performed significantly worse on the test,” Autor, using phrases you would expect from an economics professor, said “statistically speaking the difference was a case of standard deviation.” The study showed that African Americans were 33 percent more likely to be flagged red than white applicants. Hispanics also had a greater chance of being flagged red.
But the study did show that minority hiring was not adversely affected because hiring rates of minorities were unchanged after using the test.
“The testing probably makes employers less prejudicial and more objective in making those [hiring] decisions,” Autor said. “The effect was to improve the quality of selection--better white candidates, better black candidates.”
(So, the study clearly showed that minorities did significantly worse on the test, but the experimenter somehow found that this had no affect on hiring? Does this mean that employers were already discriminating that much against minorities using earlier hiring systems, or is it even slightly possible that the experimenter had some reason to come up with such a conclusion? No... how could that be? Being paid by Unicru to do the study couldn't have affected that conclusion, could it?)
The sad thing is, the article is from 2006-02-16, so even though it sounds like there is a legitimate basis upon which to challenge these tests in California, it clearly hasn't been done. So the Legal Aid Society in SF must not have pursued it.
Incidentally, I always feel that way about "terms of service", especially ones that say things like "by visiting this website, you agree to" etc.; I always feel tempted to put up something on my site that says "by serving web content to me, you agree to".