| Pages in topic: < [1 2 3] | Drug tests and background checks? Thread poster: Hildegard Klein-Bodenheimer (X)
|
|---|
Nicole Schnell 
United States
Local time: 14:13
English to German
+ ...
In memoriam
I can not believe that anyone ist taking this seriously. To me it looks like the end client has introduced new policies, which is fine for employees, and some secretary didn't have a clue when it came to prepare the new contracts for business partners = vendors.
I have signed contracts with direct clients that were just as lousily prepared, and nobody cares. All we need is a signature. My favorite: I am not supposed to produce more than 5% bad, damaged and smeared pieces during my i... See more I can not believe that anyone ist taking this seriously. To me it looks like the end client has introduced new policies, which is fine for employees, and some secretary didn't have a clue when it came to prepare the new contracts for business partners = vendors.
I have signed contracts with direct clients that were just as lousily prepared, and nobody cares. All we need is a signature. My favorite: I am not supposed to produce more than 5% bad, damaged and smeared pieces during my industrial book printing activities. The company apologized, we laughed, and we both signed the contract anyway. ▲ Collapse
| | | | | A better idea... | Feb 4, 2010 |
I don't know about making translators take drug tests but I think I could make a strong case for testing some of the authors of the documents I am working on today.
T.
| | | | | Independent contractor, not employee | Feb 4, 2010 |
Janet Rubin wrote:
First of all, technically speaking, you are a *subcontractor*. The agency is the vendor and if they want to please their end client like a good dog fetching for the master, they can require that their employees jump through whatever hoops they want.
When I have employees, I get to tell them what time they start, what time they go home, how many hours a week they work, whether they have to take a drug test, etc. I am personally against drug testing for employees but the actual reasons for/against are irrelevant here. If I have understood correctly, Hildegard is an independent contractor, *not* an employee. The next thing they'll want to know is who you're sleeping with and how you vote. Hildegard, this is ridiculous, tell them to take a hike. I'm sure people will be just lining up at their door to take your place
(Edited for typo)
[Edited at 2010-02-04 17:31 GMT]
| | | | Nicole Schnell
United States
Local time: 14:13
English to German
+ ...
In memoriam | Which reminds me... | Feb 4, 2010 |
Terry Richards wrote: I don't know about making translators take drug tests but I think I could make a strong case for testing some of the authors of the documents I am working on today. T.
...of a series of direct marketing pieces, each of which obviously had involved an entire bottle of Jack Daniels during its creation. Fun!
| | |
|
|
|
| Not quite, in my opinion... | Feb 4, 2010 |
Hildegard Klein-Bodenheimer wrote:
But the matter is not soooo funny. I find it rather serious. (...) Objecting to this kind of request immediately raises suspicion along the lines, why not if they don't have anything to hide? That is the point. It is not about their right to ask for this it is about our right to say no without becoming suspected of having something to hide.
I agree that the matter is serious, but I disagree that refusing to comply with their requests would immediately arise suspicion. In the past, I have declined to collaborate with a couple of US government agencies because of these requirements (and the one of the polygraph test), but I am sure I have not become a suspect to their eyes. Just a person who values her privacy and who has enough work so as not to have to bother with their annoying hiring practices.
There are organizations who ask their providers to complete innumerable electronic pages in order to be able to get paid for a one hour job; others who absolutely require that the vendor completes a test for each of the languages he/she translates into, besides signing agreements with unacceptable responsibilities in case of damages, even before assigning him/her a first project. To me, they are all the same; if I find their practices unacceptable or just plain cumbersome, I just decline. We still have this choice.
[Edited at 2010-02-04 17:45 GMT]
| | | |
Hi Nicole,
Yes, I definitely agree (being from a factory town like Detroit) that drugs and job safety is an important issue.
However, in Michigan (and 19 other states), you can lose your job for refusing a NICOTINE test.
I'm not talking about being caught smoking in your office at work; I'm talking about smoking in the privacy of your home, during your off-duty hours.
I'm afraid Big Brother has ... See more Hi Nicole,
Yes, I definitely agree (being from a factory town like Detroit) that drugs and job safety is an important issue.
However, in Michigan (and 19 other states), you can lose your job for refusing a NICOTINE test.
I'm not talking about being caught smoking in your office at work; I'm talking about smoking in the privacy of your home, during your off-duty hours.
I'm afraid Big Brother has moved in, to stay.
http://articles.latimes.com/2006/feb/19/opinion/op-robinson19
[Edited at 2010-02-04 19:52 GMT] ▲ Collapse
| | | | Samuel Murray
Netherlands
Local time: 23:13
Member (2006)
English to Afrikaans
+ ...
Elizabeth Joy Pitt de Morales wrote:
However, in Michigan (and 19 other states), you can lose your job for refusing a NICOTINE test.
Do similar laws exist in American for refusing a caffeine test or a sugar test?
| | | |
Elizabeth Joy Pitt de Morales wrote: Hi Nicole, Yes, I definitely agree (being from a factory town like Detroit) that drugs and job safety is an important issue. However, in Michigan (and 19 other states), you can lose your job for refusing a NICOTINE test. I'm not talking about being caught smoking in your office at work; I'm talking about smoking in the privacy of your home, during your off-duty hours. I'm afraid Big Brother has moved in, to stay. http://articles.latimes.com/2006/feb/19/opinion/op-robinson19
...the story needs to be told completely. It is not big brother. It is big companies. They really could not care less if we smoke or not, if we live or die; what they do not want to pay is the soaring costs of health care for people who develop chronic conditions as a result of their habits.
The next in line will be overweight people. If up until now they are belatedly discriminated for their appearance, I believe it is only a matter of time before they are refused jobs because of the potential high health costs they represent for their employers. The courts will be flooded with suits on these issues and, sooner or later, the Supreme Court will have to take a stand.
| | |
|
|
|
Krzysztof Kajetanowicz (X)
Poland
Local time: 23:13
English to Polish
+ ...
| maybe it's the government-mandated system that's at fault | Feb 4, 2010 |
If it's true that employers pay higher health insurance premiums for employees who smoke or that employers otherwise bear the cost of this habit, no wonder they want to know.
The government gives employers tax credit for providing employees with health insurance while levying no tax on the benefit received by the employee. Thus it gives employers an incentive to pay for health insurance (deductible cost for empoloyer, no extra taxable income for employee) rather than to just offer t... See more If it's true that employers pay higher health insurance premiums for employees who smoke or that employers otherwise bear the cost of this habit, no wonder they want to know.
The government gives employers tax credit for providing employees with health insurance while levying no tax on the benefit received by the employee. Thus it gives employers an incentive to pay for health insurance (deductible cost for empoloyer, no extra taxable income for employee) rather than to just offer the employees a higher (taxed) salary so they buy their insurance themselves.
In a "normal" world, where employees would buy their insurance themselves, this probably wouldn't happen.
As for obesity, everybody knows it's a huge problem in America, rendering billions of dollars in additional healthcare costs.
Unfortunately, my country levies a downright healthcare tax on the income, which is even worse. You spend money on healthy (more expensive) food and gym membership, only to be taxed to death for the benefit of those who choose an unhealthy lifestyle. Obviously, lifestyle is not the only reason people fall sick. But it's definitely one big reason.
[Edited at 2010-02-04 21:59 GMT] ▲ Collapse
| | | | Hildegard Klein-Bodenheimer (X)
Germany
Local time: 23:13
English to German
+ ...
TOPIC STARTER
I informed the agency that I would like them to take me off the list of translators for that company and I hope that closes the topic for me.
Before we are entering a discussion about the vast field of health insurance, smoking, obesity, and addiction of any kind and the diverse views on those topics, I would like to thank everyone who participated in this discussion for your support and I am happy that I am not the on... See more I informed the agency that I would like them to take me off the list of translators for that company and I hope that closes the topic for me.
Before we are entering a discussion about the vast field of health insurance, smoking, obesity, and addiction of any kind and the diverse views on those topics, I would like to thank everyone who participated in this discussion for your support and I am happy that I am not the only person who thinks privacy matters.
Have a private evening,
Hildegard ▲ Collapse
| | | | | My experience | Feb 5, 2010 |
First, I'm an interpreter, not a translator - so I do come in contact with patients (and others). However, when I received a similar request (from two different companies), I, too, felt that it would be needless invasion of my privacy.
Company #1 sent me a contract containing a paragraph where I would agree to submit to a "random drug test". I called the agency and said that I would never sign a contract like that. We agreed that I would cross out the offensive paragraph and th... See more First, I'm an interpreter, not a translator - so I do come in contact with patients (and others). However, when I received a similar request (from two different companies), I, too, felt that it would be needless invasion of my privacy.
Company #1 sent me a contract containing a paragraph where I would agree to submit to a "random drug test". I called the agency and said that I would never sign a contract like that. We agreed that I would cross out the offensive paragraph and then sign the rest of the contract. I do have assignments from that company sometimes.
Company #2 asked me to sign a permission for them to perform a background check on me. I called them and said that I consider it needless invasion of my privacy and refused to sign it. The person on the phone explained to me (almost apologetically) that they do it because some of their clients require it. I said that I still refuse to sign it, and if it means no work from them, that's fine with me, as I have enough clients. I never heard from that company again, which is OK with me.
I hope you have enough other clients. If not - this might be time to start looking for them. You sound very experienced, and you'll sure find clients that show some respect to you.
Good luck! ▲ Collapse
| | | | Samuel Murray
Netherlands
Local time: 23:13
Member (2006)
English to Afrikaans
+ ...
| Permission to carry out background checks | Feb 5, 2010 |
Alexandra Goldburt wrote:
Company #2 asked me to sign a permission for them to perform a background check on me.
1. I don't want to turn this into a political fist fight, but isn't permission to do background checks a thing of the past since the coming of the Patriot Act?
2. What kinds of actions do you think they would have had in mind that *your permission* would have to be required for it?
3. Do you really think that "permission to do a background check" would give them a carte blanche type of authorisation to access records that would otherwise require permission to access?
[Edited at 2010-02-05 14:13 GMT]
| | |
|
|
|
| About permission to carry out background checks | Feb 5, 2010 |
Samuel Murray wrote:
1. I don't want to turn this into a political fist fight, but isn't permission to do background checks a thing of the past since the coming of the Patriot Act?
2. What kinds of actions do you think they would have had in mind that *your permission* would have to be required for it?
3. Do you really think that "permission to do a background check" would give them a carte blanche type of authorisation to access records that would otherwise require permission to access?
[Edited at 2010-02-05 14:13 GMT]
1. The Patriot Act, AFAIK, only allows CERTAIN government agencies to perform background checks without the knowledge of the person being investigated. In most other cases, other entities wishing to perform a background check have to request permission from the person they wish to check, beforehand.
The person has the prerogative to refuse, but if he/she refuses, a potential employer, for instance, has the prerogative of not hiring the person because he/she did not comply with the company's requirements.
2. Most of the entities who wish to perform background checks have to request permission by law, and not because they might have a specific kind of action in mind.
3. Also, there are just certain records that can be accessed; for instance, medical records have a lot of restrictions, and not all entities can have access to personal medical records. And the permissions can be very specific; for instance, I can give permission to a potential employer to contact previous employers and check my credit record, but I can refuse him access to my personal medical files.
[Edited at 2010-02-05 14:49 GMT]
| | | | | Quite complicated | Feb 6, 2010 |
Aguas de Marco wrote:
[Edited at 2010-02-05 14:13 GMT]
3. Also, there are just certain records that can be accessed; for instance, medical records have a lot of restrictions, and not all entities can have access to personal medical records. And the permissions can be very specific; for instance, I can give permission to a potential employer to contact previous employers and check my credit record, but I can refuse him access to my personal medical files.
[Edited at 2010-02-05 14:49 GMT] [/quote]
Quite complicated, isn't it? If you can refuse your potential employer accessing your medical records, you could still apply for a job hiding your medical history if you have one. What I mean here is not a medical history of getting your tooth fixed, or getting your broken leg fixed while skiing, but I mean if you have a record of mental sickness, such as depression, schizophrenia or even alcoholism. You could go to your job interview sober and pretend that you don't drink at all, while holding your other arm so that it doesn't shake.
| | | |
Is this a case of literally taking the p***?
Suzi
| | | | | Pages in topic: < [1 2 3] | To report site rules violations or get help, contact a site moderator: You can also contact site staff by submitting a support request » Drug tests and background checks? | TM-Town | Manage your TMs and Terms ... and boost your translation business
Are you ready for something fresh in the industry? TM-Town is a unique new site for you -- the freelance translator -- to store, manage and share translation memories (TMs) and glossaries...and potentially meet new clients on the basis of your prior work.
More info » |
| | Trados Studio 2022 Freelance | The leading translation software used by over 270,000 translators.
Designed with your feedback in mind, Trados Studio 2022 delivers an unrivalled, powerful desktop
and cloud solution, empowering you to work in the most efficient and cost-effective way.
More info » |
|
| | | | X Sign in to your ProZ.com account... | | | | | |
Login to reply/comment 
Translation news
