14 ms·

Employee Religious Exception Request Information System

21 points by SQL2219 5y ago

bandyaboot 5y ago
What’s next? A system that maintains records of their employee’ requests for time off? But, in all seriousness, they need an entirely new system for this?
- weare138 5y ago
  Considering how old and convoluted most government tech is and how compartmentalized government departments are I'm thinking it was just probably easier and cheaper than dealing with some legacy tech stack in a different department.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
SQL2219 5y ago
https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2022/01/11/2021-28135/privacy-act-of-1974-system-of-records https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2022/01/11/2021-28...
qwertyuiop_ 5y ago
The Großdeutsches Reich also started with lists of people.
- socceroos 5y ago
  While this is true, and should give people pause when considering the appropriateness of such a move, I don't think this is defacto the beginnings of an evil plot to "kill the religious people part 2". Another stepping stone along the way? Maybe. A move to further isolate and ostracize those who don't comply? Maybe. One has to ask what the purpose of keeping such a list is. When considering that, I don't see many arguments with much weight to them.
  - hn8788 5y ago
    I think the purpose of the list is much more mundane, and it's just another record they're keeping for compliance reasons. Employee's religious information is private information, so storage probably requires extra safeguards just like medical information does. Keeping it all in a central place means you don't have every federal agency trying to implement their own secure storage solution.
- _moof 5y ago
  And Hitler wore khakis. What's your point?
  - aaron695 5y ago
  - ARandomerDude 5y ago
    Sure I'll spell It out for you. I think the GP's point is there is a (1) legitimate, (2) historical reason to be skeptical of a government's motives when it wants to maintain lists of citizens who complain about it's polices. In the case cited, there was a casual connection between the list and tyrannical behavior. Not so with the khaki pants. The relevant question here isn't "what do I think of vaccines?". It's "what do I think of government lists of dissenters?".
    - drekk 5y ago
      Anti-vaxxing isn't dissent, so weird to see Americans still politicize it. If you want to be a public health hazard I'm all for putting you on a list. It's incredibly gross and tone deaf to compare that to the beginnings of the holocaust, especially coming from Americans who live in a country that still commits genocide whenever it wants. Whether that's forcibly sterilizing native americans or selling arms to Saudi Arabia so they can massacre Yemeni people. What do I think of government lists of dissenters? They already exist and it's cute to act otherwise. We're talking about the country that assassinated Fred Hampton, of course the three letter agencies keep lists. That hasn't changed since the 70s besides getting worse.
      - unmole 5y ago
        > Anti-vaxxing isn't dissent Being Jewish wasn't dissent either. The fact there already are lists is of little comfort for people who don't want to get on a new list.
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
praash 5y ago
I think there's no point in trying to add religious beliefs to the basket of "valid personal reasons to refuse vaccination". Appealing to a specific interpretation of some ancient ideology must be considered equally relevant with political opinions, conspiracy theories or just simply saying "I don't like it". Society shouldn't give special treatment to people who dislike vaccination anyway, but claim Some Religion™ to certify it. People don't seem to have a problem having their cars regularly inspected to ensure traffic safety on public roads. Why would it be so bad to improve public safety if non-essential services and events required some level of vaccination?

21 points by SQL2219 5y ago

What’s next? A system that maintains records of their employee’ requests for time off? But, in all seriousness, they need an entirely new system for this?

weare138 5y ago
Considering how old and convoluted most government tech is and how compartmentalized government departments are I'm thinking it was just probably easier and cheaper than dealing with some legacy tech stack in a different department.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

SQL2219 5y ago

https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2022/01/11/2021-28135/privacy-act-of-1974-system-of-records https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2022/01/11/2021-28...

qwertyuiop_ 5y ago

The Großdeutsches Reich also started with lists of people.

socceroos 5y ago
While this is true, and should give people pause when considering the appropriateness of such a move, I don't think this is defacto the beginnings of an evil plot to "kill the religious people part 2". Another stepping stone along the way? Maybe. A move to further isolate and ostracize those who don't comply? Maybe. One has to ask what the purpose of keeping such a list is. When considering that, I don't see many arguments with much weight to them.
- hn8788 5y ago
  I think the purpose of the list is much more mundane, and it's just another record they're keeping for compliance reasons. Employee's religious information is private information, so storage probably requires extra safeguards just like medical information does. Keeping it all in a central place means you don't have every federal agency trying to implement their own secure storage solution.
_moof 5y ago
And Hitler wore khakis. What's your point?
- aaron695 5y ago
- ARandomerDude 5y ago
  Sure I'll spell It out for you. I think the GP's point is there is a (1) legitimate, (2) historical reason to be skeptical of a government's motives when it wants to maintain lists of citizens who complain about it's polices. In the case cited, there was a casual connection between the list and tyrannical behavior. Not so with the khaki pants. The relevant question here isn't "what do I think of vaccines?". It's "what do I think of government lists of dissenters?".
  - drekk 5y ago
    Anti-vaxxing isn't dissent, so weird to see Americans still politicize it. If you want to be a public health hazard I'm all for putting you on a list. It's incredibly gross and tone deaf to compare that to the beginnings of the holocaust, especially coming from Americans who live in a country that still commits genocide whenever it wants. Whether that's forcibly sterilizing native americans or selling arms to Saudi Arabia so they can massacre Yemeni people. What do I think of government lists of dissenters? They already exist and it's cute to act otherwise. We're talking about the country that assassinated Fred Hampton, of course the three letter agencies keep lists. That hasn't changed since the 70s besides getting worse.
    - unmole 5y ago
      > Anti-vaxxing isn't dissent Being Jewish wasn't dissent either. The fact there already are lists is of little comfort for people who don't want to get on a new list.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]

praash 5y ago

I think there's no point in trying to add religious beliefs to the basket of "valid personal reasons to refuse vaccination". Appealing to a specific interpretation of some ancient ideology must be considered equally relevant with political opinions, conspiracy theories or just simply saying "I don't like it". Society shouldn't give special treatment to people who dislike vaccination anyway, but claim Some Religion™ to certify it. People don't seem to have a problem having their cars regularly inspected to ensure traffic safety on public roads. Why would it be so bad to improve public safety if non-essential services and events required some level of vaccination?